Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
dstars

Hometrack Are Fulloshit

Recommended Posts

"House prices grew by just 0.1% over July... Hometrack’s July survey shows that across the country prices were up over the month in just three regions (London +0.2%, South East and +0.2% and Wales +0.1%) while average values were unchanged in 5 regions and down slightly in two (East Midlands -0.2% and Yorkshire & Humberside -0.1%)...And more price sensitive buyers has resulted in asking prices achieved slipping back by 0.6% from 95.7% in May to the current 9.51%."

O.1%? Unchanged? These figures are cobblers. What are the odds that so many areas might have exactly the same figures? What are the odds that prices could be exactly unchanged (to one part in one thousand) in five different regions at the same time?

This is cited on their site as a survey but no indication of methodology is provided. But here's the methodology: Find a way to pretend that prices, despite skiploads of shit and high interest rates finally biting into dense brains, are only dropping by infinitesimally small amounts.

For we all know that when house prices rise they make great bounding leaps of 20-30% in a single month, but when they fall people drop their prices from 100,000 to 99,900; for a drop of a hundred quid per 100,000 really brings in those reluctant buyers. I mean, imagine saving 500 quid on a 500,000 house? Who could resist that kind of bargain?

Edited by dstars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For we all know that when house prices rise they make great bounding leaps of 20-30% in a single month, but when they fall people drop their prices from 100,000 to 99,900; for a drop of a hundred quid per 100,000 really brings in those reluctant buyers. I mean, imagine saving 500 quid on a 500,000 house? Who could resist that kind of bargain?

It's known as 'sticky downwards'. The first stage of price falls is the point where buyers decide that the prices are too high, but vendors won't drop their prices. So this shows up as a lower volume of sales, but stagnant prices. Then out of 100 vendors, one drops the price by 10% for a sale, and that's a 0.1% drop. Etc.

Edited by Magpie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For we all know that when house prices rise they make great bounding leaps of 20-30% in a single month, but when they fall people drop their prices from 100,000 to 99,900; for a drop of a hundred quid per 100,000 really brings in those reluctant buyers. I mean, imagine saving 500 quid on a 500,000 house? Who could resist that kind of bargain?

I entirely share your sentiment, although I have often seen people reduce the asking price on a £400+k property by £5k or £10k - like you say, who the **** will be swayed by that? And I bet their actual expectation of what they will take hasn't fallen at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Richard Donnell (the Hometrack gadgie) reckons we could be in for a "prolonged slowdown" in the rate of HPI. You can hear the poor little chap on Radio 5 Breakfast this morning, it got a whole 3 minutes (after 2:48:00 on the BBC Radio Player).

If I have to listen to any more of this whistling in the dark I'll be going about bloodied knuckles, in a car with strange grapefruit-sized domes on the roof. Please,somebody, make them shut up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn’t bother too much with hometrack – their figures are based on a survey of EAs, so presumably includes EA opinion, and, I think in 2003, they had to ‘rebase’ the index because all those mildly spun monthly changes had gradually accumulated into a figure that was rather embarrassingly out of step. Still, nothing that a timely rebase / chain link couldn’t sort out. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn’t bother too much with hometrack – their figures are based on a survey of EAs, so presumably includes EA opinion, and, I think in 2003, they had to ‘rebase’ the index because all those mildly spun monthly changes had gradually accumulated into a figure that was rather embarrassingly out of step. Still, nothing that a timely rebase / chain link couldn’t sort out. :D

They should be prosecuted for producing false stats, they are basically lying barstewards.

I am so glad i dont work as an EA or in finance, because you become successesful in that industry by cheating, lying and deceiving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's known as 'sticky downwards'. The first stage of price falls is the point where buyers decide that the prices are too high, but vendors won't drop their prices. So this shows up as a lower volume of sales, but stagnant prices. Then out of 100 vendors, one drops the price by 10% for a sale, and that's a 0.1% drop. Etc.

That's not what the their site claims nor what I take issue with. Five regions with exactly the same movement in prices to one part in one thousand?

