Real House Prices Up

[Killer Bunny]

.

Edited July 2, 2013 by Killer Bunny

[Pent Up]

Had anyone ever edited that chart and put a proper average line in? Rather than the stupid exponential to the moon one they have?

[Dorkins]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?app=members&section=view&module=list

Advanced Filters - Change to join date, ascending order.

Wasn't there another HPC before this version was created? I know I'm a n00b but I vaguely remember hearing something about that.

[cybernoid]

So after QE literally to oblivion, lowest interest rates in 300 years, prop after prop after prop after prop in the form of various schemes and wheezes the latest of which is roundly condemned government guaranteed mortgages.. after all that and more that I can't remember, there's a small real terms uptick.

That was worth it wasn't it? Even if you're pro high housing costs because you already bought, after all that sustained battle against market forces you can't be all that happy with such a small result?

Your jobs looking iffy and you can't afford to put fuel in your car or turn on the heating in winter and your grocery bills are going up and up, but hey look on the bright side, at least your kids look less slightly less likely to be able to buy a house now. Congratulations?

As for this site being wrong, the crisis was predicted on this site, and the consensus of opinion was that it would lead to a crash in property prices. The crisis became apparent to joe public when the banks started failing, and only then. To people here it was less of a shock. Property prices didn't fall as far as expected due to a level of irresponsible fiscal management the like of which I can't believe we will see again, but frankly who knows.

Its simplistic to claim the site was wrong. 'The site' has many individuals with varying opinions, and we all saw that something was wrong all the way from the start of the bubble 12 years ago. Joe public only caught on 5 years ago when they started queuing up at northern rock. We were more right than 98% of the population.

[tinker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

+1

Who could have foreseen what they would do to preserve their own scrawny, political necks?

[TheCountOfNowhere]

Explain to me how you have made 100K.

Ive been reading this forum since 2006, speaking to builder mates about in 2003 how that property is over valued as people like us can't afford it, and that itll fall... and we were wrong.

0

It's not just bruce that's better off, i'm better off by about 70K in interest + the loss the people who bought from me took when the sold up!!! I also saved a years rent in stamp duty just by not buying plus there is the flexibility renting gives in the current job market...that is priceless !!!!

It's not rocket science to see renting was the way to go for the last 5 years. The best option for the next 5 will be to buy when prices becomes affordable at normal interest rate levels....we are some way from that.

[Bruce Banner]

0

It's not just bruce that's better off, i'm better off by about 70K in interest + the loss the people who bought from me took when the sold up!!! I also saved a years rent in stamp duty just by not buying plus there is the flexibility renting gives in the current job market...that is priceless !!!!

It's not rocket science to see renting was the way to go for the last 5 years. The best option for the next 5 will be to buy when prices becomes affordable at normal interest rate levels....we are some way from that.

Exactly, there are many here who are very substantially in pocket as a result of renting rather than buying over recent years.

[LongWeight]

0

It's not just bruce that's better off, i'm better off by about 70K in interest + the loss the people who bought from me took when the sold up!!! I also saved a years rent in stamp duty just by not buying plus there is the flexibility renting gives in the current job market...that is priceless !!!!

It's not rocket science to see renting was the way to go for the last 5 years. The best option for the next 5 will be to buy when prices becomes affordable at normal interest rate levels....we are some way from that.

I was living in SE England paying 1000GBPper month rent for the last 5 years, with interest rates so low, that'd have been about 50K knocked off the mortgage.

Im looking in Ringwood in Hampshire and the value has slightly risen since then so clearly it depends on where you're looking as to whether you'd have won or lost.

I can accept that if you sold up before prices dropped in your area yand then bought a similar property you'd have made but i fail to see how someone who has just rented in an area where prices have remained similar can claim to have made money.

As for being able to move around being priceless, well if you've kids you can't be moving every 12 months for a new job.

[Bruce Banner]

I can accept that if you sold up before prices dropped in your area yand then bought a similar property you'd have made but i fail to see how someone who has just rented in an area where prices have remained similar can claim to have made money.

Opportunity cost.

[Pent Up]

Exactly, there are many here who are very substantially in pocket as a result of renting rather than buying over recent years.

Also many who didn't buy and stayed at parents because of information on this site. I now have a tiny mortgage as a consequence and I can overpay like a *******!

[LongWeight]

Opportunity cost.

I asked a fair question before that you ignored about how you are 100K better off, then i get some business speak response.

If you live in an area where the prices have stagnated then not buying in hindsight doesn't look like the wonderful decision you claim it is.

[LongWeight]

Also many who didn't buy and stayed at parents because of information on this site. I now have a tiny mortgage as a consequence and I can overpay like a *******!

I didnt buy as i thought i lived in something close to a capitalist society, thus prices would have crashed if the markets had been allowed to act freely .... and id have been able to buy a nice big 4 bed house with cash for about 100K.

The information this site gave was correct and merely echoed the obvious, not one person could have predicted the extremes the govt would go to to protect property prices.

[The Knimbies who say No]

I asked a fair question before that you ignored about how you are 100K better off, then i get some business speak response.

