Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/newsAr...IN-PROPERTY.xml LONDON (Reuters) - The number of property transactions in England and Wales slipped to its lowest in five months in January, tax authority data showed on Tuesday . How quickly the doom and gloom spread by Rightmove's theoretical "asking price" data is dispelled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karhu Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/newsAr...IN-PROPERTY.xml LONDON (Reuters) - The number of property transactions in England and Wales slipped to its lowest in five months in January, tax authority data showed on Tuesday . How quickly the doom and gloom spread by Rightmove's theoretical "asking price" data is dispelled! Just look out your window. It's so obvious to see despite the spin from Rightmove et al. that properties are not moving. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Without_a_Paddle Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 http://investing.reuters.co.uk/news/newsAr...IN-PROPERTY.xml LONDON (Reuters) - The number of property transactions in England and Wales slipped to its lowest in five months in January, tax authority data showed on Tuesday . How quickly the doom and gloom spread by Rightmove's theoretical "asking price" data is dispelled! People put off purchases during the Summer because of holidays etc and during Winter there is xmas and new year. This means property transactions often dip to low points during the Summer and during the Winter so what's your point? However the point I'd like to make is that number of property transactions is UP NEARLY 30% ON THIS TIME LAST YEAR. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 People put off purchases during the Summer because of holidays etc and during Winter there is xmas and new year. This means property transactions often dip to low points during the Summer and during the Winter so what's your point? However the point I'd like to make is that number of property transactions is UP NEARLY 30% ON THIS TIME LAST YEAR. "HM Revenue and Customs said the number of property transactions fell to 133,000 in January in seasonally-adjusted terms from 154,000 in December, revised from an originally reported 153,000." The January 2005 baseline was extremely low. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Without_a_Paddle Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Just to keep it clear... Seasonally-adjusted figures for England and Wales showed a similar trend. On this basis, there were 133,000 transactions in January, down from 154,000 in December but much higher than the 103,000 recorded in January 2005. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mainwaring Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could the increase in transactions be due to vendors dropping their prices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Could the increase in transactions be due to vendors dropping their prices? My guess is that December is traditionally a very slow time for house sales due to Christmas etc. You often see a New Year pick up and as the figures show a New Year slow-down there is evidence that the market is, in fact, slowing down! Lower prices might help but most FTBs are in "wait and see" mode. The longer they wait the more they will see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nordiclad Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Has this "good news" made it to the BBC yet !!!! First person to spot it wins a prize...............have no idea what. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mainwaring Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 RB: I was thinking more re the YOY change. Although the rate cut might also have produced a suckers rally I guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 RB: I was thinking more re the YOY change. Although the rate cut might also have produced a suckers rally I guess. I am not sure but weren't the January 2005 figures dismal? That would make even a good size increase less meaningful? The best part is the fact that January was worse than December indicating that the New Year bounce did not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mainwaring Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 True enough Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 I just checked the BBC website--they appear to be ignoring this news. Perhaps they are reluctant to refer to it after the Rightmove story yesterday. The government statistics might confuse the Sheeple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom_and_bust Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 I am not sure but weren't the January 2005 figures dismal? That would make even a good size increase less meaningful? The best part is the fact that January was worse than December indicating that the New Year bounce did not happen. Hi, Also, rising house transactions do not mean rising prices in a falling market. Check the land registry transactions records for between around 1991-1994. The market was in sharp decline but house transactions were moderately increasing. As prices fall to newer lows, new buyers are tempted back in until equilibrium in wages-prices is approached, accompanied by gazundering. A lot of stats contradicted themselves during the last crash, one of the reasons it took so many people by surprise. But then it wouldn't be a crash if it was that easy to read, right? Boomer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mainwaring Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 The market can't correct without transactions. As the falls gather pace transactions should increase. In general terms I'd exect you could spot the central stagnation point as transactions slow to stagnation and then increase as the market falls away from stagnation. Of course ill advised rate cuts / lenging / fools rally's etc will muddy the picture a bit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuyingBear Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 (edited) This can't be true! It goes directly against what Miles Slipshot from Rightmove was saying yesterday :- "Prices have surged as the number of properties on the market has fallen - leading to a fierce bidding war among desperate buyers" "'Buyers are back, particularly at the lower end of the market as first-time buyers are finding it can actually be cheaper to pay a mortgage than to pay rent" You mean it's all bull$shit, would they lie to us? Edited February 21, 2006 by BuyingBear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boom_and_bust Posted February 21, 2006 Share Posted February 21, 2006 Hi, It's all there, printed in black and white in the land registry. I posted here a while back as well an article from a few years back, by the BoE - I think it's still on their site in the archives - all about Gazundering and the role of downward pressure excerted by buyers in a falling market that also confirmed nicely that rising transactions are common in a falling market and often signal breakdowns to a new, lower price level, in much the same way as guzumping drives a rising market. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realistbear Posted February 21, 2006 Author Share Posted February 21, 2006 Just checked BBC website--still no mention of this news! You would think that official government figures showing no resurgance in house prices contrary to Rightmove's claims would be public interest? Maybe BBC just forgot? Do you think? 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.