Halifax August 2012 -0.4% MoM

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

And what he fails to see as do a lot of other people, is that we have not even had our proper UK recession yet.

We have had our "wrapped in cotton wool recession" where we have probaby thrown close on £1 Trillion pound at the problem to see negative growth at sub zero today, a recession where people think it is tight because they cannot have the second ski holiday in one year, or where they will just have to skip the weekly meat pies after paying £1000 for the football seaso ticket.

If you think this is a "wrapped in cotton wool recession" then I'd say that you were the one who just thinks that money is tight right now. To the rest of us the recession is very real and very painful.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Trend and price ratio to earnings are two very different things.

Indeed they are.
Of course, whilst analysing the data, you may wish to consider that the household earnings potential has changed from generations in the past and would affect the "long term average"
Of course we've discussed this before though.

IveSeenTheLight

the_flying_pig wrote: »

The "long term average" is a post 1980 affordability average calculated by one of the building societies. Thirty two years obviously isn't very long term at all - said "long term" average affordability is vastly poorer now than it would have been calculated using the same method ten years ago.

I'm not clear in what your trying to say here.
"Affordability is vastly poorer now than a decade ago"
Where do you get your details for this assumption?

the_flying_pig wrote: »

The "trend" is something else again - basically it's showing you how much HPs have gone up by in recent years, & implying that they'll go up by the same amt in the future. As an analytical feat it's roughly on a par with an 18 year old, 6 foot tall, man noting that he's grown by a foot and a half in the last decade and on the strength of this predicting that he'll be 7'6" by the time he's 28 and nine feet tall at 38. Basically it's worthless !!!!!.

Thanked pretty much for comedy value as opposed to adding to the debate.
Trying to compare human growth between 8, 18 and 28 as a similie to house prices affected by population, earnings, supply and demand is very obscure indeed.

Could you come up with a more obscure similie?

the_flying_pig

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I'm not clear in what your trying to say here.
"Affordability is vastly poorer now than a decade ago"
Where do you get your details for this assumption?...

this was shorthand for the 1980-2012 "long term" average house price to income ratio is vastly higher than a 1980-2002 "long term" average house price to income ratio. i'd hoped that the context would have made this obvious.

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

...Trying to compare human growth between 8, 18 and 28 as a similie to house prices affected by population, earnings, supply and demand is very obscure indeed.

Could you come up with a more obscure similie?

i thought it was a reasonable comparison, just pointing out the stupidity of using extrapolations from the very recent past as a guide to the future. like everything increases in a person's height are driven by fundamentals [genes, age, diet]. the same's true of house prices [the key fundamental being the average wage, with shorter term fluctuations being caused by changes to the supply & price of credit and whatnot]. just extrapolating is a waste of time.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

this was shorthand for the 1980-2012 "long term" average house price to income ratio is vastly higher than a 1980-2002 "long term" average house price to income ratio. i'd hoped that the context would have made this obvious.

.

What do you think the figure should be since the only time it’s been below 3x was for a couple of years in the mid 90s I don’t think the often quoted 3x is right especially when you consider for most of the time between 1970 and 1990 it was above 3.5x.

the_flying_pig

ukcarper wrote: »

What do you think the figure should be since the only time it’s been below 3x was for a couple of years in the mid 90s I don’t think the often quoted 3x is right especially when you consider for most of the time between 1970 and 1990 it was above 3.5x.

boring answer - we don't really have nearly enough years' worth of data [in terms of many years' worth of mass home ownership and top-notch record-keeping] to come up with an average that could sensibly be called "long run".

i'd much prefer that they just didn't bother. if they really insisted, the data should go back to 1970 at the very least, preferably 1960.

ukcarper

the_flying_pig wrote: »

boring answer - we don't really have nearly enough years' worth of data [in terms of many years' worth of mass home ownership and top-notch record-keeping] to come up with an average that could sensibly be called "long run".

i'd much prefer that they just didn't bother. if they really insisted, the data should go back to 1970 at the very least, preferably 1960.

There is a graph going back to 1953 here
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/graphs-average-house-price-to-earnings-ratio.php

Not sure how they get 3.5x from that graph looks higher to me.

