Most property types in most areas of aberdeen falling YOY.

IveSeenTheLight

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

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

Indeed.
I actually pity him as each post he's confirming his inability to see the truth and desperation to contort the facts to portray a simple message.
It's the eternal optomist in my that hopes that one day, a dawning effect will happen and he''ll finally "see the light"

geneer wrote: »

Theres no misinterpretation BTW.

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

I await with baited breath when you finally understand the figures.

IveSeenTheLight

robmatic wrote: »

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.

The problem is they don't mix adjust.

They don't use repeat sales regression wither.

They simply post the average of the sales made in that month / quarter / year between the value of £20k and £1million.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The problem is they don't mix adjust.

They don't use repeat sales regression wither.

They simply post the average of the sales made in that month / quarter / year between the value of £20k and £1million.

Yet apparently QoQ is better than YOY says light.
Though of course not if its the ESPC QoQ figures.
Then of course we need to look at the 5 year figures.
:rotfl:

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Indeed.
I actually pity him as each post he's confirming his inability to see the truth and desperation to contort the facts to portray a simple message.
It's the eternal optomist in my that hopes that one day, a dawning effect will happen and he''ll finally "see the light"

Oh oh. Lights reached the inevitable ad hominem attack and unsubstantiated assertion of victory of stage of prececedings.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I await with baited breath when you finally understand the figures.

I can see we both understand the YOY figures Light.;)

Your phenomenal efforts to muddy the water, create a different narritive, create in straw man arguments and declare victory for the same are clear indicators of how much you understand them.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

I can see we both understand the YOY figures Light.;)

Your phenomenal efforts to muddy the water, create a different narritive, create in straw man arguments and declare victory for the same are clear indicators of how much you understand them.

I'm still waiting for you to proove your claim.

I think your unwillingness to do so is because it will proove you wrong.

I'll give you more time to show the figures so we can discuss further.

It would be great if you portrayed them as they are instead of trying to state something that clearly is not tue.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

Yet apparently QoQ is better than YOY says light.
Though of course not if its the ESPC QoQ figures.
Then of course we need to look at the 5 year figures.
:rotfl:

It's you that humps from different period depending on what best shows your position.

I'm happy to discuss all and indeed analyse them and put them into context.

You just want the negative headline without attempting (or conveinently forgetting) thecontext / methodolgy etc

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

It's you that humps from different period depending on what best shows your position.

Really. Cos I do believe I posted the ROS YOY OP, and you've chosen to bang on about quarterlies..

And I've posted the ASPC quartely OP and you've chosen to bang on about...well anything but.

So it seems as if, yet again, you're being somewhat comically dishonest.

Your basically saying the opposite of the truth and hoping no one notices.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm happy to discuss all and indeed analyse them and put them into context.

Happy? Yes light. Your clearly super pleased with the ROS YOY figures and ready to discuss everything but. :rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

You just want the negative headline without attempting (or conveinently forgetting) thecontext / methodolgy etc

I'm not sure you even know what your going on about now light.
I'm quite aware of the methodologies, as you well know.

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to proove your claim.

I think your unwillingness to do so is because it will proove you wrong.

I'll give you more time to show the figures so we can discuss further.

It would be great if you portrayed them as they are instead of trying to state something that clearly is not tue.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


If your refering to the claim that YOY for most people and most property types in aberdeed house prices are falling.

The orignal post shows that three out of four property types are falling YOY.

Subsequent to this weve discussed volumes, which are reasonably consistent YOY. And those volumes show that the majority of properties are falling.

You're quite aware of the same Light.
So I'm not sure why you would state that still I need to "proove" my claim.

IveSeenTheLight

geneer wrote: »

If your refering to the claim that YOY for most people and most property types in aberdeed house prices are falling.

The orignal post shows that three out of four property types are falling YOY.

There is no denying that the YOY index is showing 3 out of 4 property types have fallen on average,
the problem with your statement is that you are inferring that it affects most people.
Clearly the latest quarterly released figures show to the contrary, both flats and terraced rose so that in the quareter, 647 more properties rose on average than fell.

I'm simply asking (but your clearly not keen to show) that the other three quarter back up your statement.

geneer wrote: »

Subsequent to this weve discussed volumes, which are reasonably consistent YOY. And those volumes show that the majority of properties are falling.

You're quite aware of the same Light.

This is the crux of the problem.
We are agreed, yoy 3 out of the 4 property types are showing an average fall, yet you try and superimpose one quarterly set of data on the YOY, which quite clearly is incorrect

geneer wrote: »

So I'm not sure why you would state that still I need to "proove" my claim.

Don;t worry, I thought you would be unwilling to produce the facts and figures to "proove" your claim.
I'll try and set aside some time late to post the stats so all can see the results.

We'll see therefore categorically if your claim is correct or not.

P.S. Do you always need help with simple things?

geneer

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

There is no denying that the YOY index is showing 3 out of 4 property types have fallen on average,

Of course theres no denying it.
All you can do is try and distract attention away from it.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

the problem with your statement is that you are inferring that it affects most people.

That is how majorities tend to work yes.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Clearly the latest quarterly released figures show to the contrary, both flats and terraced rose so that in the quareter, 647 more properties rose on average than fell.

I'm simply asking (but your clearly not keen to show) that the other three quarter back up your statement.

Oh dear. I was hoping for something more inventive light.
Sadly youre back to the attrition method.

Let me translate this for you. You prefer the quarterly comparison over the YOY comparison.

Glad we got that clear. Sigh.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

This is the crux of the problem.
We are agreed, yoy 3 out of the 4 property types are showing an average fall, yet you try and superimpose one quarterly set of data on the YOY, which quite clearly is incorrect

Sorry what? You're not making any sense.
I haven't tried to do any thing. I've simply reitterated the ROSs YOY comparison of quarterly prices and sales volumes over the same time period. That kind of continuity is kind of a rule if you're going to make those comparisons.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Don;t worry, I thought you would be unwilling to produce the facts and figures to "proove" your claim.

I really don't need to "proove" (Sic) anything.
Given the fact that the information is lifted straight from the ROS report.

You however have been unable to "proove" why they, and myself, simply can't do this.
You should probably get in touch with them to tell them tthe error of their ways. Best of luck. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'll try and set aside some time late to post the stats so all can see the results.

Given the substantial effort you've put in to this point I imagine you will be able to find the time.

However, I will be surprised if you do anything other than either:-
1) Yet again repeat a previous failed gambit.
2) Select an unimportant point of pedantry to focus on.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

We'll see therefore categorically if your claim is correct or not.

P.S. Do you always need help with simple things?

Come now Light. I've never said you were simple.
You just hate to be wrong and this manifests itself in a self defeating manner.