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!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Can we take the Nationwide seriously?
Comments
-
.................................But the LR don't run any risks of bad debt and within a % or so the numbers are the same. You're off in to nutty conspiracy land Macaque, for the following reasons:
1) The numbers have been much lower than they are now from the NW, so they were running the risk of bad debt then. Nothing bad happened. It will.
2) Bad debt is priced into interest rates, and price falls do not create bad debt anyway, bad debt is created by defaults not price falls. Wrong, people walk away from debts when negative equity increases
3) There is plenty of equity in the housing market anyway. Only at current prices
4) Default rates on mortgages are low and were low before the crisis. There is no significantly increased risk even at lower price levels We have 0.5% base rates.
5) The risk of bad debt increases if the market is talked up unsustainably, because you create a false market. NW actually risks creating bad debt by spinning things positively, it's better to report lower. Are you trying to say that the market has not been talked up unsustainably?
6) Occams razor says that the most obvious explanation is that the NW are just reporting their numbers. You may not like the YoY increase (which is because of a lower than LR report last year), but it's what it is. It's what they want it to sound like.
To be honest, I've seen HPC this morning and there's a lot of people talking themselves up into conspiracist frenzies there. But these are just one months figures, volatile because of low transaction levels and without filtering on the YoY number. Get over it. The market is stagnant and the LR correlates with the NW. There is no conspiracy, just lenders trying to prevent a much needed market correction for their own survival.0 -
God Macaque, you don't give up, do you?
The numbers are being reported as they are. There is no reason outside your confused imagination to spin anything and they agree with the LR to within around 1.5% which is plenty close enough for a correlation.
Incidentally the market hasn't been talked up. If it were possible to talk markets up, don't you think the US or Eire might have tried it? It isn't at unsustainable levels either, it's sustaining itself perfectly nicely through the biggest sovereign debt crisis in history and despite lending being drastically curtailed. That ought to tell you something.
Low supply, high demand, less well off being squeezed out at the bottom, and rents rising which raises the price floor for purchases. It really doesn't need a conspiracy.
And if it did, why didn't they spin the numbers to report higher when the LR was showing higher? Your theory makes absolutely no sense and doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny.0 -
God Macaque, you don't give up, do you?
The numbers are being reported as they are. There is no reason outside your confused imagination to spin anything and they agree with the LR to within around 1.5% which is plenty close enough for a correlation.
Incidentally the market hasn't been talked up. If it were possible to talk markets up, don't you think the US or Eire might have tried it? It isn't at unsustainable levels either, it's sustaining itself perfectly nicely through the biggest sovereign debt crisis in history and despite lending being drastically curtailed. That ought to tell you something.
Low supply, high demand, less well off being squeezed out at the bottom, and rents rising which raises the price floor for purchases. It really doesn't need a conspiracy.
And if it did, why didn't they spin the numbers to report higher when the LR was showing higher? Your theory makes absolutely no sense and doesn't bear the slightest scrutiny.
Julie
You said
"and price falls do not create bad debt anyway"
and also
"There is no significantly increased risk even at lower price levels"
That is patent nonsense. There is no need to get angry and pompous ("God Macaque, you don't give up, do you") when I challenge you.0 -
Over the past couple of days there's been a lot of chatter about which index out of halifax, nationwide and land registry is the most accurate and therefore 'best' one. Talk about mix adjustment, lag, VI, averages etc. etc.
A few points to remember:
1. They exist to give people a general indication of whether house prices are going up or down. Most people don't know they exist and for 90% of people they do the job just fine.
2. It's not an exact science and no methodology will be perfect. but we can see that they pretty much work. They're all in general line with each other (there or there abouts), and tell us what we need to know, which is whether house prices are going up or down.
3. Any talk of one index being reported by favourably over other by media agencies is just fantasy. Outside of forums like this people don't really obsess with house price indicies, they just give them a passing glance. There's no need for conspiracies here.0 -
Over the past couple of days there's been a lot of chatter about which index out of halifax, nationwide and land registry is the most accurate and therefore 'best' one. Talk about mix adjustment, lag, VI, averages etc. etc.
