Most property types in most areas of aberdeen falling YOY.

IveSeenTheLight

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!

Oh dear, there were more than 1276 sales in the latest quarterly data , let alone in the year.
Where do you get your figures from?

Given the year is +0.1% and you shown detachached, semi-detached and flats are all down YOY.
Given the Semi-detached and detached values are higher than terraced, there must be much more terraced properties that have risen than the detached, semi-detached and flats combined

Originally Posted by IveSeenTheLight


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

robmatic

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Given the year is +0.1% and you shown detachached, semi-detached and flats are all down YOY.
Given the Semi-detached and detached values are higher than terraced, there must be much more terraced properties that have risen than the detached, semi-detached and flats combined

There's a large YoY increase in the volume of detached property sales which has the effect of increasing the overall mean (despite a fall in mean detached values). It's a mix-adjustment problem effectively.

geneer

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

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

You might want to check again quick draw. :rotfl:

geneer

robmatic wrote: »

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

Rob, sweetie. Every index and every thread discussing every index refers to the mean i.e. average price.

Whuppa!

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Oh dear, there were more than 1276 sales in the latest quarterly data , let alone in the year.
Where do you get your figures from?

Given the year is +0.1% and you shown detachached, semi-detached and flats are all down YOY.
Given the Semi-detached and detached values are higher than terraced, there must be much more terraced properties that have risen than the detached, semi-detached and flats combined
[/COLOR]
[/I]
[/COLOR]

Why I got them from the latest ROS quarterly report of course.
My mistake. I read the Q3 2010 volumes by mistake.
I will correct.


"Given that there was [STRIKE]1276[/STRIKE] 1343 sales in aberdeen, only [STRIKE]353[/STRIKE] 370 of which are terraced properties (the only type rising on average YOY), both phrases appear to be true."

:rotfl:

Oh you got me good light.

Boom! BOOM! Double Head shot.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Why I got them from the latest ROS quarterly report of course.
My mistake. I read the Q3 2010 volumes by mistake.
I will correct.


"Given that there was [STRIKE]1276[/STRIKE] 1343 sales in aberdeen, only [STRIKE]353[/STRIKE] 370 of which are terraced properties (the only type rising on average YOY), both phrases appear to be true."

:rotfl:

Oh you got me good light.

Boom! BOOM! Double Head shot.

You've still missinterpreted the data.

There were 1343 sales in the quarter.
In that quarter, 995 properties rose on average, whilst only 348 properties fell on average.
Your conveniently dismissing flats which rose in that quarter
The data is broken down as: -

Originally Posted by IveSeenTheLight


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

In Q3 there were 647 more properties that rose on average than fell.

If you want the accurate info, you need to look at the other three previous quarterly releases

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You've still missinterpreted the data.

There were 1343 sales in the quarter.
In that quarter, 995 properties rose on average, whilst only 348 properties fell on average.
Your conveniently dismissing flats which rose in that quarter
The data is broken down as: -



In Q3 there were 647 more properties that rose on average than fell.

If you want the accurate info, you need to look at the other three previous quarterly releases

No misinterpretation here.

You simply keep trying to divert to any more convenient time period, because you don't like the one presented.

The OP is looking at YOY. Comparing YOY the sales volumes are also reasonably consistent, so the comparison is viable.

As such it can be concluded that over the last year, most people and most property types in aberdeen have seen prices fall.

Shall we go another round then.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Shall we go another round then.

I keep trying to get you off the roundabout and follow the path ahead.

Your using QoQ sales to verify your YOY stance.

Q3, more properties rose on average than fell.

If you want to use YOY sales then fine, but the ones you presented were only quarterly and you thus missinterpreted that flats fell, when they rose in that quarter.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I keep trying to get you off the roundabout and follow the path ahead.

Your using QoQ sales to verify your YOY stance.

Q3, more properties rose on average than fell.

If you want to use YOY sales then fine, but the ones you presented were only quarterly and you thus missinterpreted that flats fell, when they rose in that quarter.

It's easier to just poke him with a stick and giggle at his responses... He finds it difficult to accept defeat :rotfl:

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I keep trying to get you off the roundabout and follow the path ahead.

Your using QoQ sales to verify your YOY stance.

Q3, more properties rose on average than fell.

If you want to use YOY sales then fine, but the ones you presented were only quarterly and you thus missinterpreted that flats fell, when they rose in that quarter.

:rotfl:My roundabout you say light?

To test the accuracy of that statement, I'd refer you to the OP, and the not inconsiderable efforts of a lone aberdeen based poster to focus on everything possible comparison but the same.

You're clearly not all that bothered. Hence you've meticulously hunted through numerous pdf documents to extract and collate your own bespoke tables . :T

Yes I'll look at YOY figures thanks very much. No doubt why I posted them.

Theres no misinterpretation BTW.

Looking at the ROS YOY comparison, for most people, and most property types house prices have fallen.



Though I really do have to point out the divine comedy of how in this thread you appear to be obsessed with the quarterly comparison, whilst consecutively Poo pooing the ASPC QUARTER ON QUARTER Comparison posted on another thread.

Yes. That really does seem worth pointing out. :cool: