This is the data thread, to back up the earlier thread:
"Five Years to the Low"



Here's the explanation of the Idealised Cycles:

Start at the peaks: 1974, 1989, 2004

Each cycle, had about ten years leading up to the peak,
with a similar increase from 30% of peak levels, to the 100% Peak level.
The three different lines in those ten year periods look similar don't they?

But after the peaks of '74, '89, and '04, the movements were different.
In 1974-79, growth slowed, but prices kept rising, because of the sheer
momentum of rising inflation. But real property prices fell. Nominal prices
showed a later peak in 1979-80, but that "phony" ended too when a severe
recession arrived after the second oil price shock in 1979-80.

After the second peak of 1989, during the 1989-94 period, there was a fall, of about 30% (more in real terms).

What lies ahead? My best guess: a repeat of 1989-94 and if that happens,
our current cycle (the heavy blue line) would follow the gray line.

You can make money in these cycles, by Purchasing Property at the Cyclical lows,
and then selling ten years later after a triple, and putting your money elsewhere.
If you had invested in shares in October 1974, you would have done far better
than in property. From this 2004 cycle peak, I think you will do better in Gold.

- -

All three cycles, showed a rise of 200%-plus during the 9-11 year Upward phase. Where they varied, was on how the market fared after the peak.

cycle years : Start .... Peak in £ /Time... % rise ... Lowin£ /Time ... % fall
1966-1978 £ 4,300E £ 14,447 /--'73 : 236% ... Kept rising
1978-1994 £28,444. £105,234/Dc87 : 270% : £ 77,203/Dc94 : -26.6%
1994-2010 £77,203. £244,411/Jun04 : 217% : ? ? ?

ABOUT CYCLES
For those who don't understand cycles,

Think of it as an ingrained tendency, like breathing.
You cannot only breathe in, you must breathe out too.
So a market cannot only rise, it must correct the excesses of the rise (for example, at the top you have inadequate yields. And for the market to have the impetus to rise on cash flow fundamentals, yields must be boosted by price falls), in order to set the stage for the next cyclical upcycle.

Most people have a normal rhythm to their breath. Left allow, without tempering, the cycle may go along very regularly: 10 years up, 5 years down. But if it gets distorted through tampering, the cycle may get lengthened or shorted somewhat. However there may be a tendency for it to revert to the historical pattern. So it is good to know what that pattern looks like.

Many intelligent observers (like the Economist magazine) can identify that a long upcycle in property has turned into a bubble, and some period of coorection is now needed. To me, this is just repeating the historical pattern.

There are loads of articles, and books you can read on cycles, which you can find through searching the web.

Conventional wisdom about property is very dangerous, because you will simply wind up following the herd, which tends to buy at the top, and sellout at the bottom. Cycles are a tool to help you avoid the pitfalls of following the crowd


"ROAD MAP" to Future Property Prices?
COMPARING
The Previous Cycle... and The Current Cycle
Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak ... Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak

1983.12 £41,168 39.12 ... 1998.12 £110,787 45.33
1984.12 £46,986 44.65 ... 1999.12 £142,233 58.19
1985.12 £55,568 52.80 ... 2000.12 £153,454 62.78
1986.12 £69,438 65.98 ... 2001.12 £179,546 73.46
1987.12 £85,356 81.11 ... 2002.12 £213,957 87.53
1988.03 £90,374 85.88 ... 2003.06 £212,824 87.08
1988.06 £96,334 91.54 ... 2003.12 £232,679 95.20
1988.09 102,422 97.33 ... 2004.03 £239,439 97.97
'88.12 105,234 100% P '04.06 £244,411 100% -Peak-
1989.03 104,963 99.74 ... 2004.09 £242,797 99.34
1989.06 102,476 97.38 ... 2004.12 £241,778 98.92
1989.09 £99,133 94.20 ... 2005.03 £241,918 98.98
1989.12 £96,193 91.41 ... 2005.06 £238,950 97.77 Qtrly:-£2968 -1.1%
1990.03 £96,474 91.68 ... 2005.09
1990.06 £94,125 89.44 ... 2005.12
1990.09 £91,857 87.29
1990.12 £93,540 88.89 ...
1991.03 £91,091 86.56
1991.06 £90,188 85.70 ... 2006.12
1991.09 £88,085 83.70
1991.12 £86,672 82.36 ...
1992.03 £83,349 79.20
1992.06 £80,497 76.49 ... 2007.12
1992.09 £79,224 75.28
1992.12 £76,605 72.79 ...
1993.03 £75,832 72.06
1993.06 £76,480 72.68 ... 2008.12
1993.09 £76,677 72.86
1993.12 £76,439 72.64 ...
1994.03 £77,851 73.98
1994.06 £77,703 73.84 ... 2009.12
1994.09 £78,015 74.13
1994.12 £78,018 74.13 ...
1995.03 £78,194 74.30
1995.06 £77,742 73.88 ... 2010.12
1995.09 £76,946 73.12
1995.12 £77,203 73.36 ...

