We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
YoY rise for Edinburgh & Aberdeen prices
Comments
-
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Taking a broader perspective, given that the monthly transactions can be seen as statistical skews in either direction given the methodology, would you consider a years, 2 years, 5 years data to have sufficient transactions to consider the impact on the area?
If so, what's your interpreatation on the data for the last 5 years?
Has it crashed, ramped or relatively stagnated?
Sorry what?0 -
Sorry what?
Individual months suffer from low transactions which can skew the data (given we know the methodology does not mix adjust).
Can you consider that accumulating the transactions over a longer period would help balance the likelyhood of statistical skew. i.e. instead of one months figures, how about 3, 6, 12 months or even longer
If so, what is your interpretation of the prices if taking the data over that longer period (say up to 5 years, otherwise you are going to see a clear increase from prices before that point)?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Individual months suffer from low transactions which can skew the data (given we know the methodology does not mix adjust).
Not exactly news.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
Can you consider that accumulating the transactions over a longer period would help balance the likelyhood of statistical skew. i.e. instead of one months figures, how about 3, 6, 12 months or even longer
You mean like QoQ or YOY?
You weren't a big fan of either last time we talked.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »
If so, what is your interpretation of the prices if taking the data over that longer period (say up to 5 years, otherwise you are going to see a clear increase from prices before that point)?
I have already suggested that, in context and by the VIs admission, the peaks are clearly less reliable than the troughs.
So naturally I'd say you want to compare peak prices with the most recent trough.
Which suggest that Aberdeen house prices haven't changed much since mid 06 (according to your graph).
With a general downwards trend since Hamish and you bought in 2007.:D0 -
Good news for some.
No Rinoa, not 'good news some' but 'good news for all'. We don't need another banking crisis and the banks need time to deleverage. At the homeowner level it is neither here nor there.- The transaction costs of buying and selling a house are more than 3.1%
- The cost of borrowing is more than 3.1%
- Income from alternative investments is more than 3.1%
0 -
I have already suggested that, in context and by the VIs admission, the peaks are clearly less reliable than the troughs.
So naturally I'd say you want to compare peak prices with the most recent trough.
How can you state that the peaks are less reliable thaqn the troughs given the same methodology and low transactions exist in both results?
Even if you trend the troughs, their showing an upwards trend.
Which suggest that Aberdeen house prices haven't changed much since mid 06 (according to your graph).
With a general downwards trend since Hamish and you bought in 2007.:D
LOL, you need to try reading the graph again.
Incidently, just had my property revalued for remortgage purposes and it's now valued at 9.4% higher than what I paid for it in Jan 07.
I've also had 5 year rent with only 16 days void in that period.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
You mean like QoQ or YOY?
You weren't a big fan of either last time we talked.
I'm happy to discuss any stats.
I have no emotion regardless of their outcome
Incidently, did you read the OP's report?:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »I'm happy to discuss any stats.
I have no emotion regardless of their outcome
:rotfl:This is of course a bit of a fib.
You're happy to discuss stats provided you get to ignore them in favour of source and cherry picked data points. Which suggests that in reality, you're not all that happy at all.0 -
IveSeenTheLight wrote: »How can you state that the peaks are less reliable thaqn the troughs given the same methodology and low transactions exist in both results?
because the economic context suggests that that is more realistic.
oh, and BECAUSE THE PRODUCERS OF THE STATISTICS KEEP TELLING US THAT THE PEAKS ARE DUE TO SKEW :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
Lordy. I've no idea who you keep "missing" that bit of important information.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Even if you trend the troughs, their showing an upwards trend.
But we also know that the original peak co-incides with peak prices proper. So we can compare that to the latest trough.IveSeenTheLight wrote: »Incidently, just had my property revalued for remortgage purposes and it's now valued at 9.4% higher than what I paid for it in Jan 07.
I've also had 5 year rent with only 16 days void in that period.
:rotfl:I wondered how long it would take for you to go "up my street". Funny how you bulls always have the...erm....stats to support the fact that your personal position is in no way influenced by events in the real world.0 -
:rotfl:This is of course a bit of a fib.
You're happy to discuss stats provided you get to ignore them in favour of source and cherry picked data points. Which suggests that in reality, you're not all that happy at all.
Ignorance is not a virtue geneer.
Your simply not happy that instead of only looking at headline figures, if anyone want's or attempts to look at the make up of those figures, then their "attempting" to deflect from the headline figure instead of trying to have a deeper understanding of them
Heck, there's been an instance where your assumptions based on error reading from headline figures, I prooved you to be right after looking at the details.
You still didn't like that because I prooved you right with facts instead of using your error strewn assumptions.
I think you just like to argue with people of differing opinions and that when details are produced you fear that they will proove you wrong now or in future discussions.:wall:
What we've got here is....... failure to communicate.
Some men you just can't reach.
:wall:0 -
:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:How do you manage to just keep making the same mistakes Hamish. Its not as if you haven't received your schoolin' on this a number of times in the past.
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=41319294&postcount=25
Priceless!
Oh, and aside from which, I've asked you this numerous times and you've still to respond.
How exactly does mix adjustement stop the over all averages from being, y'know, an overall average?
Annnnnnnnnd Hamish has left the building.
Honestly. Who could have seen that coming. 0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards