Tired of Waiting Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Wrong.. if you're retired, and over 100,000 of them are, it gets paid for ever That is very annoying. But hopefully no longer at 6%? Down to 3% now, right? The gov. should at least get this money back from their estate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pent Up Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Wrong.. if you're retired, and over 100,000 of them are, it gets paid for ever It's just the JSA claiments that have a time limit of two years. The question is are there enough of them to make difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tired of Waiting Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Looking back over the Halifax data, in real terms prices are now up only 26.7% since 1989. A couple of years of 5% falls coupled with 5% inflation will have us back to a position of no real price growth over 23 years or so, and that doesn't allow for any return on 23 years of property improvements. And before anyone states the obvious that I'm comparing with a prior peak, I just find this comparison somewhat comforting. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NEO72 Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 So prices which I think most agree hit a turning point in July/Aug are now showing 2.1% month-on-month falls. In the first part of the crash (when 20-25% was knocked off prices) in late 07- early 09, m-o-m falls didn't go above 2% until April 08, when things really kicked off. At this stage of things, they were still around -1%. Just thought it worth mentioning to those who seem convinced prices will stagnate.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normal Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 PEER REVIEW ALERT. It looks to me as if the Nov 2009 index figure was then shown as 542, but the historical data table released today report shows the Nov 2009 index figure at 540.6. This revision avoids a much more horrific YoY fall than their reported -0.7%. So, anybody here fancy trying to prove me wrong? Confirmed and well spotted! The figure was changed this month as I've just looked at last month's which still said 542. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottbeard Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I'm pretty sure Halifax have cooked the books this month, by an abnomal revision of the Nov 2009 index figure. ... This revision avoids a much more horrific YoY fall than their reported -0.7%. After prices rose by 200% in 10 years does it really matter whether the fall in 2010 was -1% or -2%? Is a -2% truly "horrific"? People on HPC get too hung up on the decimal points of these statistics and their effects on the general public. I'd never even heard of these indices until I joined HPC, despite buying and selling several houses. Just concentrate on the big picture: - small fall over 2010 - current trend is prices falling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 So prices which I think most agree hit a turning point in July/Aug are now showing 2.1% month-on-month falls. In the first part of the crash (when 20-25% was knocked off prices) in late 07- early 09, m-o-m falls didn't go above 2% until April 08, when things really kicked off. At this stage of things, they were still around -1%. Just thought it worth mentioning to those who seem convinced prices will stagnate.... Who was it produces teh comparison graph of various crashes...? it would be interesting to see not only this crash from the 2008 start, but also a second curve with Jul/Aug the peak of the "bull trap crash" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Let's put it more simply. In Nov 2009, Halifax put the average price at £167,451. In Nov 2010, said the average price in Nov 2009 was £167,032. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Let's put it more simply. In Nov 2009, Halifax put the average price at £167,451. In Nov 2010, said the average price in Nov 2009 was £167,032. How else are they going to show house prices stagnating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pent Up Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Let's put it more simply. In Nov 2009, Halifax put the average price at £167,451. In Nov 2010, said the average price in Nov 2009 was £167,032. Write to them and ask for an explanation! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lepista Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Write to them and ask for an explanation! No point - we know what the answer will be. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 ONE SIMPLE FACT: Anyone who has bought a house in the last 12 Months....has an asset worth less than they paid for it. Taking inflation into account...who'd want to own a house. Interest paid to a lender and capital depreciation = Dead Money Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Yep. one whole year of paying interest to a bank and having an asset which is worth less than what you paid for it last year. Buying a house is dead money. I made the above post before reading yours.... snap . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Banner Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 PEER REVIEW ALERT. I'm pretty sure Halifax have cooked the books this month, by an abnomal revision of the Nov 2009 index figure. When the Sept 2010 report came out, I saved the historical data table. Apparently I can't upload that file on this board, but here is a link to the Credit Crunch forum, where I have uploaded it: http://www.creditcru...post__p__134112 It looks to me as if the Nov 2009 index figure was then shown as 542, but the historical data table released today report shows the Nov 2009 index figure at 540.6. This revision avoids a much more horrific YoY fall than their reported -0.7%. They have also revised the Oct figure, which will affect their 3M on 3M YoY. So, anybody here fancy trying to prove me wrong? As I said last week, on another thread, they will (have) massage the figures to present as rosy a picture as possible, so that people don't fret over the Christmas holiday. