Nationwide November +0.4% MOM +1.6% YOY

julieq

geneer wrote: »

No comment on this from the Juliester.
It seems she would much rather be discussing GDs rates. :rotfl:

Sorry? Commented on this in a couple of places, including at length in the "Should we trust the Nationwide" thread.

But for the benefit of those on a McLunchBreak, the LR and NW correlate to within a % or 2, the reason for disparity is the volatility of the NW which is based on fewer transactions.

The YoY figure is what it is because a year ago the NW were recording lower numbers than the LR (which I suppose you don't mind, because it works in your direction). Oddly enough if we stay static for a year there's more chance the NW will show -ve YoY because it's starting higher than the LR now.

Noise and filtering issues. Otherwise close correlation between LR and NW. Mine's a big mac meal with coke please, ta.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Sorry? Commented on this in a couple of places, including at length in the "Should we trust the Nationwide" thread.

But for the benefit of those on a McLunchBreak, the LR and NW correlate to within a % or 2, the reason for disparity is the volatility of the NW which is based on fewer transactions.

The YoY figure is what it is because a year ago the NW were recording lower numbers than the LR (which I suppose you don't mind, because it works in your direction). Oddly enough if we stay static for a year there's more chance the NW will show -ve YoY because it's starting higher than the LR now.

Noise and filtering issues. Otherwise close correlation between LR and NW. Mine's a big mac meal with coke please, ta.

Ha ha. I bet you'd love a big mac after all the humble pie and sour grapes you've been forced to eat since the crash.

Tell you what, your elaborate nonsensical explanations are at least more original than your fast food related Jibes.

Land reg captures all sales.
NW captures less than 10% of mortgage approvals, with a southwardly bias.

Bottom line. Land reg is more realistic.
Its amusing the lengths you will go to not to admit this self exident truth.

julieq

Geneer, the numbers are basically the same. Look at the graph. Just because one month's measurement has been knocked up or down by random fluctuations matters not a jot, there is close correlation at all stages. If you fixate on MoM or YoY spot comparisons, all you do is amplify the effect of the noise. If you've read low a year ago, you'll likely see a YoY rise and vice versa. Did you not post an article that tells you that the best measure is rolling averages over a number of months? Did you actually read that article? Can I have fries with it?

It really does take something to be more obtuse than Graham, but you manage it.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Geneer, the numbers are basically the same. Look at the graph. Just because one month's measurement has been knocked up or down by random fluctuations matters not a jot, there is close correlation at all stages. If you fixate on MoM or YoY spot comparisons, all you do is amplify the effect of the noise. If you've read low a year ago, you'll likely see a YoY rise and vice versa. Did you not post an article that tells you that the best measure is rolling averages over a number of months? Did you actually read that article? Can I have fries with it?

It really does take something to be more obtuse than Graham, but you manage it.

"can I have fries with it". Ha ha. Genius.

Sorry Jules but you seem to be unaware that the land reg is much less prone to random fluctuations due to the significantly greater volumes.

You also appear to be suggesting that we shouldn't be making MOM or YOY comparisons....ever. Good luck with that new law.

"look at the graph". Do you mean the graph where NW is becoming wildly divergent from land reg?

julieq

Geneer, the numbers are the same to within a % or so, not wildly divergent, and if you actually read what I said it explains that the NW figures are more volatile because of a smaller sample. As has also been pointed out, the LR numbers include a lag. NW happened to read low a year ago. Random effects.

I've no idea what point you're trying to prove here except that you're desperate to dismiss an index which doesn't suit your view of the world, which in itself demonstrates you don't really understand what the indexes are showing. Neither index is perfect (as the article you posted points out quite clearly), and to get a picture you need to look at a range of data and cross correlate. Rolling averages are ultimately the best guide to strip out the noise.

