House prices fall 1.9% YoY in May (hometrack report)

mitchaa

sigur wrote: »

That is some marvellous quoting as a quick look on the linked site shows a 6.2% drop in Aberdeen in the last quarter

Thanks, but it also shows +13/18% YOY.

Far from being negative YOY like nationwide and halifax tells us that the UK is:rolleyes:

I did actually state that it had dropped from around 25% YOY btw, so yes i am aware that it has dropped.

Still a long way off -ve YOY though;)

WTF?_2

beingjdc wrote: »

What a curious thing to think. Of course if everyone has more money but there is no extra stuff, the price of stuff will go up, because people will be prepared to outbid each other for it up to a higher price.

The effect of salary increases on price inflation is highly overrated IMO.

The real inflationary factor is excess money supply. ie. Governments pursuing lax monetary policies (since at least 2001) ... or for that matter 'injecting liquidity' into the market, as recently. This is highly inflationary. So what if the 'loans' have to be repaid later - that is some way down the line. In the meantime, hundreds of billions of extra Dollars/ Pounds/ Euro have found their way into the system and are swilling around looking for an investment home.


Against that, giving the plebs a few extra quid in their pay packets isn't going to blow the doors off of inflation control. For obvious reasons, the government and those running big business want you to believe this though.

However, it does take off the handbrake on rising prices in an environment that is already inflationary as, keeping the peons' salaries down does at least provide some sort of hard cap on prices and encourages suppliers to try to control costs. Once the populace are provided with some extra income to ease the pressures on their purses the suppliers feel that there is more scope to increase the prices they charge.

This isn't the same as causing inflation though - the inflation is already in the system and all wage rises do is make the symptom of consumer price rises more likely to happen.

Petrol and diesel is getting more expensive because there's excess liquidity in the hands of investors chasing a good return on their cash and oil is a chosen asset class to invest into. The classic asset class bubble. Before this, it was property and lending to buy property.

meanmachine_2

mr.broderick wrote: »

And there it is, the post i have been waiting for meanie, the post that admits you were wrong back then ...

How do you mean?

I thought the market was heading for a crash, correction, "readjustment", whatever, and er, it is.

The point I was making is that I remember bigging up certain surveys when they told me what I wanted to hear and going deaf to those that didn't.

If you honestly think I was "wrong back in 2006 about Britain heading for a property slump", you're clearly doolally bonkers.

mr.broderick

meanmachine wrote: »

How do you mean?

I thought the market was heading for a crash, correction, "readjustment", whatever, and er, it is.

The point I was making is that I remember bigging up certain surveys when they told me what I wanted to hear and going deaf to those that didn't.

If you honestly think I was "wrong back in 2006 about Britain heading for a property slump", you're clearly doolally bonkers.

Yes but we waited rather a long time to reach that point meanie and you could have made gains during that period if that is what floats your boat, doolaly bonkers maybe..me getting quoted by times journalists..definite..

sigur

mitchaa wrote: »

I did actually state that it had dropped from around 25% YOY btw, so yes i am aware that it has dropped.

Thats fine as I thought you were intentionally misquoting that link in order to get some point across.

artherfouxache

mitchaa wrote: »

Thanks, but it also shows +13/18% YOY.

Far from being negative YOY like nationwide and halifax tells us that the UK is:rolleyes:

I did actually state that it had dropped from around 25% YOY btw, so yes i am aware that it has dropped.

Still a long way off -ve YOY though;)

From what I can gather, you still haven't fully grasped the difference between MoM vs. YoY figures.
There are areas such as yours that buck the trend. But in general terms it is VERY foolish to ignore MoM figures.

Important note to all ........if you want to ignore any figures, chose YoY, they are well worth ignoring.....

Be very suspicious of those quoting YoY.

AT this time trust only MoM. (Month on Month)

JonnyBravo

artherfouxache wrote: »

From what I can gather, you still haven't fully grasped the difference between MoM vs. YoY figures.
There are areas such as yours that buck the trend. But in general terms it is VERY foolish to ignore MoM figures.

Important note to all ........if you want to ignore any figures, chose YoY, they are well worth ignoring.....

Be very suspicious of those quoting YoY.

AT this time trust only MoM. (Month on Month)

At this time? Either you want to use it consistently or you don't. :rolleyes:

Or are you simply guilty of what you appear to be accusing others of. ie you pick and choose your data to suit your argument.

artherfouxache

JonnyBravo wrote: »

At this time? Either you want to use it consistently or you don't. :rolleyes:

Or are you simply guilty of what you appear to be accusing others of. ie you pick and choose your data to suit your argument.

Oh it's not my argument. YoY figures can show +ive values even when the past few months MoM show -ives. Those who rely on YoY are seriously out of date. Only those who have a vested interest use out of date info in order to fool others.

As I said earlier using YoY is like getting a tip for the winner of the Grand National after the race has finished..... not alot of use.

I agree though to use YoY in a steady market...... but a steady market this ain't .


.

JonnyBravo

artherfouxache wrote: »

Oh it's not my argument. YoY figures can show +ive values even when the past few months MoM show -ives. Those who rely on YoY are seriously out of date. Only those who have a vested interest use out of date info in order to fool others.

As I said earlier using YoY is like getting a tip for the winner of the Grand National after the race has finished..... not alot of use.

I agree though to use YoY in a steady market...... but a steady market this ain't .


.

What meaningless claptrap. :rotfl:

Of course the YoY data incorporates all the data from the last year. That doesn't mean it's out of date. It's used to provide a larger and more statistically sound average. It flattens peaks and troughs if you like it put more simply.

Your MoM average is also "out of date". Just to a smaller degree. The race for that month has still finished to use your rather weak analogy.

Using your logic you should be moaning we dont have a "mom" average ie minute on minute. Why don't we all want that? Oh yeah cos that introduces even more fluctuations due to the smaller sample size. :rolleyes:

Generali

JonnyBravo wrote: »

What meaningless claptrap. :rotfl:

Of course the YoY data incorporates all the data from the last year. That doesn't mean it's out of date. It's used to provide a larger and more statistically sound average. It flattens peaks and troughs if you like it put more simply.

Your MoM average is also "out of date". Just to a smaller degree. The race for that month has still finished to use your rather weak analogy.

Using your logic you should be moaning we dont have a "mom" average ie minute on minute. Why don't we all want that? Oh yeah cos that introduces even more fluctuations due to the smaller sample size. :rolleyes:

The HBOS method of comparing rolling averages works well for me as it removes the noise of movable things such as Easter for the most part.

No statistic is perfect. Some are more useful than others.