People will adjust their spending habits in order to afford their mortgage

Graham_Devon

OffGridLiving wrote: »

Yep, you did and credit to you for doing so. Did you notice that as soon as you held your hands up, everyone dropped it?



Do you really not understand that a 4 bed detached home may have a selling price 15% higher than a 2 bed apartment? And that this doesn't mean their house prices have gone up by 15%, it just means that this year they are selling 4 bed houses instead of 2 bed apartments?

Come on Graham, step back. Think about it.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62327207&postcount=267

Of course I understand it. I wrote that in the post I linked to.

BUT, you have, of course, changed what was said.

What was said is that average prices rise 15%, the average prices rises 15%. The indexes don't care what type of house was sold UNLESS you break it down, as I stated on the linked post.

No matter how hard you try to twist the discussion, no matter how hard you try and state I don't understand, quite clearly I do understand, stated so on the post I linked to.....but at the end of the day, what you cannot get away from is the point. That point being that if average prices rise 15%, the indexes will show an average rise of 15%. Always have done, always will do....until you break it down.

I'm not too sure what you are trying to prove. So maybe I could ask you what it is you are trying to prove here by talking about the type of house?

Are you trying to prove average prices haven't risen?

If not, what is it you are trying to prove? Theres 3 or 4 of you trying to prove something, I'm just not sure what. If it's about the mix and type of houses, that was accepted a whole page ago, so why keep banging on about it?

Why claim I didn't and won't admit I'm wrong and then say "yes you did claim you were wrong"?

Why say I don't understand when quite clearly I do understand and have accepted the premise?

All of this does nothing to get away from the point that if Bovis average price has risen 15%, it pulls up average prices. I fail to understand why it's even turned into an argument.

GhIFA

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All of this does nothing to get away from the point that if Bovis average price has risen 15%, it pulls up average prices. I fail to understand why it's even turned into an argument.

I think it's because there might just be some muddling going on.

Your argument was:

with Bovis, for instance putting their prices up by 15%, this 20% guarantee by the government soon won't be strong enough

Which may be a perfectly valid point to make, except for the fact that (as has been proven) Bovis haven't said they've put their prices up by 15%, they have said...

The Group's average sales price on legal completions increased by 15% to £188,500 (H1 2012: £164,400), primarily from the improving mix of homes.

...which can be achieved without prices actually going up (as has been pointed out), which doesn't fit quite as well with the argument.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62327207&postcount=267

Of course I understand it. I wrote that in the post I linked to.

BUT, you have, of course, changed what was said.

What was said is that average prices rise 15%, the average prices rises 15%. The indexes don't care what type of house was sold UNLESS you break it down, as I stated on the linked post.

No matter how hard you try to twist the discussion, no matter how hard you try and state I don't understand, quite clearly I do understand, stated so on the post I linked to.....but at the end of the day, what you cannot get away from is the point. That point being that if average prices rise 15%, the indexes will show an average rise of 15%. Always have done, always will do....until you break it down.

I'm not too sure what you are trying to prove. So maybe I could ask you what it is you are trying to prove here by talking about the type of house?

Are you trying to prove average prices haven't risen?

If not, what is it you are trying to prove? Theres 3 or 4 of you trying to prove something, I'm just not sure what. If it's about the mix and type of houses, that was accepted a whole page ago, so why keep banging on about it?

Why claim I didn't and won't admit I'm wrong and then say "yes you did claim you were wrong"?

Why say I don't understand when quite clearly I do understand and have accepted the premise?

All of this does nothing to get away from the point that if Bovis average price has risen 15%, it pulls up average prices. I fail to understand why it's even turned into an argument.

The 15% rise in average price of Bovis sold houses has nothing to do with other indexes which normally have some kind of mix adjustment. The Bovis figure is a straight average of the properties they have sold.

OffGridLiving

Graham_Devon wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=62327207&postcount=267

Of course I understand it. I wrote that in the post I linked to.

BUT, you have, of course, changed what was said.

I haven't changed anything, you said:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But if Bovis can raise the price of their homes 15% in 6 months (I think it was 6 months) this will drag the average price up across the board as were looking at the average price..

Sorry Graham, if you don't understand that selling a £100k apartment for £100k and selling a £115k house for £115k isn't "raising prices", but just selling more expensive homes, then there's no hope.

If Bovis sold a £100k apartment and then 6 months later sold the same apartments for £115k, the you'd be right to say that they have raised the price of their homes 15%, and this would have an effect on average prices on the various indexes.

If Bovis homes sold a £100k apartment for £100k and and then 6 months later they sold a £115k home for £115k, then they haven't raised the price of their homes by 15%,they are just selling more homes than apartments and so this wouldn't have an effect on the various indexes.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All of this does nothing to get away from the point that if Bovis average price has risen 15%, it pulls up average prices. I fail to understand why it's even turned into an argument.

The point is, that we have all been trying to make, is that average prices HAVEN'T risen, so it can't have pulled up average prices (on an index).

As I say, I can't believe you don't understand this and so I think you're just bored and having a laugh at those people, like myself, who bother to try and explain it.

Fair play if that's the case - you got us, but it seems a poor sort of entertainment.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All of this does nothing to get away from the point that if Bovis average price has risen 15%, it pulls up average prices. I fail to understand why it's even turned into an argument.

I know you get cars.

Your company bought 4 x BMW 1 series last year. This year they bought 4 x 3 series. 3 series cost more than 1 series - say 15%.

The average price per car that BMW sold to your company was up 15% YoY.

BMW didn't increase their prices by 15%.

The price of an average BMW didn't increase by 15%.

OffGridLiving

How about:

If an apple costs 10p and an orange costs 15p. In January I sell 10 apples for a profit of £1. Six months later, I sell 10 oranges for £1.50.

I had an increase of 50% in my fruit sales in the second half of the year. This doesn't mean that the price of my apples increased 50% in the second half of the year, it doesn't mean that my oranges in creased by 50% in the second half of the year. It means that I just sold a more expensive product and so my sales figures reflect that.

The apples price index has therefore not increased, because my apples are still priced at 10p each. The orange price index has therefore not increased, because my oranges are still priced at £15p each.

I honestly can't make it plainer.

System

OffGridLiving wrote: »

.

I honestly can't make it plainer.

Crayon and fridge letters.

Cornucopia

OffGridLiving wrote: »

I honestly can't make it plainer.

Is the issue that we don't know what changes (if any) took place in terms of the size and types of property within the averages?

GhIFA

Cornucopia wrote: »

Is the issue that we don't know what changes (if any) took place in terms of the size and types of property within the averages?

I think the issue is that Graham took an increase in average price per completion figure used by Bovis (which Bovis stated was down to the mix of houses sold) and tried to argue that this meant average house prices had gone up and therefore the "props" to the housing market would only get bigger.

Essentially, to summarise his argument appears to be that because Bovis have sold more family homes this year, the government will never remove its housing market props.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

GhIFA wrote: »

I think the issue is that Graham took an increase in average price per completion figure used by Bovis (which Bovis stated was down to the mix of houses sold) and tried to argue that this meant average house prices had gone up and therefore the "props" to the housing market would only get bigger.

Essentially, to summarise his argument appears to be that because Bovis have sold more family homes this year, the government will never remove its housing market props.

The legendary Mr Muddles strikes again.

A proper trolling genius that lad.