Are you trying to say I'm literally right and you and Rotty are literally wrong?
House prices..
- Thread starter fendi
- Start date
This is really not on, you are saying something I said is ridiculous when I didn't say it
I said "prices" , that is a simple straight forward figure, If something costs £1 today and £1 in a year then the price is the same, £1.03 is not the same price even if it does allow for inflation
whether we want to debate over minute falls in other areas is a different matter but you have produced graphs based on a measure that I never mentioned and used it to call my comments ridiculous
Rotty - the regional chart is based on nominal prices. They ignore inflation.
You say "minute falls" in prices. I've now been through the data. Excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland here are your minute falls in price (not real price, the real price falls are almost double):
NORTH -12%
YORKS & HSIDE -28%
NORTH WEST -12%
EAST MIDS -23%
WEST MIDS -14%
EAST ANGLIA -36%
OUTER S EAST -35%
OUTER MET -31%
LONDON -32%
SOUTH WEST -28%
WALES -17%
My choice of the word ridiculous was not without consideration, it was based on two aspects - that you said prices didn't fall which was dead wrong, they did (20.1% on average), and that you consider nominal prices as a useful (at least worth talking about) metric - when in fact "real" prices are more useful, they fell 37%.
Read my statement again:
I never said you were talking about real prices. I said considering real prices fell lots it ridiculous for you to say prices didn't fall.
You say "minute falls" in prices. I've now been through the data. Excluding Scotland and Northern Ireland here are your minute falls in price (not real price, the real price falls are almost double):
NORTH -12%
YORKS & HSIDE -28%
NORTH WEST -12%
EAST MIDS -23%
WEST MIDS -14%
EAST ANGLIA -36%
OUTER S EAST -35%
OUTER MET -31%
LONDON -32%
SOUTH WEST -28%
WALES -17%
My choice of the word ridiculous was not without consideration, it was based on two aspects - that you said prices didn't fall which was dead wrong, they did (20.1% on average), and that you consider nominal prices as a useful (at least worth talking about) metric - when in fact "real" prices are more useful, they fell 37%.
Read my statement again:
I never said you were talking about real prices. I said considering real prices fell lots it ridiculous for you to say prices didn't fall.
Last edited:
I have read it again and still stand by how I read it
IMO you can't get too much information from the graphs posted anyway.
It will be interesting this time round where we have actual Land Registry data from around 2000 showing the actual prices individual houses sold at easily accessible in the public domain.
It could be a case where certain subsets of the housing stock (namely city centre flats!) see significant falls and the overall average stays steady.
Unfortunately Rotty, I've come to expect nothing less.
Over what period? Without stating that, the above statistics are meaningless.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
I am sorry but do I get this right that you guys are denying that the 90's house price crash wasn't infact a crash outside London?
Just to add I bought a house in the East Mids in 1990 and sold it in 2000 for the same as a I paid, at no point during the 90's did the value drop below what I had paid and the fact that it only remained the same was due to a crappy developer selling 2/3rds of the houses to a housing association after selling a few privately
I am saying in many areas ( including where I live ) there was no house price crash , look at the graph I posted above and this can be seen
It's regional peak to regional trough, the dates vary slightly as you can see on the graph. Admittedly some of the peaks are in the 2nd half of 1989 rather than the 90's but the point stands. Those are the nominal falls last time house prices fell - the falls you and Rotty say didn't happen in most places.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
I am sorry but that is the first time I have ever heard that. I think the 250,000 people who had their homes reposessed and the many other thousands that were in negative equity may be surprised at that comment.
You said in most areas the price didn't fall - this is wrong. Your graph doesn't back up your position as (a) it's national average, isn't broken into regions and (b) isn't referenced and disagrees with my referenced national average one - the solid black line on my regional chart.
It was very real in London and the SE but in many areas was a non event, bearing in mind what happened in London to get the resulting flat market ( above ) shows what must have been the situation in many areas
so if the fall was real and significant in London and the SE then some areas must have been flat/risen to produce an overall flat market
can you please explain how the "ridiculous" comment was not twisting my words ?
Your words are dead wrong - hence ridiculous, you're still claiming prices didn't fall in most places where in fact they fell in each region except Scotland (flat) and Northern Ireland. On average prices fell 20.1%.
Repossessions have nothing to do with house prices. Negative equity wasn't anything approaching as widespread as people like to make out.
So the claims of a 20% drop are based on maximum value vs minimum value, rather than a set time period. Isn't that more statistical manipulation? You're actually just cherrypicking, which doesn't actually answer Rotty's statement, especially as you've just said that you're not taking just 90's figures into account.
It's also worth remembering that the statistics being used are sale values, not stock values, and so given the prevailing economic climate at the time would reflect what people had to sell, rather than what people chose to sell, and so on.
Is there a breakdown of types of house sale by area we can look at?
Last edited:
Well I bought and sold a house outside london in the late 80's I can assure you the prices went way up and way down. I would say in my experience prices were pretty stagnant from the early 90's to the late 90's and then started to rise which sort of ties in with what you both are saying