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPapasito Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Ok folks, I've done the calculations using Halifax historical Excel sheet. If the month on month change for December is zero then the published figs will be (before Dec-10 adjustment): DEC-10 SA MoM 0% QoQ (3mths) -0.9% YoY (3mths) -1.6% Using Non-seasonally adjusted DEC-10 NSA MoM 0% QoQ (3mths) -1.8% YoY (3mths) -1.3% Even with xero monthly price change the year on year goes to -3.0% by April on both NSA and SA figures. Dowwwwwn we go! EP Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exiges Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) It's just the JSA claiments that have a time limit of two years. The question is are there enough of them to make difference? I think another 100,000 houses on the market would certainly help.. and don't forget they wouldn't be "oh, we'll see if anyone makes an high offer, we're in no rush to move".. no, they would be motivated and take offers. The only people advertising now, are chancers and that's what's keeping prices up. Edited December 9, 2010 by exiges Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timm Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 OK, here are the actual Halifax HPI monthly releases for 2009 and the average price they reported at the time: Sep 2009 - £163,533 Oct 2009 - £165,528 Nov 2009 - £167,664 Total = £496,725, divided by 3 gives average price of £165,575 over the 3M. And for 2010: Sep 2010 - £162,096 Oct 2010 - £164,919 Nov 2010 £164,708 Total = £491,723, divided by 3 gives average price of £163,908 over the 3M. So, based on the original figures, the true YoY for Nov was -1.76%. Using the original figures and Halifax's own 3M on 3M YoY, the Nov figure was -1.00%. It's not really as much to get worked up over as I thought! On the other hand, they do seem to over report and adjust down as a matter of routine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Normal Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) On the other hand, they do seem to over report and adjust down as a matter of routine. They do this on a month by month basis which is understandable as they may get more data after the report is published for the previous month. However... I just looked at August's historical data and compared with this month's. The figures from Aug-Nov 2009 have all been revised down since August 2010's data. . . Aug2010 Nov2010 Aug 2009 161,022 160,947 Sep 2009 163,487 163,294 Oct 2009 165,349 164,990 Nov 2009 167,451 167,032 Not huge sums, but why revise them down a year after the fact? If I get bored I'll look for older reports and see if this a new trend. Edited December 9, 2010 by Hara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hedgefunded Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Anyone else seeing a sine wave? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Executive Sadman Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Daily Mail in typical heart attack inducing mode. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337070/House-prices-fall-month-row.html Bonus for first-time buyers as house prices plummet for the THIRD month in a row Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rantnrave Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 We are still statistically "paying back" for the freak -3.6% fall we had a couple of months back... Quarterly figure looks good to me. Agreed. Annoyingly, once that drop disappears from the quarterly figures, then statistically the three month rolling figure will likely start going positive. Lies, damned lies and... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rantnrave Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 I make it 1.76% lower. Looking at the graphs section of this site, the Halifax (National) figure for November 2009 was £167,664. According to the Halifax report today, the November 2010 figure is £164,708. 164708 / 167664 = 0.982 Subtracting that from 1 gives 0.176, or 1.76%. I’ve just got very confused looking at the Halifax (National) figures as tabulated on this site, though. If the average price for October 2010 was £164,919 and the average price for October 2009 was £165,528, why was the annual change in October shown as +1.20%, rather than –0.37%? What am I doing wrong? The page I’m using for my data is http://housepricecrash.co.uk/indices-halifax-national.php With each new set of data, Halifax and Nationwide usually revisit the previous months figure and often there is an adjustment. This is not rectified in the tables on this site though - that's maybe why the numbers don't add up. Any mods out there who can look into this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democorruptcy Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Shock news! Jill Insley at The Guardian has used the words "House prices" and "fall" in the same headline: "House prices fall by 0.7% year-on-year" http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/dec/09/house-prices-fall-year-on-year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slumpmonkey Returns Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 As I said last week, on another thread, they will (have) massage the figures to present as rosy a picture as possible, so that people don't fret over the Christmas holiday. I think you are right. However, this will all have to come out in the wash in the early part of 2011 - they are simply just delaying the inevitable to stop the sheeple from getting too depressed before Christmas! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rantnrave Posted December 9, 2010 Share Posted December 9, 2010 Shock news! Jill Insley at The Guardian has used the words "House prices" and "fall" in the same headline: To her credit, she does join in the discussion in the comments! Makes for fascinating reading. This comment she made below looks ominous though. What data is out tomorrow? Dare I suggest that once you actually become homeowners, you won't be so keen on prices falling - at least not for the first couple of years or so until you've paid off some of your mortgage and are out of danger of negative equity? Several of my colleagues also need house prices to fall so they can buy their first home - we are all keeping our fingers crossed for them. But in the meantime I'm afraid that whoever reports the house price figures ( there's another one out tomorrow and I can absolutely promise you won't like that one) will simply reflect what different interested and knowledgeable parties say. I'm afraid I've got to concentrate on annuities now - looking forwards to our chat tomorrow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.