Prices dropped 27-28% over three years from the peak
and stayed there another 2-3 years.




WHY should we expect anything different this time?
Can we debate that here?

= = =

LINKS:
News Archive, This cycle: Property-Go
News Archive, Old cycles: Headlines in TXT file
Thread about archives...: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...&st=0&p=132862&

But before delivering the data, it is useful to note that all London prices have not been on an upward spiral.
City & Docklands has grown only 12% since 1999:

"Figure 3 certainly dispels any lingering myth that the central London housing
market has risen continually over the past five years. Since December 1999
there have been three clear and incontrovertible downward corrections,
helping to keep overall growth over the five years to a modest 12% in the
City and Docklands - an annual average compound rate of just over 2.2%
per annum, and hence keeping pace with inflation. Over those five years the
London market did not experience the same levels of increase as other
parts of the UK, but 12% growth looks very good against the FTSE 100
stock market index which lost 25% over the same period."

Source: HSV Review of 2004

THE DATA:

Month . Halif-UK GrL/UK Gr.Lond. LDckHSC Ratio Dchg
Dec.98. £ 73,286 R-1.51 £110,787 £150.0K 1.354
Dec.99. £ 81,595 R-1.74 £142,233 £189.0K 1.329 +26%
Jun.00. £ 84,293 R-1.72 £144,852 £210.0K 1.450 +11%
Dec.00. £ 86,085 R-1.78 £153,454 £210.0K 1.369 + 0%
Jun.01. £ 90,590 R-1.86 £168,712 £241.5K 1.431 +15%
Dec.01. £ 96,337 R-1.86 £179,546 £230.0K 1.281 - 5%
Jun.02. £106,195 R-1.85 £196,052 £248.5K 1.268 + 8%
Dec.02. £117,206 R-1.83 £213,957 £260.0K 1.215 + 5%
q1Mar03 £124,753 R-1.76 £219,501
Jun.03. £129,696 R-1.64 £212,824 £234.0K 1.100 -10%
Dec.03. £140,643 R-1.65 £232,679 £245.0K 1.053 + 5%
q1Mar04 £147,785 R-1.62 £239,439 .
q2Jun04 £159,685 R-1.53 £244,411 £265.0K 1.084
q3Sep04 £162,669 R-1.49 £242,797 .
q4Dec04 £162,493 R-1.49 £241,778 £246.0K 1.017
q1Mar04 £163,714 R-1.48 £241,918
. Apr04 £163,458
. May04 £162,411 R?1.48 £240,400est
q2Jun04 £161,5.e R?1.47 £237,400est

Sources:
C&D:Hurford Salvi Carr, Halifax, Nationwide, LandRegistry

I expect something a little different this time.

We have more media coverage.

We have the internet to spread information the media does now want to publish.

We have had the steepest most prolonged rise in history.

I think it will fall faster and further than last time.

SOME are calling it HPC-Day,
as the media reacts to the 0.8% drop in May:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=11028

EXAMPLE:
The study comes as the National Association of Estate Agents reported the proportion of buyers who were first-timers fell from 23.6% in April to 10.9% in May.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/mortgages/hou...5&in_page_id=57

RELATIVE 1989/90:

"In London, the average property is now worth eight times the average workers' salary, the same as it was before the last property crash in 1989/90.

Saxon Brettell, director of Cambridge Econometrics, said: 'Eight was the figure that it reached in 1988/89 for London and London fell rapidly from eight times income to four times income. "

@: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/busines...is%20is%20Money

(MOST RELEVANT TO NOW??):

The Times
SAT 06 JAN 1990
House prices in 2% year-end fall
House prices fell by 2 per cent in the last three months of 1989, the Nationwide Anglia Building Society reported yesterday in its annual review of the property market. The quarterly fall was the biggest recorded by the society, while the annual incr...

The Times
SAT 20 JAN 1990
House prices in London drop by 10%
House prices in London dropped by an average 10 per cent last year, bringing the average price down to Pounds 86,800, the lowest since the beginning of 1988, the London Research Centre reports in its quarterly bulletin. The largest annual fall was in...

for the archive here...

