London Has Peaked

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

Well no surprise there you got it all wrong again:


1. BG do most (if not all) property maintenance.
2. I've explained my financial position why on earth would I be worried? It isn't just game over, it was game over years ago.

1. Good for them.


2. No idea what you are on about.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

2. No idea what you are on about.

That doesn't surprise me.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

That doesn't surprise me.

Good for you.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Good for you.

That doesn't even make sense, but once again I'm not surprised.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

That doesn't even make sense, but once again I'm not surprised.

I thought you were a multi millionaire...on paper Why do you care about this stuff? Why argue with penniless losers in HMO`s on the internet?

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

I thought you were a multi millionaire...on paper Why do you care about this stuff? Why argue with penniless losers in HMO`s on the internet?

I don't consider this an argument, do you? But I must admit that I am losing interest and want to watch something on SKY, so I'll see what gem of a reply you come back with tomorrow when I log back on.

System

This is pretty tragic. Crashy of all the people to argue with surely you could have found another lonely, serial loser peasant to lock horns with. Watching you spit your dummy at the nasty multimillionaire is all a bit cringe at the moment.

danothy

Bubble_and_Squeak wrote: »

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.

It would be if the time series was a measure of a parameter from a single deterministic source, like if you were following the sale price of a single house. This would hold true if houses were perfectly uniform in value too, as you could be confident that if one sold for some amount then all the others were worth that too.

Fact is they are not though, and as it turns out, your simplistic impression doesn't hold true for house sales en mass because different houses have different inherent relative values. To consider the movement of house prices you must consider the movement of the distribution of house prices. The peak is represented by the highest point in the moving average of multiple sales, not by the single highest sale as you seem to think.

It's possible for a house at the top end of the distribution of values to sell for some amount and then be followed by one that is at the bottom end of the distribution to sell for some smaller amount, but for the average to still have increased in the meantime.

The reason your assertions about the peak are wrong is that you are trying to interpret a series of random points from a shifting distribution as if they are not distributed. As if the currently listed property has the same inherent value as the one sold before it. We know that different properties have different prices, therefore one must consider the distributive element. Yet you do not.

I fully expect you to choose to ignore that your impressions are wrong, despite having your mistakes pointed out to you. I also expect that nothing, no matter how rational or logical, will incite you to acknowledge your mistakes, and that rather than reconsider the conclusions you have drawn you will either ignore or wilfully misunderstand that your methodology is flawed.

Crashy_Time

Joeskeppi wrote: »

This is pretty tragic. Crashy of all the people to argue with surely you could have found another lonely, serial loser peasant to lock horns with. Watching you spit your dummy at the nasty multimillionaire is all a bit cringe at the moment.

Much preferred your "feminine" avatar JoeDebty, why did you stop using it?

wotsthat

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Had to move to a different part of the country, broke about even on the sale, no big deal. The Ponzi Forever meme wasn`t even on the horizon at that time, early 90`s. We will soon be back to a point where property is just something you live in for a while and sell if you have to. People getting their knickers in a twist on here about how it is going to stay at forever silly valuations are going to look silly, and broke.

Early nineties? Just how old are you?

Most people don't want to be living your lifestyle at your age. They don't want to be finding accommodation no questions asked from ads in the newsagents or have to live in a place that costs £300/ month. People only do that if they have to and the vast majority don't have to.

Houses are expensive but it's going to take some economic strife that is highly unlikely to happen before the Sheeple have to live your lifestyle and you can choose which of their houses you'd like to buy for cash.

You're the perfect poster boy for HPC. If you were interviewed on TV about your strategy there would be a house price spike as the Sheeple rushed to buy.