If you live in an area where the prices have stagnated then not buying in hindsight doesn't look like the wonderful decision you claim it is.

Instead of putting money into a house purchase as a deposit or 100% cash buy, it may be deployed elsewhere to gain a return, a return which could (far) outstrip the rent paid in the meantime, and also by renting you have avoided exposure to price changes in the house too. It can easily add up to tens of thousands even for a normal sort of house.

[ReJoyce]

Instead of putting money into a house purchase as a deposit or 100% cash buy, it may be deployed elsewhere to gain a return, a return which could (far) outstrip the rent paid in the meantime, and also by renting you have avoided exposure to price changes in the house too. It can easily add up to tens of thousands even for a normal sort of house.

But ... that sort of return has proved tricky to realise with low risk.

When I sold in 2008 due to a redundancy + new job, standard deposit accounts were fixed at 6% for a year - that paid the rent. I wanted to keep the money available and low risk as I was expecting a fast hard fall in prices and opportunities to buy back in cheap ....

As rates fell and rent rose the interest covered less and less of the rent. Where I am prices have risen since the point of my sale. If I had bought then, I would now be better off having cleared more of the new debt.

I ended up buying in 2011. the house has not lost anything since looking at recent fast sales in the area, and I no longer have the constant threat of my family (two children + wife) being made homeless by a landlord and hav9ing to move out of the catchment for a decent school.

So if rents had stagnated ...

and house prices had fallen ...

while interest rates stayed high ... I would have been quids in ... none of that happened for me.

Others, like Bruce, have managed the situation better and seem to live in areas where prices are dropping. Good for them but one size definitely does not fit all.

J

[Bruce Banner]

But ... that sort of return has proved tricky to realise with low risk.

When I sold in 2008 due to a redundancy + new job, standard deposit accounts were fixed at 6% for a year - that paid the rent. I wanted to keep the money available and low risk as I was expecting a fast hard fall in prices and opportunities to buy back in cheap ....

As rates fell and rent rose the interest covered less and less of the rent. Where I am prices have risen since the point of my sale. If I had bought then, I would now be better off having cleared more of the new debt.

I ended up buying in 2011. the house has not lost anything since looking at recent fast sales in the area, and I no longer have the constant threat of my family (two children + wife) being made homeless by a landlord and hav9ing to move out of the catchment for a decent school.

So if rents had stagnated ...

and house prices had fallen ...

while interest rates stayed high ... I would have been quids in ... none of that happened for me.

Others, like Bruce, have managed the situation better and seem to live in areas where prices are dropping. Good for them but one size definitely does not fit all.

J

Planning for a "fast hard fall in prices" was your mistake.

[ReJoyce]

Planning for a "fast hard fall in prices" was your mistake.

Yep, as was not sticking the lump sum in dollars, Yen, Euros as a hedge against currency devaluation in 2008 ...

To be fair to myself the fall from peak to mid 2008 was strong and looked like it was just going to keep going. By the time I fully cottoned on that it wasn't it was too late.

Jason

[eric pebble]

Don't worry, "Like to buy" will be along soon. Where you stand before your mortgage advisor like a tweenie begging their parents for a puppy, promising to feed it, walk it, clean up after it and be completely responsible for it. The magnitude of credit offered will be judged based upon the ferocity of tantrum you can display. Credit will be awarded for technical and artistic merit. No credit checks will be made.

Wot? ....

You mean a

LIAR-TANTRUM LOAN??

.

[Sour Mash]

I think 50% is a touch optimistic. 30% to 40% nominal falls when interest rates rise and repossessions commence.

Circa 50% falls so far in NI. Although being far away from the magic money spring that erupts out of the ground in the City of London has helped with that.

Likely it'll take a really massive economic crash to bring prices in London/SE down. I'd guess that as long as TPTB can keep the economic plates spinning, London prices will remain stupid and could even get stupider still as the liquidity floodgates are thrown wide open in an effort to keep things going.

[happy_renting]

There is something fundamentally wrong with that graph, staring us all in the face.

The 'trend' line. If it genuinely shows the 'trend' of the market exactly over the period of the graph, the end points of the trend line must always be the same as the original start and current end data points for that period.

Otherwise, it is (as shown) a mythical projection. Wishful thinking in some quarters.

Of course, if prices rise, then the trend would change, so the trend line would be constantly changing - as the trend does. Trends are not fixed in stone. They depend on the period you select to attribute a 'trend' to. Over the past few years, the trend is down, for example.

Essentially, a true trend line is the data fed through a 'low pass filter', and the granularity of the trend line data depends on the degree of filtering. But if the trend is uses all the data over the period (not some selective subset, ignoring, say, recent years) , it must necessarily start and end on the end points of the actual data. That is the only trend line the data factually would support.

As it is, the 'trend' is currently being overstated on the graph. It says that the prices will be higher due to the 'trend' - without the data supporting any such projection.

From the graph I would estimate prices were ~£74k in 1977, rising to ~ £166K in 2013. A rise of 124% over 36 years, equivalent to an average rise of 2.27% p.a. over the whole period shown. Not 2.8% p.a.