Dribley

Graham_Devon wrote: »

While not stating it, you were quite happy and got the usual smilies out for this article, suggesting everyone else was wrong, and prices would rise 27% between 2012-15.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2094515

And here, you suggest it will be 2012 where house prices return to peak (realise you will use an obscure index to prove yourself right here)
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/2178663

Here you suggest HPI will be rising at 7% in 2012...and you suggest this is you being conservative. You even suggested this is "guaranteed".
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=24310433&postcount=12

Here you suggest prices will be rising at 10% in 2012:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=28067751&postcount=48

Here you suggest HPI will be "much higher" in 2012 than in 2010
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=28290435&postcount=3

Here you suggest 2012 will be a "bit boomier":
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=33441969&postcount=9

And I could go on.....and on, as theres just so many results with you saying the same things. "There will be no double dip" "doomsters proven wrong, 2012 the year of the boom, and they still predict a double dip" etc.

I think it's fair to suggest you have certainly suggested prices would be about 10-20% higher now than they were in 2010.

Priceless and bookmarked. You've blown him right out of the water!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

While not stating it,

Oh right then.

So I didn't state it.:T

And here, you suggest it will be 2012 where house prices return to peak (realise you will use an obscure index to prove yourself right here)

*snip - and the rest*

Yeah, fair cop on most of those ones. (with a couple of exceptions, see below)

Prices are somewhere around 10% below peak today. In mid 2009, when those were posted, prices were markedly lower than they are today, but yes, we're not yet back to peak in most areas. (Aberdeen, London, and a few other places excepted)

Still a bit surprised the Tories managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory with all this austerity nonsense, but there you go.

I will of course point out that you've had to go back to 2009 to find anything like that, and even then they only predicted very small rises for the immediate future. (some of which we even got)

So it's hardly on the same scale as Brits "40% down by Xmas" guff, nor indeed on the same scale as Graham's repeated forecasts of 10% down in just about every board one-year poll so far.........:whistle:

I think it's fair to suggest you have certainly suggested prices would be about 10-20% higher now than they were in 2010.

Graham, I think it's fair to suggest you certainly thought prices would be around 10-20% lower in 2012 than they were in 2009, and there's no way you thought early 2009 was the bottom, and that prices would rise from there.

So I'd only have been mildly offended if Bravo had called me the flip side of the coin to you....;)

But the flip side of the coin to Brit, well, that's just bonkers.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Prices are somewhere around 10% below peak today. In mid 2009, when those were posted, prices were markedly lower than they are today, but yes, we're not yet back to peak in most areas. (Aberdeen, London, and a few other places excepted)

Mid 2009 being the end of 2009 and 2010? As that's the dates on the posts? I know you see things differently....but surely we can agree on where the middle of the year falls?!

I will of course point out that you've had to go back to 2009 to find anything like that, and even then they only predicted very small rises for the immediate future. (some of which we even got)

Yes, 2009 and 2010. not sure what difference it makes. You said you never said such things. Does the date you said them change whether you said them!?

Yer know it's funny, I'm sure if we were seeing 10% HPI right now, (or 18% since 2010) as you predicted, you wouldn't be describing it as small....infact, I doubt you could contain yourself. Funny how it's small when the original point by Johnny was made. Ho hum.

So it's hardly on the same scale as Brits "40% down by Xmas" guff, nor indeed on the same scale as Graham's repeated forecasts of 10% down in just about every board one-year poll so far.........:whistle:

10% down isn't on the same scale as 10% up? Must be like johnny says....when everyone else sees a straight line......

Graham, I think it's fair to suggest you certainly thought prices would be around 10-20% lower in 2012 than they were in 2009, and there's no way you thought early 2009 was the bottom, and that prices would rise from there.

So I'd only have been mildly offended if Bravo had called me the flip side of the coin to you....;)

But the flip side of the coin to Brit, well, that's just bonkers.

I think it's fair to suggest that too. But then I wasn't the one claiming I'd never said it, and I'm not the one flouncing round the board suggesting my predictions were closer to reality

Sometimes it's better to hold your hands up....this would have been one of those times