(A similar thread has had a good run on S-Pig,
and I thought you might like to see some of the arguments)

I will not post the comments of others here (since that has put me in trouble over there before. So I will just publish my response. You can follow the link, if you want to see what I was responding to.

My Comment:

"I AM GLAD several of you, including some Bulls, took this posting seriously. Personally, I would like to see more cyclical comparisons using historical data on these threads. I use them profitably in my main trading business, and I am sure others would benefit too.

1/
Pal: my data is from Halifax.
The "Road Map" is a best fit of recent data with the 1988/89 peak. I hadn't seen the ODPM data before, so it is hard to comment much. It seems to show a drop from £94.7K-1990 to £72..1-1992, which is only 24% in two years. My own experience as an owner in Kensington was that the market fell more like 30%, so 24% seems a bit light.

2/
PG: Yes, high rates were a feature of that cycle, and they may not reach those levels this time- but you never know. Rising oil, commodity, and tax inflation may throw a few surprises. Personally, I think that the very heavy involvement of new BTL investors using heavy leverage is a new and important negative factor in the current cycle. I believe that banks will be much less tolerant of negative equity for investors than they were for owner/occupiers and so they may force sales. They effect is that when the market hits "breaking point" ir may fall faster than last time.

3/
Classix: Great point. High rates were a feature of the peak AND the downturn. The market mainly fell on its own weight.

4/
Pal: You best check the figures at source (Halifax) rather than rubbishing my work

5/
PG: How long to wait? Personally, I plan to wait for a 30% or until 2009, whichever comes first. And when it does come I will re-evaluate. As I said before, I sold "too early" knowingly, for two reasons: First, I wanted to risk being early, because a lower ground flat like mine was can be hard to sell and I knew I would have problems after the peak. Secondly, I was keen to invest in the mining sector, where my capital has multiplied much faster than if I had left it in London Property."

UNQUOTE:

Link: http://www.singingpig.co.uk/discussion/for...=41&m=61298&p=1

We are still at the stage where the Press is happy to publish Bullish articles
without much research or chaecking:
http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...&st=0&p=134540&

ARTICLE GETTING MORE BEARISH
(but they just lag reality)- Excerpt:

House prices 'to fall in next four years'
By David Prosser, Personal Finance Editor : 25 June 2005

House prices in some parts of the country will fall by up to 7 per cent by the end of 2009, new research to be published next week will warn. An independent report prepared for Your Mortgage magazine, due to be revealed on Wednesday, will predict price falls in large areas of the country, of between 1 and 7 per cent, between this year and December 2009.

The report will say that the South-west of England is likely to be hit hardest by house price falls. It will also predict falls in much of central England, including Buckinghamshire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire, as well as Shropshire and Gloucestershire.

Researchers expect London, the North-west and the North-east to buck the trend and record house price increases. Homeowners in inner London and York are set to be the biggest winners.

...MORE: http://money.independent.co.uk/property/ho...sp?story=649380

Let's compare the latest from Halifax with my Road Map:

Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak ... Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak

1988.06 £96,334 91.54 ... 2003.12 £232,679 95.20
1988.09 102,422 97.33 ... 2004.03 £239,439 97.97
'88.12 105,234 100% P '04.06 £244,411 100% -Peak-
1989.03 104,963 99.74 ... 2004.09 £242,797 99.34
1989.06 102,476 97.38 ... 2004.12 £241,778 98.92
1989.09 £99,133 94.20 ... 2005.03 £241,918 98.98
1989.12 £96,193 91.41 ... 2005.06 ??
..................................... ... 2005.06 £239,300 97.90 (based on 1.1% fall)

And the JUNE figure is...?
greater london: -1.1%

"Regionally, the biggest house price rises in the second quarter of 2005 were in Wales (4.2%) and Northern Ireland (3.9%). As previously forecast, there were house price falls in some English regions: for example, East Anglia (-1.6%), the South East (-1.2%) and Greater London (-1.1%). These modest falls should, however, be viewed in the context of the substantial house price rises in all these regions over the past 10 years. Prices have risen by 207% in London, 180% in the South East and 174% in East Anglia since 1995 Quarter 2."

so this cycle down may be ,or is so far cushioned by decent jobs etc.................?
watching UK for hints on USA market
BTW- hope Brittian re-arms its citizens

TRANSACTION DATA... worth saving

There will be 450,000 fewer houses and flats sold across the UK in 2005 than last year, the Council of Mortgage Lenders predicts. There were almost 1.8m property transactions in 2004, but the CML says this will drop to 1.35m this year and dip to 1.3m in 2006 and 2007. It says property prices will stay static next year and rise by just 2% in 2007.