A few points to remember:
1. They exist to give people a general indication of whether house prices are going up or down. Most people don't know they exist and for 90% of people they do the job just fine.
2. It's not an exact science and no methodology will be perfect. but we can see that they pretty much work. They're all in general line with each other (there or there abouts), and tell us what we need to know, which is whether house prices are going up or down.
3. Any talk of one index being reported by favourably over other by media agencies is just fantasy. Outside of forums like this people don't really obsess with house price indicies, they just give them a passing glance. There's no need for conspiracies here.
Cleaver, are you serious? The nation is obsessed with house prices and indices. People talk about it in offices, at dinner parties, on the train, in hair dressers, in pubs and thousands of websites. People come on this forum every week asking about house price movements and whether they should buy.
I agree you comment about the stats though and ultimately they have to merge or lose credibility. There is clearly going to be a correction however and lenders have every reason to delay it for as long as possible to repair their books. The point I was making in the OP was to highlight the contrast between how the Nationwide intepret their stats versus those with less to lose.0 -
Cleaver, are you serious? The nation is obsessed with house prices and indices. People talk about it in offices, at dinner parties, on the train, in hair dressers, in pubs and thousands of websites. People come on this forum every week asking about house price movements and whether they should buy.
Yeah, I'm serious as there's some subtle differences here. I would say that as a nation we're obsessed with wealth in property. But we're not obsessed with all these indicies. If you asked people on the street who the main three house prices indicies were produced by, or the average house prices, or when stats are released, or which index lags etc. etc. I doubt most people even know that these stats are released on a regular basis once a month, let alone read them.0 -
Erm, Geneer, you don't understand this do you?
Oh I understand the figures Jules.
Like many posters, its you I have trouble translating into "real world".
A year ago the NW was showing below the LR by something like 1.5%. It's now above where it was so showing a YoY increase, but it's a pair of spot readings so you get an amplification of noise.
The "noise" being much more apparent in the Nationwide figures of course.
The LR is the other way round (but is a lagging indicator and in fact correlates quite closely with the NW to within 1.5% or so).
3, 4 months ago Nationwide was -0.4%.
Land reg is -3.2%. So nah. It really doesn't.There is no reason at all why the idea of a -3.2% YoY fall in the LR would mean that there should be any particular maximum or minumum YoY value throughout the year for the NW.
Particularly if we accept your key evidence that Nationwide is prone to volatility. Which in no way makes them less reliable of course. :rotfl:
In fact those are independent measurements and have nothing to do with this month's YoY.
Speechless.
The basic problem here is that you don't understand how the numbers work. Your article did explain it reasonably well - as it said you need to look at all indices. So really you need to read that and then understand why spot YoY measurements can fluctuate due to noise in the measurements.
Which would suggest that the most reliable YOY measurements would be form the index less prone to noise and fluctuation.
To be fair, I think the other bears understand that, it really is just you who hasn't quite twigged yet.
Certainly it doesn't mean that either the NW or LR is "bobbins". Neither should it as they're showing the same absolute numbers basically.
Erm, no, no, I wouldn't say that.
Nationwide captures a single figure percentage of housing transactions.
Land reg captures all of them.
Which really does allow us to understand that Land reg is the more accurate by far.
Of course don't let the fact that this has been accepted by Bull and Bear alike since the "discussions" began stop you from your logical contortions.0 -
EXTERMINATE_THE_GHUOLS wrote: »I take Nationwide very seriously. Better than the LR any day.
Ha ha. Sockie, just your very presence undermines the bullish position on this even further.0 -
The main thing to remember is that as a buyer, all you care about is your areaRenovationMan wrote: »My view has consistently been that if you are actively looking for a house then become an expert in your area
Proof, if it's needed, that the science and analysis of "ROUND MY WAY" was truly ahead of it's time!Nothing is foolproof, as fools are so ingenious!
0 -
Nicholas Ayre, director of the home buying agency Home Fusion
WHAT????:eek:
A house buying agent wants people to believe house prices are falling????
Because of course there's no VI there or anything.:cool:“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards