Thursday, June 28, 2007
More reason for an increase in base rates?
House price growth 'bounces back'
According to the Nationwide Building Society house prices bounced back last month. Prices rose by 1.1% over the month which is twice as fast as the rate during 2006.
Posted by denzil @ 12:09 PM (638 views)
21 thoughts on “More reason for an increase in base rates?”
Add a comment
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user´s views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
David20040_0 says:
And house price will continue to grow.
The only way they will be slowed down is if BoE rates go near 7% to 8%.
David20040_0 says:
Nationwide / Halifax always say:
‘However, it said that it thought the rate of growth would slow in the second half of the year.’
BUT IT NEVER HAPPENS! They have been saying this for years.
paul says:
Sleight of statistics.
One house sold for 10% above 2006 price = 10% increase in prices.
The BBC has jumped on it like a starving feline on a sewer rat.
Michael says:
”The BBC has jumped on it like a starving feline on a sewer rat.”
Yes, but the problem is that it will reinforce expectations and the madness will continue.
Stoatgobbler says:
Oh come on. They are still going up, simple as that, and not liking the fact changes it not one bit.
harold says:
With sterling topping 2$/£ the currency markets are clearly betting on a rise next month, possibly .5%.
dohousescrashinthewoods says:
Good old BBC flag-waving – under intructions from our newly unelected prime minister, or has the incoming chancellor already got his hand up this glove-puppe’s rectals?
(sorry, vicious cynicism and grim imagery today)
mrmickey says:
It’s funny how we pay taxes so we can have government propaganda blasted at us 24 hours a day, the BBC is a joke and it’s now run exclusively by women for women.
sovietuk says:
It wouldn’t be so bad if you didn’t have to pay the license fee (sorry immoral tax). Best solution – throw your TV out or chuck a brick at the TV detector Van.
harold says:
“…now run exclusively by women for women.”
What? Sorry I don’t quite get that. Have you been listening to too much “Women’s Hour”?
mrmickey says:
harold try looking at every sports programme and yes Clare Balding does count as a women
Davros says:
When the Nationwide confidently predicted interest rates wouldn’t rise above 5% this year, why should we believe the housing market isn’t in imminent danger of collapse?
dohousescrashinthewoods says:
I definitely recommend ditching TV:
1) you get a life
2) you get to have “conversation” with people in your house, called “family” (old-English terms, fallen into disuse)
3) you don’t pay the licence fee
4) you not only get to keep your mind, but you discover you can use it, too.
harold says:
dohousescrashinthewoods, agreed.
mrmickey, misogynistic nonsense.
maddison says:
I think bears are shitting themselves in the woods
denzil says:
This thread was really making sense until somebody commented that Clare Balding was in fact a woman.
dohousescrashinthewoods says:
Perhaps a detail point, but it is the bulls rather than the bears relievin themselves in the woods at the moment.
I think they are about to get hit by falling houses while they are in there doing their business 😉
nearly30 says:
What you trying to say mr mickey – the old boys network is being replace by the female-mafia?
Things can go too far into the ultra-feminist camp through men-hating behaviour – but your comments are a bit off the mark.
So any woman getting into a position of power is bad?? Like men – women have the power to act in negative ways towards their opposite gender too.
It’s not a conspiracy – but I share a small sliver of your point that it is a more common opinion these days to think that ‘to be a woman’ is morally virtuous and ‘to be a man’ is automatically to be considered a force for bad.
I’m thinking of Harriet Harman (Harms-men).
Anyway – not much to do wth this website IMHO.
royston says:
It has not “bounced back”! Don’t be so silly! Banks have cut back lending to the people in the cheapest housing – lower socio-economic groups, first time buyers, etc., – which means that the average is now made up of the middle and top ends of the market, compared with previous months / years where all market segments were more fully represented in the average.
sirgoogle says:
Why of why do they use the arithemtic mean on its own. It means nothing without the descriptive statistics such as skew, kurtois and confidence limits on the mean.
If the sample size and confidence limits are not given ignore the figure and comments as they are simply pushing a line.
They should use the median. However mathematics with the median are a bit harder (non-paramentic actually) – but with the type of data derived from these indicies they actually cannot really use anything else (if they had prople working for them who actually knew anything).
royston says:
sirgoogle,
If you lop off one end of the distribution, which is what has happened here, both the mean and median will give the wrong answer. The mode is probably the best measure, under the circumstances.