@: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...1729711,00.html

"ROAD MAP" to Future Property Prices?
COMPARING
The Previous Cycle... and The Current Cycle
Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak ... Yr./Mon Gr.Lond %Peak

1983.12 £41,168 39.12 ... 1998.12 £110,787 45.33
1984.12 £46,986 44.65 ... 1999.12 £142,233 58.19
1985.12 £55,568 52.80 ... 2000.12 £153,454 62.78
1986.12 £69,438 65.98 ... 2001.12 £179,546 73.46
1987.12 £85,356 81.11 ... 2002.12 £213,957 87.53
1988.03 £90,374 85.88 ... 2003.06 £212,824 87.08
1988.06 £96,334 91.54 ... 2003.12 £232,679 95.20
1988.09 102,422 97.33 ... 2004.03 £239,439 97.97
'88.12 105,234 100% P '04.06 £244,411 100% -Peak-
1989.03 104,963 99.74 ... 2004.09 £242,797 99.34
1989.06 102,476 97.38 ... 2004.12 £241,778 98.92
1989.09 £99,133 94.20 ... 2005.03 £241,918 98.98
1989.12 £96,193 91.41 ... 2005.06 £238,950 97.77 Qtrly:-£2968 -1.1%
1990.03 £96,474 91.68 ... 2005.09 £247,926 101.4 Qtrly:+£8976 +3.8%
1990.06 £94,125 89.44 ... 2005.12
1990.09 £91,857 87.29
1990.12 £93,540 88.89 ...
1991.03 £91,091 86.56
1991.06 £90,188 85.70 ... 2006.12
1991.09 £88,085 83.70
1991.12 £86,672 82.36 ...
1992.03 £83,349 79.20
1992.06 £80,497 76.49 ... 2007.12
1992.09 £79,224 75.28
1992.12 £76,605 72.79 ...
1993.03 £75,832 72.06
1993.06 £76,480 72.68 ... 2008.12
1993.09 £76,677 72.86
1993.12 £76,439 72.64 ...
1994.03 £77,851 73.98
1994.06 £77,703 73.84 ... 2009.12
1994.09 £78,015 74.13
1994.12 £78,018 74.13 ...
1995.03 £78,194 74.30
1995.06 £77,742 73.88 ... 2010.12
1995.09 £76,946 73.12
1995.12 £77,203 73.36 ...

Prices dropped 27-28% over three years from the peak
and stayed there another 2-3 years.

= = =<b>
Standardised Average House Price in the Greater London (seasonally adjusted) £247,926
</b>
The Olympic factor has already helped house prices to appreciate in the East End. In Hackney, house prices have risen by 18% over the past year, the strongest growth in the Capital.
The average price of a house in Greater London is currently £247,926, compared to the UK average of £166,074.
House prices in Greater London rose by 3.8% in 2005 Quarter 3. This was the first quarterly rise since the second quarter of 2004.
The annual rate of house price inflation in Greater London is now 2.1%, while the UK average is 3.0%. Over the past ten years house prices in Greater London have risen by 222%.
Tower Hamlets (14%) and Lambeth (11%) have been the other strong performers in London over the past year.

John Coupe, Regional Manager, Halifax Estate Agency, comments:

"There has been a modest improvement in the housing market in the Capital. House prices rose in London last quarter, the first increase in more than a year. The recent interest rate cut by the Bank of England has added some confidence to the market, while continued growth in employment has also been a positive.

East London has seen the firmest house price growth in the Capital over the past year. Its relative affordability, along with the successful Olympic bid have led to added buyer interest, particularly in and around Hackney and Tower Hamlets."
- - -
Halifax Source: <a href='http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/quarterlyregionalcomments.asp' target='window'>http://www.hbosplc.com/economy/quarterlyregionalcomments.asp</a>

= =

IS THE HALIFAX PRICE really representative of Greater London?

USEFUL STATS show: Flats should Fall

Supply is rising
Now for supply. In 1990-1, 129,000 houses/flats were started and 160,000 finished - the tail-end of the last boom. In 1995-6, 133,000 were started and 155,000 completed. In 1995-6, 149,000 were started and only 141,000 completed. In 2004-5, 175,000 were started and 155,000 completed.

