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

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

Seems you can't really work out what you're trying to say either.

Cleaver

geneer wrote: »

Halifax has 10% of the mortgage market share.
Nationwide has a smaller % than even that.

Bottom line Landreg is the one to watch really.

To any casual observer they all show exactly the same thing give or take.

Pimperne1

Don't understand all that complicated math stuff but the LR should be getting more accurate as time goes on as the number of repeat sales increases.

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Seems you can't really work out what you're trying to say either.

If you want to pretend to be stupid (maybe you aren't pretending) that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to play along.

wotsthat

geneer wrote: »

Standard bullish lack of self awareness there.


That aside, pointing out the clear truth that land registry is considered far more accurate than Haliwide would seem to be
a piece of advise inhabitants of the "real world" might well appreciate under certain circumstances.

So we can only assume that the true point of your efforts is to point out that you didn't really like a particular turn of phrase.
I wonder how your compulsion to make this non-point would go over amongst your friends in the real world.

You really are strange.

The debate (given the continued stagnating housing market) was about the statistical representation of data. As soon as you turn up it's all about bulls and bears.

There is simply no-one who uses the words 'bull' and 'bear' as much as you do. I can only presume that one of your internet enemies has really hurt you in the past and you are having difficulty getting over it.

Heyman_2

Y'know, I've been reading through this thread and and have been feeling that something is missing, but couldn't put my finger on what it was.

Finally figured it out a few minutes ago. Ladies and Gentlemen, I give you -

Really2

joguest wrote: »

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.

Only if it is a negative index of course.;)

geneer

wotsthat wrote: »

You really are strange.

The debate (given the continued stagnating housing market) was about the statistical representation of data. As soon as you turn up it's all about bulls and bears.

There is simply no-one who uses the words 'bull' and 'bear' as much as you do. I can only presume that one of your internet enemies has really hurt you in the past and you are having difficulty getting over it.

I think whats really strange is your apparent insistence that the discussions have nothing to do with the bull bear divide.

But not nearly as boss-eyed as your assertion that the bull bear divide isn't an ever present issue on this forum.

I can only presume that the -0.9% MOM fall has left you will little recourse other than fabricating clearly erroneous criticisms.

geneer

chucknorris wrote: »

If you want to pretend to be stupid (maybe you aren't pretending) that's your prerogative, but don't expect me to play along.

Your dummy spit really has nothing to do with broader discussions, and when pushed you've been unable to prove its anything other than the dummy spit it clearly is.

Hence your only "out" now is sluttering attacks to cover up for the fact that you're avoiding the question.

chucknorris

geneer wrote: »

Your dummy spit really has nothing to do with broader discussions, and when pushed you've been unable to prove its anything other than the dummy spit it clearly is.

Hence your only "out" now is sluttering attacks to cover up for the fact that your avoiding the question.

More pathetic gibberish from a fool, why on earth did I expect anything more substantial, LOL.