Mortgage Approvals/gdp Q2 Revision

[Joey Buttafueco Jr]

http://www.forexyard.com/en/reuters_inner....ITAIN-MORTGAGES

Where are they getting -0.2% from?

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKTRE58S17820090929

[FreeTrader]

Approvals dipped slightly in August due to an upward revision in July's number (raised from 50,123 to 52,404).

Meanwhile the average mortgage approval loan value increased to £138,177. This is now only 6.7% below the peak of £148,105 in June 2007.

[spline]

Quite a few of the figures for this year revised up (both NSA and SA).

[Realistbear]

"On the year, GDP shrank 5.5 percent, unrevised from last month's estimate and the biggest annual decline since records began."

By year's end we could be down more than 7%. Double dip looks 100% certain and guaranteed.

BTW my sig might need upward revision as I predicted twice thew IMFs estimate back in January of this year.

Edited September 29, 2009 by Realistbear

[Mr Prudence]

"On the year, GDP shrank 5.5 percent, unrevised from last month's estimate and the biggest annual decline since records began."

By year's end we could be down more than 7%. Double dip looks 100% certain and guaranteed.

BTW my sig might need upward revision as I predicted twice thew IMFs estimate back in January of this year.

From Wikipedia.

The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X − M).

So if we are borrowing 200 billion which is about 14% of GDP and this 14% is included as government spending doesn't that make a nonsense of saying we are down by 7%. A more realistic figure would be approaching 20% when you have allowed for borrowing last year.

An analogy would be if I earned £40k and borrowed £10k one year and earned £16.5 and borrowed £30k the next year. I would certainly not say that income has declined by only 7%.

In fact the whole growth of the economy in the past 12 years has been a fraud. We have simply taken on more debt as a country and as individuals and classed it as growth.

It was not growth in wealth creation it was debt fuelled consumption.

[Bloo Loo]

From Wikipedia.

The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports �' imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X �' M).

So if we are borrowing 200 billion which is about 14% of GDP and this 14% is included as government spending doesn't that make a nonsense of saying we are down by 7%. A more realistic figure would be approaching 20% when you have allowed for borrowing last year.

An analogy would be if I earned £40k and borrowed £10k one year and earned £16.5 and borrowed £30k the next year. I would certainly not say that income has declined by only 7%.

In fact the whole growth of the economy in the past 12 years has been a fraud. We have simply taken on more debt as a country and as individuals and classed it as growth.

It was not growth in wealth creation it was debt fuelled consumption.

yes it does. GDP is a nonsense in that governments can leave a recession by spending more......

[Blue Peter]

yes it does. GDP is a nonsense in that governments can leave a recession by spending more......

Has anyone got the equivalent UK figures to the following (US figures):

How's the economy doing? There is a huge raft of statistical data to choose from, but how about this one: U.S. Treasury receipts from all sources. It stands to reason that they are a pretty good indicator of overall economic activity since they include income and corporate taxes, customs and excise duties, etc.

The chart below shows a 12-month running total (blue line) and the percent change from the year before (red line); they are down 15% for the period ended in August 2009. That's not to say that nominal GDP is down 15% - don't forget the increase in government spending (which piles on even more debt, of course) and the artificial boost to numbers from the shrinking trade deficit. But what this chart is ultimately saying is that, when it comes to the private side of the economy, then yes, it is more or less down 15% from a year ago.

Sudden debt

Peter.

[Bloo Loo]

Has anyone got the equivalent UK figures to the following (US figures):

Sudden debt

Peter.

quick google reveals this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1...rows-grows.html

[Blue Peter]

quick google reveals this http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1...rows-grows.html

Cheers. So, the equivalent UK figure would be:

That was partly thanks to an 11 per cent collapse in state revenues.

which seems to be in the same ballpark,

Peter.

[Mr Prudence]

Cheers. So, the equivalent UK figure would be:

which seems to be in the same ballpark,

Peter.

