Where Is The Crash?

[dinodini]

I don't see it.

[Guest The_Oldie]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...c=44808&hl=

[Heavily Armed Gorilla]

Never felt the need to contribute, as such, before, but, uh..

..awooga?

[bobthe~]

I don't see it.

past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

Investments can go down as well as up.

You might not get back the money you have paid.

If you borrowed money to invest, you could end up owing the bank money.

Don't worry, though, you will be fine.

100% correct, guaranteed.

Go and get the biggest mortgage you can find on a new build flat in Leeds.

Please consider this financial advice.

[ae589]

I don't see it.

Is this like pin the tail on the donkey?

[microbe]

I don't see it.

Ever played pin the tail on the donkey? Here you go then.

Now, bearing in mind that the wiggley lines are rpi adjusted lines and actual price lines, and they go up and down around the long term trend.

You tell me, where do you think prices are likely to end up in ten years time?

Edited November 26, 2007 by microbe

[Disillusioned]

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/ind...c=44808&hl=

Has your URL been trimmed by accident?

[Lepista]

Now, bearing in mind that the wiggley lines are rpi adjusted lines and actual price lines, and they go up and down around the long term trend.

In fact, looking at your graph there, I would say that you have the "long term trend" line too high - taking out the effects of the bubbles, gives a much better fit to the majority of the house prices. the same, in fact, if you look at the graph on the front page.

[HenryWeston]

I don't see it.

[microbe]

In fact, looking at your graph there, I would say that you have the "long term trend" line too high - taking out the effects of the bubbles, gives a much better fit to the majority of the house prices. the same, in fact, if you look at the graph on the front page.

The data I used is Communities and Local Gov sourced which is primarily based on the Nationwide's figures. However, they go back to 1930 and up to the end of 2006. The trend over that time frame is 2.2%, Nationwide's trend varies but is in fact showing a rather greater long term percentage increase, not less. The front page chart shows 2.4%. Having a shorter time base means their average is more sensitive to the effect of short term booms. Like now, for instance.

[Lepista]

The data I used is Communities and Local Gov sourced which is primarily based on the Nationwide's figures. However, they go back to 1930 and up to the end of 2006. The trend over that time frame is 2.2%, Nationwide's trend varies but is in fact showing a rather greater long term percentage increase, not less. The front page chart shows 2.4%. Having a shorter time base means their average is more sensitive to the effect of short term booms. Like now, for instance.

All I was meaning is that you should ignore the times when the house prices are "abnormal", i.e. in bubble periods... If you did that, the long term average would drop significantly, although it would still be increasing. It's a bit of a moot point - when does a bubble 'inflated' price become part of the "average" for house prices?

eg, if there was a hypothetical blip in the graph in 1950 where only one house was sold for £10 million, then this would distort the "average" graph, and a more realistic average would simply ingnore the data point.

[Woot]

Ever played pin the tail on the donkey? Here you go then.

Now, bearing in mind that the wiggley lines are rpi adjusted lines and actual price lines, and they go up and down around the long term trend.

You tell me, where do you think prices are likely to end up in ten years time?

Love the graph - better than prozac!

TD

[microbe]

All I was meaning is that you should ignore the times when the house prices are "abnormal", i.e. in bubble periods... If you did that, the long term average would drop significantly, although it would still be increasing. It's a bit of a moot point - when does a bubble 'inflated' price become part of the "average" for house prices?

eg, if there was a hypothetical blip in the graph in 1950 where only one house was sold for £10 million, then this would distort the "average" graph, and a more realistic average would simply ingnore the data point.

But if you ignore all the times when prices are above average, then you should also ignore those when it is below average. Wouldn't be much of a graph then.

[Penny Drop]

I got into the property market in a small way in the late 1990s - and just sold one of my three London properties in St Ratford, E15 - where the Olympics will be held in 2010 (others in Dalston E8 and Hendon NW4). I bought the three bed terraced house in 1998 for 69k - and when prices went above the 300k mark, I knew it had to be time to sell. I would not have paid 300k for the house myself and most probably could not have afforded to (unless I got one of the widely-touted self certification mortgages and lied about my income). Anyway, I priced it 5-10k under the going rate for a very nicely done bog standard terraced house - and being determined to sell, allowed three seriously interested partied run a contract race - I felt very uncomfortable but all three knew about the race and were happy to go for it, so I let them. Exchange was completed successfully within two weeks to the one buyer who was not an investor - but a manager who planned to live there with his girlfriend - strangely, I am glad it will be a proper home, as it was for me for several years. Personally, I think the London market has gone mad and a huge 20% price correction (if not more) is on its way.

I reinvested the money in France and Switzerland. Having too many eggs in one basket is always worrying. (What with worst case scenarios of Al Qaeda and dirty bombs in London - too much 24 Hours I suspect).

Anyway, everyone said I was mad to sell in E15 before the Olympics arrived or at least closer to the time. But I wanted the money out now and although I think that in the long term property is the best investment and prices will no doubt rebound, I sensed a crash in the air which seems to be happening now. Interesting and worrying times. Anyway, a crash only matters if you HAVE to sell - otherwise the price of your property is just pie in the sky and an imaginary number, more or less, that you have yet to realise.

[microbe]

I got into the property market in a small way in the late 1990s - and just sold one of my three London properties in St Ratford, E15 - where the Olympics will be held in 2010 (others in Dalston E8 and Hendon NW4). .....

I reinvested the money in France and Switzerland. Having too many eggs in one basket is always worrying. (What with worst case scenarios of Al Qaeda and dirty bombs in London - too much 24 Hours I suspect).

...

Anyway, a crash only matters if you HAVE to sell - otherwise the price of your property is just pie in the sky and an imaginary number, more or less, that you have yet to realise.

It sounds like you have been both fortunate and wise. Your timing was fairly good, and you have taken a chunk of profit without allowing your natural greed to overwhelm your natural intelligence.

[bobthe~]

But if you ignore all the times when prices are above average, then you should also ignore those when it is below average. Wouldn't be much of a graph then.

I think the point is that if property is cyclic then you should compare the top with the top and the bottom with the bottom in order to get a meaningful long term change.

The long term average will change depending on where it is measured in the cycle.

That pre-supposes that we are at the top of the cycle.

I would quite like to see what the rise was between the peak in the 70s and the peak today, and between the bottom in the 70s (or was it early 80s?) and the bottom in the 90s.

Somewhere between the 2 probably lies a better guess for the long term trend than measuring to the current price.

[DabHand]

Dont waste your breath. The OP is Spanish by all accounts and is unlikely to understand most of the replies. Check out his post history, he uses babel fish to make posts longer than a line or two!

[microbe]

I think the point is that if property is cyclic then you should compare the top with the top and the bottom with the bottom in order to get a meaningful long term change.

The long term average will change depending on where it is measured in the cycle.

That pre-supposes that we are at the top of the cycle.

I would quite like to see what the rise was between the peak in the 70s and the peak today, and between the bottom in the 70s (or was it early 80s?) and the bottom in the 90s.

Somewhere between the 2 probably lies a better guess for the long term trend than measuring to the current price.

PM me if you want a copy of my data.

[bazzzzzzz]

I don't see it.

That's because HPI is still positive.

Prices are not 'crashing' and we are not in the middle of any 'crash'.

However, there is strong evidence to suggest there will be a serious correction in prices in the next 10 years. I put it no higher than that.