Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Gormless Brown

New Members
  • Content Count

    26
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Gormless Brown

  • Rank
    HPC Newbie

Profile Information

  • Location
    Rossendale, Lancs
  1. Sorry! The links to the 1st two graphs failed to work. I'll try again and see if it works this time... To illustrate my point, here is a scatterplot of the two earnings datasets, including the 'disgusting' Halifax data: For those not familar with scatterplots, they're a good way of assessing if things are correlated (related). The key number on the graph is the R-squared value of 0.999. This can be any value between -1 and +1. When it is +1, they are perfectly correlated/related and when it is 0 there is no relationship. 0.999 says to my simple mind that the 2 sets of data are measur
  2. Bloo Loo: I'd have expected a more considered response than that from you. Can you explain the correlation in the earnings scatterplot? When I started looking into this 5-6 years ago I thought there were all sorts of conspiracy theories to conceal the truth. I've worked my way through that stage now and moved on. The stats I distrust are the inflation and GDP numbers (GOM made this point on another thread). They're the real problem.
  3. Look at the graph closer rather than plucking numbers out of thin air: Dec 08: P/E= 4.44 & Price = £159k Fall from Peak = 20% nominal and 24% real (-20% HPI, -4% due to inflation) Jan 09 est: P/E= 4.35 & Price = £156k Fall from Peak = 22% nominal and 26% real (-22% HPI, -4% due to inflation)
  4. Not quite sure what point you were trying to make as there was so much in that post. I'll assume that it is the 'abhorrent' average earnings data used by Halifax. Sigh... Does it really matter? To illustrate my point, here is a scatterplot of the two earnings datasets, including the 'disgusting' Halifax data: For those not familar with scatterplots, they're a good way of assessing if things are correlated (related). The key number on the graph is the R-squared value of 0.999. This can be any value between -1 and +1. When it is +1, they are perfectly correlated/related and when it i
  5. Also bear in mind the extra £5-6k you'll be p1ssing up the wall on higher rate stamp duty once you get past £250k.
  6. As much as I dislike the idea of defending Hamish McTavish, he was referring to valid alternative data from the Halifax. The complete dataset can be found by following: Halifax Price Earnings Data It is under the furthest right tab called "Price-Earnings". It did indeed peak at 5.84 in July 07 and is currently estimated as being 4.44 (a real adjustment of 24%). Here's a graphical version of it, along with my own 3-year estimate going forward. I think it is actually complementary to EDM's version - so I don't really get why everyone is getting so angry about it! For those that say we h
  7. The total UK Govt budget (for everything - NHS, DHSS, Education, etc) is around £600,000,000,000; i.e. £0.6 English Billion or £600 US billion. So there's no chance of finding the odd English Billion under the settee to buy up the surplus UK housing stock. A couple of US billion (£1,000,000,000) at most is all they will muster and probably too late by the time they manage to extract it from their ass! As others have pointed out, this won't change a thing. The £200m they originally set aside for bailing out the market doesn't go far - a couple of thousand houses in a market that normally tu
  8. STM'd in July 2004 and voted for 2009 as my buy-in year. My strategy is a cross between A.steve and Kagiso. Namely: Keep a close eye on the market at all times to identify any 'bargains' that come along. Probably a vacant house requiring upgrading as they are more likely to be realistic when it comes to offers. As Kagiso says, the market fall is unlikely to be linear. It will be driven heavily by sentiment. When people feel the situation is end-of-the-world, then falls are likely to be sharpest. I would be hoping to get 15+% off the (lowered) asking price at this point. I suspect this
  9. What is really frustrating about this government is the way they've sought to make national statistics impenetrable to even numerate people. Everything is muddied to the extent that it is practically impossible to trace how the key numbers (inflation, borrowing) were arrived at. Govt borrowing is the worst for me. They now push the performance to current budget as the key metric. So when it misses by £5bn it doesn't sound too bad. However, this budget figure is revised every 6 months (always revising the size of the deficit up) and you have to search long and hard through the small print
  10. Excluding central London almost all YP directories should be <10% down on last year as a general rule. London has a lot of competition.
  11. -5%: That's basically what the trend has been for the last year.
  12. I doubt it is a particularly good example of what's going on at the coalface. It's likely to be much more to do with BT not pushing the directory product anymore. They started it up from scratch a few years ago, pushed it a bit, but have now backed off and are developing services in other areas. The main competition of Yell is not suffering as dramatically as this. 100% guaranteed. SS: I bought Yell as well on Friday. It's likely to suffer a bit more going forward as the market is getting tougher from all sides. But it is fundamentally a good business despite the probable mistake of
  13. It was rather a stale debate. I think the former MPC member was DeAnne Julius, who was an uber-dove when she was on the committee. She spouted the usual lower rates and we'll be OK party line. Stelzer came out with the American neo-con nonsense, with a mild rebuke of Brown's spending. Vince Cable, sat on the other side of the table, made some good points but was not given much time and was a bit soft. It really needed a Peter Schiff character to dole out a no-nonsense appraisal of the situation. The spark just wasn't there... You could see Jeremy was bored of it all by the end!!
  14. Just watch for it, as charges/spreads can be hidden away in all sorts of places. There's no free lunch... Nobody can answer this for you. Traditional balanced portfolios for normal times suggest 5% (and hope it fails). But it is questionable whether we are in normal times. Hence why many on here would advocate 'non-traditional balanced' investment methods. Also, if you don't make any effort to review your portfolio periodically over 10 years then you are at the mercy of the market. Things change. Gold may be good for the next 1/2/3/5/10 years, but the longer you look ahead, the less
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.