London Has Peaked

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

At your age and with the number of properties you have I would be expecting you to take this last chance to cash in at least some of your chips. You really don`t understand credit/sentiment driven bubbles do you? If a bin man has retired a millionaire from his Ponzi gains why would anyone want to manage and repair NINE properties! When I did own a house years ago I used to let it out (to people I knew) It was a NIGHTMARE.

They are very far from nightmares, maybe you lack management skills. I think that I understand a lot more than you do, what do you do for a living? I'm a chartered surveyor but work as a university lecturer in property and construction (I'm only saying out of politeness, after asking you).

caronoel

chucknorris wrote: »

EDIT: In fact I am beginning to think that you (Crashy) might not be real, you may just be a bull, trying to make the bears look like fools by typing rubbish.

I think you could be right.

Crashy is a pee-take.

We await the references to "props" and "VIs"

:rotfl::rotfl:

rfowler

chucknorris wrote: »

First of all I not 'defending' anything! You really do not understand finance do you?

Yes we are I.O. on the other 5 mortgages, but we have more invested in other non property investments than the value of the outstanding mortgages. Would you really expect us to pay off the mortgages when the average rate is about 1.1% (which is only 0.66% net of tax)? You might think that would be a good thing to do, but that is why you would never be in that position in the first place. You are without question the biggest fool that I have seen on this website in a long time.


EDIT: In fact I am beginning to think that you might not be real, you may just be a bull, trying to make the bears look like fools by typing rubbish.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Bubble_and_Squeak

i like the chart but if both of the marketed properties fail to achieve the price of the last sold the upward trend could be seen as peaking.
given the current state of the market this is the most likely scenario.

danothy

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

i like the chart but if both of the marketed properties fail to achieve the price of the last sold the upward trend could be seen as peaking.
given the current state of the market this is the most likely scenario.

You have literally no concept of outliers, do you? The upward trend is formed from the movement of aggregate house prices, as they are all different properties with different inherent values relative to one another. You can't - and I literally mean you statistically can not - call the peak from one datum point that may or may not be an outlier. This means that if others are sold more cheaply than that particular sale it does not necessarily constitute a peak as you so claim.

There's a specific example of the exact opposite to what you claim in the data for that avenue just before 2004. An outlier is sold, but even though it is the most expensive property to be sold on that avenue for almost the next four years the trend did not peak there, average prices kept increasing until they plateaued between 2008 and late 2013. That some properties sold for less than another, while still going up in aggregate, does not mean the market peaked. It means an outlier sold.

There's now way of knowing if things will go up, down, or plateau from here, but I can be absolutely certain that the supposition that the possibility of the listed properties not make their asking prices constitutes an indicator of an impending decline is an incorrect one. Particularly when the sales could even compete with shortfalls of tens of thousands of pounds from the asking prices and would still affect an increase in the recent average price for the avenue.

The only way this could be the peak is if average sale prices for the avenue drop down to below £285k and decline from there. However that still would not be because of the particular sale at £405k. That sale would still be an outlier, and even more certainly so.

If that sale is not to be considered an outlier then we can assume that the market has in fact lurched upwards. The idea that the market lurched upwards, had one sale, and then lurched downwards is the only way that you could legitimately call that one sale the peak. That would be a hard one to justify though, as you'd be filling in the lurches with speculation not data. But then again you seem quite into that. This position is also contingent on the future sales actually being lower, something that you appear to be assuming will happen, but has not actually happened yet.

Simply put, you are misinterpreting the data by focusing on one particular sale as significant. Get over it.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

danothy wrote: »

You have literally no concept of outliers, do you? The upward trend is formed from the movement of aggregate house prices, as they are all different properties with different inherent values relative to one another. You can't - and I literally mean you statistically can not - call the peak from one datum point that may or may not be an outlier. This means that if others are sold more cheaply than that particular sale it does not necessarily constitute a peak as you so claim.

There's a specific example of the exact opposite to what you claim in the data for that avenue just before 2004. An outlier is sold, but even though it is the most expensive property to be sold on that avenue for almost the next four years the trend did not peak there, average prices kept increasing until they plateaued between 2008 and late 2013. That some properties sold for less than another, while still going up in aggregate, does not mean the market peaked. It means an outlier sold.

There's now way of knowing if things will go up, down, or plateau from here, but I can be absolutely certain that the supposition that the possibility of the listed properties not make their asking prices constitutes an indicator of an impending decline is an incorrect one. Particularly when the sales could even compete with shortfalls of tens of thousands of pounds from the asking prices and would still affect an increase in the recent average price for the avenue.

The only way this could be the peak is if average sale prices for the avenue drop down to below £285k and decline from there. However that still would not be because of the particular sale at £405k. That sale would still be an outlier, and even more certainly so.

If that sale is not to be considered an outlier then we can assume that the market has in fact lurched upwards. The idea that the market lurched upwards, had one sale, and then lurched downwards is the only way that you could legitimately call that one sale the peak. That would be a hard one to justify though, as you'd be filling in the lurches with speculation not data. But then again you seem quite into that. This position is also contingent on the future sales actually being lower, something that you appear to be assuming will happen, but has not actually happened yet.

Simply put, you are misinterpreting the data by focusing on one particular sale as significant. Get over it.

This will be wasted on Mr Squeak I'm afraid "Danny" :rotfl:

Well written though.

Bubble_and_Squeak

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

This will be wasted on Mr Squeak I'm afraid "Danny" :rotfl:

Well written though.

indeed, it was well written.
and yes, it is wasted on mr squeak.
mr squeak was under the impression that a peak represented the highest point.

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

At your age and with the number of properties you have I would be expecting you to take this last chance to cash in at least some of your chips. You really don`t understand credit/sentiment driven bubbles do you? If a bin man has retired a millionaire from his Ponzi gains why would anyone want to manage and repair NINE properties! When I did own a house years ago I used to let it out (to people I knew) It was a NIGHTMARE.

You sold to rent before 1997? What a pioneer.

chucknorris

wotsthat wrote: »

You sold to rent before 1997? What a pioneer.

Its beyond belief isn't it.

In_For_A_Penny_2

wotsthat wrote: »

You sold to rent before 1997? What a pioneer.

And at no point will he consider buying back in? Hence I really don't know why he bothers to "contribute" here. . . It can only be out of spite.