That was partly thanks to an 11 per cent collapse in state revenues. Corporation tax receipts alone tumbled to the lowest level in five years in August.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1...l#ixzz0SUiefZS3

Corporation Tax is paid nine months in arrears, so the revenue collected in August 2009 would have been CT on profits made in the year December 2007 to November 08.

In other words only the last two months of that year would be affected by the fall out from Lehman and the large contractions to GDP that followed.

So you would expect CT receipts to fall much further, a real equilavent figure in the mid to late teens is probably about right.

[Ash4781]

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publication...endar/index.htm

Lending to individuals http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/statistics/...aug/lendind.pdf

Very low growth rates

Edited September 29, 2009 by Ash4781

[boony]

yes it does. GDP is a nonsense in that governments can leave a recession by spending more......

This is an eye-opener for me! Just to be clear, recession is defined/identified by a sustained fall in GDP - correct?.

Yet the GDP calculation doesn't take into account debt levels but does include government spending?

Finally I see the (misguided) logic in "Spending our way out of recession".

Why on Earth is this flawed method of GDP/Recession used?

[Traktion]

From Wikipedia.

The most common approach to measuring and quantifying GDP is the expenditure method:

GDP = private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports − imports), or,

GDP = C + I + G + (X − M).

So if we are borrowing 200 billion which is about 14% of GDP and this 14% is included as government spending doesn't that make a nonsense of saying we are down by 7%. A more realistic figure would be approaching 20% when you have allowed for borrowing last year.

An analogy would be if I earned £40k and borrowed £10k one year and earned £16.5 and borrowed £30k the next year. I would certainly not say that income has declined by only 7%.

In fact the whole growth of the economy in the past 12 years has been a fraud. We have simply taken on more debt as a country and as individuals and classed it as growth.

It was not growth in wealth creation it was debt fuelled consumption.

Good post and very true! I particularly liked your example about earning there.

Taking your example further, the government seem to be praying that in a few years they will be above £40k and then paying off debts. The problem is, the £40k they were on previously was only because their boss (the rest of us) was borrowing the funds to pay them £40k in the first place! It isn't going to happen again though, as we're all maxed out - not looking great for the future is it?

[Traktion]

This is an eye-opener for me! Just to be clear, recession is defined/identified by a sustained fall in GDP - correct?.

Yet the GDP calculation doesn't take into account debt levels but does include government spending?

Finally I see the (misguided) logic in "Spending our way out of recession".

Why on Earth is this flawed method of GDP/Recession used?

Got it in one! Nuts isn't it?

[interestrateripoff]

"On the year, GDP shrank 5.5 percent, unrevised from last month's estimate and the biggest annual decline since records began."

By year's end we could be down more than 7%. Double dip looks 100% certain and guaranteed.

BTW my sig might need upward revision as I predicted twice thew IMFs estimate back in January of this year.

We appear to be waiting for the next leg down, Q4 09 or Q1 10 seem to be the most likely candidates.

However it will be interesting to see how long they can keep stimulating for, if they can keep it up they may manage to paper over the cracks for time yet. Although the downside to this is that they are just creating an even bigger problem for the future instead of dealing with it now.

[Dorkins]

That was partly thanks to an 11 per cent collapse in state revenues. Corporation tax receipts alone tumbled to the lowest level in five years in August.

Just as a small caveat to this, it should be remembered what the great British public is currently doing for the first time in ages. People are paying back credit cards and personal loans and fewer new mortgages are being issued while the old ones continue to be paid off (in most cases). People are also starting to build up their savings. So there are a lot of wages being taken home and not spent, and when they aren't spent they don't count towards GDP, but that doesn't mean we are 11% poorer than we were a year ago. Someone who has paid down debt or built up savings is in a better position than they were before, but unfortunately governments fetishise the GDP number and forget about boring ol' numbers like savings and debt (this attitude got us into this mess in the first place, and they still haven't learned). It's a shame the government is determined to fight against us by piling on the debt on our behalf.