In any other market, nobody would spend more than ten minutes reaching the obvious conclusion: rising supply has already started to affect prices and will clearly go on doing so given that another rise in completions is due this year. The only reason we even think it's possible house prices can keep on rising is that we want to believe it. All the facts suggest otherwise. And remember that all this takes no account of the supply-side measures Mr. Prescott has been beavering away at, including 'affordable housing', land release and planning system change, all designed to increase the number of dwellings being built. The least anyone expects out of this is an additional 10,000 units a year by 2007.

Flats could get flattened
Dwellings- here's the rub. In 1991-2, 92% of all completions were houses and only 8% were flats; in 2004-5, flats represented 21% of completions. They will represent an even bigger percentage of 2006 completions. Yet surveys consistently show that families would much rather live in houses than flats.

Flats account for the great majority of buy-to-let investments. Buying new flats off-plan and selling at completion for a tidy profit has been a great game over the past few years, but it is over. Gordon Brown put the final nail in the coffin in his Pre-Budget Report when he announced that pension funds would not be allowed to buy residential property from next spring

...MORE: http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...showtopic=21437

STATS OF OWNERSHIP of Foreign Properties...

According to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 254,000 Britons now own homes abroad and 73,000 of those are let out. This isn’t necessarily a bad idea — property yields in many parts of the world are still much higher than at home — but I do wonder if people who are buying in more out of the way places are really taking account of the risks

@: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2097-2069621,00.html

DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ...

suncanaria - 12 Mar'06 - 13:28 - 557

THE TRUTH IS Britain hasn't got a housing shortage, there are some 1,000 fewer households than ten years ago.

The shortage has been caused by multiple ownerships, and the investment by pension worried ww2 babies who are hoping to maximise their returns in just the 5 out of the 45 years that had do it. They lost nearly all the money they invested in last 40 years, they will do it again.

The Sh*t will hit the fan in the next 10 years.

- -
JonC - 12 Mar'06 - 13:31 - 558
Have you got any stats or links to support that one as I find it an interesting claim.

- -
suncanaria - 12 Mar'06 - 13:33 - 559
They was a report some 6 months ago on the matter, I have no link.
It was followed on the old housing thread.

- -
JonC - 12 Mar'06 - 13:36 - 560
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4733330.stm

The number of households in the UK increased by 30% - from 18.6 to 24.2 million - between 1971 and 2005.

- -
suncanaria - 12 Mar'06 - 13:42 - 561 of 568

That report is over a longer period, I was talking about the last 10 years.

JonC - 12 Mar'06 - 14:31 - 562 of 568 (premium)
LOL.

Try this one then:

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/pub/100/Table401Exc...b_id1156100.xls

D S Patterson - 12 Mar'06 - 14:45 - 563 of 568

I think there's an huge housing shortage, there is obviously more UK residents than previous years - call these households/ retired people / singletons it's people in houses.

Take somewhere like the towns on the edge of the New Forest and surrounding areas, there's more employment than ever before but absolutely no major housing developments for years. Salisbury for instance - the last maor development must have been over 6 - 7 years ago, previously every 2 - 3 years several hundred possibly more new houses would have been created. A few flats + the odd new house going up here and does literally nothing to aleviate any problems.

There's only a few places for sale below 160k and not a huge amount of rental property avaible either - that is a housing shortage

The new industries and employment of the day have remarkably propered. Nearly a million new public sector jobs + the re invention of childcare etc it's all employment and where there's jobs there will be people.


belize1971 - 12 Mar'06 - 15:58 - 564
The UK population is projected to rise by 7.2 million from 2004 to 2031 ?6.0 million (83%) of this rise is due to immigration.
That equivalent to a two cities the size of Cambridge every year.
59,000 new homes will be required in England each year for the next 17 years for immigrants alone.
England is one of the most densely populated countries in the world. It has nearly twice the population density of Germany, 4 times that of France and 12 times that of the USA.

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/
Migrationwatch UK is an independent think tank which has no links to any political party or organisation. It is chaired by Sir Andrew Green, a former Ambassador to Saudi Arabia. David Coleman, Professor of Demography at Oxford University, is an Honorary Consultant. We have a distinguished Advisory Council from diverse ethnic and professional backgrounds.
http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/frameset.a...ge=whoweare.asp

- - -
Source: Advfn thread: http://www.advfn.com/cmn/fbb/thread.php3?id=8783805

"Peak in 2004" ?? WRONG WRONG WRONG and still WRONG...

(Nice graphs though -shame that "past performance is not necessarily a prediction of future performance" -now where have I heard that? )


Nick.