They go on to talk about how prices may 'continue to weaken' (not 'fall') in 'pockets of the country'. Mmm, which 'pockets' I wonder have they pegged for drops?

Their figures, their language, their lack of transparency; indicates to me that they are not analysts but simple boosters. (Perhaps 'simpleton' boosters may be more on the mark?)

This is not known as 'sticky downwards' this is known as 'smelly horsheshit'.

Also, if volumes are thinning (as you assume, and I am betting they are) does that not make those exact movements to one part in one thousand even more unlikely (the question is rhetorical, by the way; if I did not know the answer I would not have posted in the first place)?

Indeed, if one out of 100 wants (or is payed, for there is no reference as to exactly what 'price' means here) 10% less then that would equate to a 0.1% drop. Or if two want 5% less, etc., etc. Are you starting to see how unlikely those same figure occurring over five regions is?

Any statisticians here? How many regions do we have in total, from which these miraculous figures are culled? The odds of this happening are about the same as the odds of Hometrack not being full of shit.

Edited by dstars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’d say that the odds are reduced if you truncate (as they do) the MOM to *one* significant figure, especially if there’s a little leeway on the ‘rounding’ up/down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest grumpy-old-man
They should be prosecuted for producing false stats, they are basically lying barstewards.

I am so glad i dont work as an EA or in finance, because you become successesful in that industry by cheating, lying and deceiving.

I'd like to echo this statement. I wouldn't like to be around people like this either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lies, damned lies and statistics. All one and the same these days. My old man works in stats and if the results don't show what the management want them to show then back they go till they do , simple really- garbage in- garbage out.

Read the sun if you want to know whats going on, if it's not in no panic, if it's a little piece well after BB and all the wags stuff then that's a caution, if it's on front page ,well, way too late.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That's not what the their site claims nor what I take issue with. Five regions with exactly the same movement in prices to one part in one thousand?

They go on to talk about how prices may 'continue to weaken' (not 'fall') in 'pockets of the country'. Mmm, which 'pockets' I wonder have they pegged for drops?

Their figures, their language, their lack of transparency; indicates to me that they are not analysts but simple boosters. (Perhaps 'simpleton' boosters may be more on the mark?)

This is not known as 'sticky downwards' this is known as 'smelly horsheshit'.

Also, if volumes are thinning (as you assume, and I am betting they are) does that not make those exact movements to one part in one thousand even more unlikely (the question is rhetorical, by the way; if I did not know the nanswer I would not have posted in the first place)?

Indeed, if one out of 100 wants (or is payed, for there is no reference as to exactly what 'price' means here) 10% less then that would equate to a 0.1% drop. Or if two want 5% less, etc., etc. Are you starting to see how unlikely those same figure occurring over five regions is?

Any statisticians here? How many regions do we have in total, from which these miraculous figures are culled? The odds of this happening are about the same as the odds of Hometrack not being full of shit.

Firstly I'm not a huge fan of Hometrack figures because they're opaquely based on feedback from EAs (though I recall many here used to love them back in 2005 when they showed lower rates of HPI than Halliwide etc). If I trust anything it is the Land Registry figures, and even then only the ones for an entire region, never the local ones based on inadequate samples.

I was merely trying to point out that your criticism wasn't very coherent. You were talking about vendors dropping prices by £100 from £100,000 whereas this is an average - some holding, some rising, some dropping, so why shouldn't it be -0.1%. And I don't see anything especially bizarre in various regions coming in with MOM figures in the same smaller range with several at zero.

I suppose I just think it's a waste of time getting obsessive about the various indices and trying to prove they're fixing it when it doesn't go your way. In the end prices will probably fall, and the indices will show prices falling when they do. I doubt we'll be niggling then because Hometrack shows identical falls for different regions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I’d say that the odds are reduced if you truncate (as they do) the MOM to *one* significant figure, especially if there’s a little leeway on the ‘rounding’ up/down.

Exactly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 354 The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal



×
×
  • 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.