Taking current data, and using the calculated 'trend' to project into the future is legitimate. But selectively using just certain historical data to calculate a historical trend, and then projecting the trend into the present day, while ignoring recent and current data available (even on the same graph!), is not legitimate, itis a form of denial, refusing to update estimates of the trend despite evidence to the contrary.

As for projections into the future (which the graph does not show) any reasonable estimate for the short-term future based on trends should give greater weighting to the more recent data - where the recent trend over the past few years is downwards.

Nationwide is cooking the books. What a surprise.

Edited July 4, 2013 by happy_renting

[crashmonitor]

There is something fundamentally wrong with that graph, staring us all in the face.

The 'trend' line. If it genuinely shows the 'trend' of the market exactly over the period of the graph, the end points of the trend line must always be the same as the original start and current end data points for that period.

Otherwise, it is (as shown) a mythical projection. Wishful thinking in some quarters.

Of course, if prices rise, then the trend would change, so the trend line would be constantly changing - as the trend does. Trends are not fixed in stone. They depend on the period you select to attribute a 'trend' to. Over the past few years, the trend is down, for example.

Essentially, a true trend line is the data fed through a 'low pass filter', and the granularity of the trend line data depends on the degree of filtering. But if the trend is uses all the data over the period (not some selective subset, ignoring, say, recent years) , it must necessarily start and end on the end points of the actual data. That is the only trend line the data factually would support.

As it is, the 'trend' is currently being overstated on the graph. It says that the prices will be higher due to the 'trend' - without the data supporting any such projection.

From the graph I would estimate prices were ~£74k in 1977, rising to ~ £166K in 2013. A rise of 124% over 36 years, equivalent to an average rise of 2.27% p.a. over the whole period shown. Not 2.8% p.a.

Taking current data, and using the calculated 'trend' to project into the future is legitimate. But selectively using just certain historical data to calculate a historical trend, and then projecting the trend into the present day, while ignoring recent and current data available (even on the same graph!), is not legitimate, itis a form of denial, refusing to update estimates of the trend despite evidence to the contrary.

As for projections into the future (which the graph does not show) any reasonable estimate for the short-term future based on trends should give greater weighting to the more recent data - where the recent trend over the past few years is downwards.

Nationwide is cooking the books. What a surprise.

It's a perfect arc, if the trend continues it would go nearly vertical after which then time itself would go into reverse.

Edited July 4, 2013 by crashmonitor

[ReJoyce]

Essentially, a true trend line is the data fed through a 'low pass filter', and the granularity of the trend line data depends on the degree of filtering. But if the trend is uses all the data over the period (not some selective subset, ignoring, say, recent years) , it must necessarily start and end on the end points of the actual data. That is the only trend line the data factually would support.

Are you sure about that?

If, for example you took a cosine curve with many periods and plotted a trend line, effectively an average it would be a line along the X axis and wouldn't pass through (1,0) where the curve starts

J

[@contradevian]

Sadly a local agent has just put up a one bed flat for sale in the sister block to mine.

The price £65,950.

The only other price I have to go on, is about £28k around 2007/8 as not many have changed hands.

It must have been bought by a tenant relatively recently as it has the standard council gas boiler fitted and they were all replaced over the past few years (originally they had warm air heating).

So there we have it. The depressed "North" with a Sovietised economy (West Yorkshire to be more specific) and flat prices have doubled.

I feel like rushing out and buying some twigs.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Secure Tenant

[CentrinoDuo]

There is something fundamentally wrong with that graph, staring us all in the face.

The 'trend' line. If it genuinely shows the 'trend' of the market exactly over the period of the graph, the end points of the trend line must always be the same as the original start and current end data points for that period.

Otherwise, it is (as shown) a mythical projection. Wishful thinking in some quarters.

Erm I think you don't understand what a trend analysis is. The starting point is not necessarily at the exact period of the the graph and so is the end point.

This article explains a number of trend analysis methodology and how to create it in Excel: http://chandoo.org/wp/2011/01/26/trendlines-and-forecasting-in-excel-part-2/

I tried to find a good article about regression analysis but can't a suitable one, Excel comes to the rescue again: http://www.wikihow.com/Run-Regression-Analysis-in-Microsoft-Excel

[massacre666]

Really? Even though the site has not been in existence for ten years .

I certainly haven't been wrong. I expected large nominal falls, I still expect large nominal falls. In the meantime, I'm well over £100K in pocket as a direct result of renting for the last seven years.

some BTLs made a fortune in the last seven years, 100K in your pocket is nothing but the result of your hard labor.

[inflating]

Sadly a local agent has just put up a one bed flat for sale in the sister block to mine.

The price £65,950.

The only other price I have to go on, is about £28k around 2007/8 as not many have changed hands.

It must have been bought by a tenant relatively recently as it has the standard council gas boiler fitted and they were all replaced over the past few years (originally they had warm air heating).

So there we have it. The depressed "North" with a Sovietised economy (West Yorkshire to be more specific) and flat prices have doubled.

I feel like rushing out and buying some twigs.

28K sounds very low for '07, but 65K sounds very aspirational or a hedonistic price as some quarters call it