Most property types in most areas of aberdeen falling YOY.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Interesting I thought you said

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I ask again then

Gosh. He's still at it. :rotfl:
You seem to have posted the answers in advance of your question.
Tedious in the extreme.

In any event, do you want to know whos been frothing about Q2 ASPC figures.
Take a guess.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1814333
Ha ha. Whuppa!


He does of course insist that the new peaks aren't due to statistical skew.
You may want to have a word with him about that.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There's only one person crowing about these figures and it's you.

Poppycock. Aside from the rather amusing fact that I've provided the evidence you asked for to support a claim I never actually made, again you’re being quite dishonest light.
I remember you on a number of "new peak" discussions.
You know full well what went on.

Shock horror here you are discussing ASPC Q2.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1814333

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You can't even accept that the Q3 drop is less than the Q2 rise.

Now why wouldn’t I be able to accept a comparison between two simple numbers.
You’re not making any sense Light.

Still trying to invent an argument you can win eh?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'll say it again, the figures are portraying a period of relative nominal stagnation.

I’ll say it again. Wildly fluctuating peaks and troughs do not typify stagnation.

I would have though that was obvious.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Whilst some months / quarters appear to go up or down, this is reflective of the methodology of how the figures arecompiled, amplifying the effective noise.

You say that as if it’s a fact, rather than a case of wishful thinking.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Indeed, if you really want to get pedantic about it, the trend is still up.

Of course, YOY for most property types in aberdeen the trend is down.
I refer you to my OP.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Incidently, the ROSEA does provide an easy downloadable excel timeline for the whole of Scotland.
http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/news/quarterly_statistics_time_series.html

Okay, they're broadline averages but here's Aberdeen



and here's Edinburgh

Thanks for, yet again, posting the over all averages we've been busy confirming can be quite meaningless since 2007. :rotfl:

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Ok, here is your breakdown.
Unfortunately the ROSEA quarterly data only goes back to Q4 2007, but nonetheless



What is you context and analysis on the breakdown statistics shown in graphical form?

:rotfl:Says to me that YOY most property types in Aberdeen are down.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Incidently, the ROSEA does provide an easy downloadable excel timeline for the whole of Scotland.
http://www.ros.gov.uk/public/news/quarterly_statistics_time_series.html

I'm aware of this.
Sadly this doesn't contain the breakdown of property types.
If someone wanted to create a graph for those, they'd have to methodically pick through years of reports, compiling the data. Someone would have to be seriously compelled to want to spend the time doing that kind of an exercise.

Yes. They'd have to be quite seriously compelled indeed.:rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

In any event, do you want to know whos been frothing about Q2 ASPC figures.
Take a guess.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1814333
Ha ha. Whuppa!

Thanks, that wasn't so hard was it.

So one poster crowing about the ASPC Q2 rises.
What was it you said about the 70% club being a sole representative?

geneer wrote: »

Shock horror here you are discussing ASPC Q2.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1814333

I think you'll find I've referenced the ROSEA figures which in my opinion have better data.
I also was open to discussing data from other areas.

No crowing from me

geneer wrote: »

I’ll say it again. Wildly fluctuating peaks and troughs do not typify stagnation.

I would have though that was obvious.

To assume these peaks and troughs are hard facts to be taken as gospil.
You then claim the "new peaks" are statistical skews. (nothing about the troughs being affected similarly)

Which is it?

Can you not comprehend that in a small transaction data where the index is not mix adjusted or repeat sales regression, that the monthly / quarterly releases are affected by the variation of the methodology?

Can you not see that these wildly fluctating figures vary about a centre point over the last few years?

Do you really believe these are hard fast facts (rampant HPI and crash territory)? It's quite a black and white world your protraying.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Of course, YOY for most property types in aberdeen the trend is down.
I refer you to my OP.

Nice change of wording.
whilst the data shows three out of four property types have reduced, your original premise

geneer wrote: »

We can safely conclude that for most people in most property types in most areas of aberdeen prices are dropping.

Is factually incorrect.
With detached, semi-detached and flats all showing decreases YOY and with the detached and semi-detached being of the higher individual value, it requires a far larger number of terraced properties
to return a YOY positive figure.

From the data more properties are showing rises than falls.
Indeed I pointed this out to you previously with the QoQ data.
P.S. 348 is a lower number than 995

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Actually, the data shows that : -

153 Detached fell on average £9,893
195 Semi detached fell on average £2,328
348 Aberdeen City Properties fell on average £5,653

370 Terraced rose on average £12,782
625 Flats rose on average £4,522
995 Aberdeen City Properties rose on average £7,593

Whilst we cannot implicitly define that most properties in most area rose, the data certainly point to that as opposed to the OP's blanket statement

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Nice change of wording.
whilst the data shows three out of four property types have reduced, your original premise

3 out of 4. i.e. "most". Yawn.
Are you even fabricating pointless pedantic arguments now?

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Is factually incorrect.
With detached, semi-detached and flats all showing decreases YOY and with the detached and semi-detached being of the higher individual value, it requires a far larger number of terraced properties
to return a YOY positive figure.

So we're agreed on most property types then. :T

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

From the data more properties are showing rises than falls.
Indeed I pointed this out to you previously with the QoQ data.
P.S. 348 is a lower number than 995

:rotfl:Back to QOQ data again.
Unless of course its the ASPC quarterly data. Then your less interested.


Ch-ch-change the record light.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

3 out of 4. i.e. "most". Yawn.
Are you even fabricating pointless pedantic arguments now?


So we're agreed on most property types then. :T

Oh dear Geneer. Wasn't your OP about 'most people' in Aberdeen?

geneer

robmatic wrote: »

Oh dear Geneer. Wasn't your OP about 'most people' in Aberdeen?

Actually Rob it was about "most people in most property types".

Given that there was 1276 sales in aberdeen, only 353 of which are terraced properties (the only type rising on average YOY), both phrases appear to be true.

BOOM. HEADSHOT!

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

geneer wrote: »

Actually Rob it was about "most people in most property types".

As previousy noted in this very thread a phrase intended to parody Hamishes constant refrain. I do look forward to you and light pulling up your pal the next 30 times he uses it

I'm glad you have realised that your OP is wrong.

robmatic

geneer wrote: »

Actually Rob it was about "most people in most property types".

Given that there was 1276 sales in aberdeen, only 353 of which are terraced properties (the only type rising on average YOY), both phrases appear to be true.

BOOM. HEADSHOT!

Any particular reason that you're choosing to talk about mean property prices rather than the median?