Nordic banks step in to back Iceland

ianmr65

earlgrey wrote: »

Unfortunately your understanding of tenses is even worse than your spelling. A prediction of future falls, including mine, is not the same as saying, as you did, that there is "A housein (sic) market that is in freefall". Can you really not not understand the difference?

Precisely. If you believe that a 1% fall in a year is the definition of "freefall" then you may have a few surprises ahead.

Your graph is of the rate of change, not of actual prices.

I'm pretty sure you'll be the one that is surprised eg..the crash is running at a rate of 1% price fall rate per month YoY, which points to 12% per annum, which when corrected for CPI - makes an annual projected fall rate of 15%. The graph is actually an index, of fall rate. That is to say, prices are falling by 1% per month. So a house worth £178,000 today will be worth £176,220 next month and so on, and c£151,000 in twelve months time.

This is a crash by anyone's definitions. I suggest you post your views on the house prices board on MSE, if you want to be shouted down, and on housepricecrash.org if you really want to look a fool.

Lest this become a debate that should be on the house prices board, i'll re-post this:

"House price growth is NEVER steady, sharp rises, are always followed by sharp falls. The problem is the sharp falls go in 20 year cycles. People forget this, and find planning for it extremely difficult.

Purch in another post found a graph that demonstrates this over the last 60 years.

http://www.citywire.co.uk/BinaryLoad...sources__Image


from http://www.citywire.co.uk/personal/-...aspx?ID=301968

"Against almost 60 years of data and three major house price corrections, house price growth showed a sustainable floor at between 20% and 25% below the long-term trend - Recent price gains have been at between 20% and 25% above the long-term trend. Each previous boom of the last 50 years was followed by a 50% correction in price growth.
Once adjusted for the effect of the retail price index measure of inflation on spending power, house prices have already lost 5.5% since their £186,043 peak in October as measured by Nationwide, added the bureau.
The downside could be potentially more severe than previous house price booms which have occurred against a backdrop of high inflation, said bureau director Stephen Rose.
In the late 1980s overall inflation was running in double figures, offering some support to house prices, in comparison to recent RPI inflation which peaked last year at 4.8%."

ianmr65

baby_boomer wrote: »

Has Ian thought of emigrating to Iceland ?

The Telegraph's take on the Nordic Banks' support contrasts slightly with some views on this thread

".....Björn Gudmundsson, an economist at Landsbanki, said the Bank of England might need to join the Nordic front to stop the crisis spreading.

Icelanders have become big investors in Britain. They have borrowed heavily on the sterling market to launch bids for a clutch of high street names.

There are concerns that the Icelandic system as a whole could turn into an "offshore Northern Rock".

Lars Christensen, an economist at Danske Bank, said the swap deal would make it harder for speculators to short the krona but would not stop Iceland plunging into a deep recession.

"Economically, this changes nothing. Iceland is one of the most indebted countries in the world," he said. Paul Rawkins, of Fitch Ratings, said the country's external debt had reached $97bn, five times the size of the economy. " The markets had begun to doubt whether the government had the resources to rescue the banks," he said.

Iceland has evolved into a sovereign hedge fund...."

BB the torygraph has consitantly slated Iceland, for the last 3 months. egged on no doubt by the shorters and the spectlators: They have been wrong. On pretty much all counts.... The consensus, is that they have failed to obtain Icelandinc bank advertsising.

The FT is pretty much the only UK reliable source for a balanced view.
The ratings agencies are in the mire over monloline, and rating toxic sub prime debt as AAA, and because they have previously rated iceland AAA, again their views should be taken with a pinch of salt!!

1echidna

There is something particularly unpleasant about xenophobic elements in the British press trying to do down foreigners ('cod war' perhaps not forgotten in this case). The behaviour is hardly less suble than that of a football crowd.

ianmr65

lostinrates wrote: »

I agree wholeheartedly about the spelling grammar thing. Its very frustrating to many but, it really doen't impact on the points raised. I hate my own typos and mistakes ( I have worn out three keyboards in as many years with overzealous typing and sometimes my letters stick, rofl) the errors of others annoy me less.

Indeed, yes. The whole spelling and grammer question. The youth of today, in who's sphere, i find myself clinging by my fingenails, would find this debate laughable.

The point is : Is what is being written understandable, and is the point being made cleary?

"elo m8, ows it goin?, do u c um ere a lot. gr8 init? :-p, lol"

"Hello mate, how's it going, do you come here a lot? It's great isn't it? It's a good laugh."

"Welcome my friend, how are things with you? Do you come to this site often?. I find it's a great place to be, and very convivial and amusing. We certainly enjoy a good laugh."

I don't actually see much more information conveyed in statement three (180 characters) , than statement one (46 characters). In fact quite the reverse, if you understand ':-p' (smiley face, with it's tongue sticking out). And if you can get past the text speak.

Especially notwithstanding that statement three is a rather better translation of statement one, than statement two is.

BloodyMarvellous

I'd be happy to accept the first statement as being the most efficient, if it were not for the case that many (obviously not all) people who use such language are unable to write more formally. I have had people who worked for me (all graduates) who were unable to distinguish between "your" and "you're", presumably because they normally reduce both words to "ur".

Having said that, the main thing to remember is what Wittgenstein said (I paraphrase):

"Ask not what a word means, but how it is used"

genny

BloodyMarvellous wrote: »

I have had people who worked for me (all graduates) who were unable to distinguish between "your" and "you're", presumably because they normally reduce both words to "ur".

Surely they should be fired?! Basic grammar costs nothing, the two words mean very different things.

ianmr65 wrote: »

The point is : Is what is being written understandable, and is the point being made cleary?

That's pretty bad English too!


Now, sorry to be stupid, to the discussion earlier, but what's a DH? OH I assume is other half

chesky369

Well, if we're getting things off our proverbial chests - my current bugbear is 'should of' instead of 'should have' - presumably as a result of the shortening to should've.

But we must stop this because we could go on FOR HOURS AND HOURS.

lostinrates

genny wrote: »

Surely they should be fired?! Basic grammar costs nothing, the two words mean very different things.




That's pretty bad English too!


Now, sorry to be stupid, to the discussion earlier, but what's a DH? OH I assume is other half

Sorry genny, DH = Dear/Darling/Damned Husband:D

ianmr65

genny wrote: »

Surely they should be fired?! Basic grammar costs nothing, the two words mean very different things.

Erm yeah... after 20 years in business, which started with no mobiles. or email. and ended with very senior people sittin in meetins txting each other. and getting 1 character responces to emails from the cfo.. and pulling 6 figures, i think sacking people for an inability to write gramatically correct english is the way to go!!:rolleyes:

genny wrote: »

That's pretty bad English too!

Perhaps but do u understand it?. If yes - job done - don't cha think?

ianmr65

Does anyone feel that this thread has been hijacked by the english usage brigade... i'd much rather be discussing the nordic bank situation... :j :j i'm as guilty as anyone, i suppose. then again, i'm sick to the back teeth of people quoteing rubbish out of the telegraph!!!