Anyway enjoy your life. Please. Buy a house at a fraction of the 2004 price whenever you can, and that will prove you right far better than acting like a plank on a bulletin board. If you can do it.

geneer

julieq wrote: »

Geneer, the numbers are the same to within a % or so, not wildly divergent, and if you actually read what I said it explains that the NW figures are more volatile because of a smaller sample. As has also been pointed out, the LR numbers include a lag. NW happened to read low a year ago. Random effects.

I've no idea what point you're trying to prove here except that you're desperate to dismiss an index which doesn't suit your view of the world, which in itself demonstrates you don't really understand what the indexes are showing. Neither index is perfect (as the article you posted points out quite clearly), and to get a picture you need to look at a range of data and cross correlate. Rolling averages are ultimately the best guide to strip out the noise.

Anyway enjoy your life. Please. Buy a house at a fraction of the 2004 price whenever you can, and that will prove you right far better than acting like a plank on a bulletin board. If you can do it.

Thats nice dear.

You're right of course. Nationwide reports a 1.6% YOY increase, whilst Land reg reports a -3.2% YOY fall.
Theres only about 5% between them.
Inconsequential.

Of course Nationwide captures <10% of mortgage approvals.
Whilst Land Reg captures ALL SALES.
So clearly they're just as reliable.

I'm sure its just a matter of lag. Though of course NW has reported no more than -1.3% YOY in the last 12 months.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

undetterred

julieq wrote: »

Honestly Graham, you owe it to yourself and family to get some financial advice. This is outside any taking the p1ss, there is absolutely no reason why anyone should have been paying those rates during the period you were, and you've been very badly advised, if you received advice at all.

However if you want sympathy, you might start by not being quite so sarcastic at people who manage finances better than you.

And even at 7.75%, you could still make payments. Which is my contention exactly. No twisting of arguments here, it's the same argument: your reduction has been a windfall, not a lifesaver.

With 38k worth of posts,you think he be taking heed from this site.

A fool and his money are easily parted.

Pimperne1

geneer wrote: »

Thats nice dear.

You're right of course. Nationwide reports a 1.6% YOY increase, whilst Land reg reports a -3.2% YOY fall.
Theres only about 5% between them.
Inconsequential.

Of course Nationwide captures <10% of mortgage approvals.
Whilst Land Reg captures ALL SALES.
So clearly they're just as reliable.

I'm sure its just a matter of lag. Though of course NW has reported no more than -1.3% YOY in the last 12 months.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

LR doesn't capture all sales.

Graham_Devon

julieq wrote: »

Actually if he's on 90% LTV on half a house options may be limited, it's a bit of a peculiar arrangement. But if on 3.5% that would be base plus 3% which is an extraordinarily high rate to be paying.

Personally I'd ring a mortgage broker to see what's around. But I suspect Graham won't because, the people who are suggesting he saves himself some money are people he doesn't like. It's kind of crazy really. Sliced nose time.

Does it ever cross your mind that I have done this already?

Or would you simply prefer to assume I haven't, and therefore you can label me? Again?

I've already told you the lenders who will lend for SO. I've already corrected you, yet you are still completely insistent that if I don't take a new product, that isn't actually available in my circumstances, I am a fool.

What's more, I owe it to my family to take this product that doesn't actually exist, and if I don't take this product that don't exist, I am cutting off my nose to spite my face. All your fellow idiots have joined in, with their wonderful financial insights also telling me to take products that simply don't exist. What is wrong with you all?

The prodcuts DON'T exist Julie. What will it take to get this through to you? You are living in la la land again. What's more, I personally don't feel 3.5% is all that bad. It will revert back to 2% above base, just there is an active collar at the moment, which I have already explained to you, that makes it 3% above base. I've already received the compensation from this.

Don't pretend to be a financial genius, and put your foot it in when it comes to base rates, put your foot in it when it comes to LTV's and put your foot in it when actually you turn round and realise everything you have been having a go at my charachter for, isn't actually something I could change under the circumstances.

Thrugelmir

Pimperne1 wrote: »

LR doesn't capture all sales.

NW has a considerable southern bias.