Halifax November: -0.9% MoM -0.6% QoQ -1.0% YoY

joguest

Really2 wrote: »

Yes but Nationwide and Halifax peak at different times. You have placed the LR to one peak, the Halifax. Being concurrent is irrelvent as you have selected the peak to place the data against.
That is not scientific, you should normalise from bot peaks (two graphs) if they correlate, you cant decide which is the correct peak.

Nominally the nationwide was closer to LR than the Halifax so I would say there was more justification mathcing to that peak.

Being concurrent is completely relevant (a) because they are and (b) because the data-sets show they are. There is no justification to change their time-reference. There is a sound justification for changing the LR time-reference because (a) everyone knows there is a lag and (b) the data shows this lag.

I have no idea what you mean by 'selecting the peak' as each of the three sets of data is normalised to their own peak magnitude (as is obvious from looking at the graph).

joguest

I'll be back for next month's instalment of arguing with the black is white brigade. Until next time..

I'm going to get on with something more useful.

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Yeah right Chuck. Given your urge to initiate some kind of financial "dance-off" its clearly not about the winning with you.

Obviously, I didn't buy them to lose money did I? You missed the point, I'm not saying it's not about winning, I am saying it's about winning at the end when you sell (rather than winning in the interim period, which is meaningless).

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

Obviously, I didn't buy them to lose money did I? You missed the point, I'm not saying it's not about winning, I am saying it's about winning at the end when you sell (rather in the interim period).

Sorry what?

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Sorry what?

Obviously, I didn't buy them to lose money did I? You missed the point, I'm not saying it's not about winning, I am saying it's about winning at the end when you sell (rather than winning in the interim period, which is meaningless).

By the way I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on the other thread.

geneer

Speaking of accuracy, the nationwide price for July is 168731.
The halifax price for july is £163981.

Factoring in the 3month lag, Landreg for september is £162109.

So which one is more repesentative of the actual figures?

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

geneer wrote: »

Sorry what?

Do keep up Geneer, You're really struggling today.

have a cup of tea and come back in 10 mins

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

Obviously, I didn't buy them to lose money did I? You missed the point, I'm not saying it's not about winning, I am saying it's about winning at the end when you sell (rather than winning in the interim period, which is meaningless).

Nope. Still not getting you.
Win what?
How does this relate to the house price crash?

chucknorris wrote: »

By the way I'm still waiting for you to answer my question on the other thread.

No Chuck. I will not play you at online Monopoly!

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Nope. Still not getting you.
Win what?
How does this relate to the house price crash?

Didn't that cup of tea help then? Oh dear looks like Jack was right you are really struggling today. I can't work out if you are just pretending to be slow or not, lol.

Cleaver

Do we really need that much debate about how close, or not, they are to each other and whether the x axis when divided by pi matches the LR lag via the y axis horizontal propensity to converage against 4.3?

They all go up a lot from 2002 to 2007, they all fall from 2007 to early 2009, they all go up from 2009 to early 2010 and they've all bumped around a bit since. From 2010 onwards, when people haven't been buying and selling all that much there seems to be some erratic differences which is understandable with low transactions. I know this is a % off peak prices graph, but the price ones still say pretty much the same thing.

These indicies are designed to give people a good idea of the trend of houses prices, and they all do it fine for 99% of people who aren't obsessed with the subject.