House prices show August fall

I didn't spot any maths in the article, only reported figures and in any case that was then and this is now. It's so close to call at the moment that anecdotal data is probably more reliable and that would surely be the case if the market doesn't know which way to go. Such stories as I've read/heard about suggest that FTBs are waiting for a crash and EAs have an increasing stock to sell. That would suggest a direction downwards.

Perhaps you've heard otherwise.

It's a simple case of failing to match the headline to what the article says. The article reports figures which show year-on-year house price inflation still decidedly positive, but lower than in the corresponding period a year earlier. The first paragraph of the article says, "House price inflation slowed in August, official figures from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister showed today.".

Perhaps the fault doesn't lie with Sandra H but with some sensationalist editing by her bosses. The correct title would have been, and perhaps even originally was "House price inflation shows August fall". But that doesn't sound exciting enough.

Bitstring , from the wonderful person David Off said

They also increased in September, if you believe the Halifax House Price index. Up another 1.4% or something.

wasn't this a comparison between year-on-year figures july vs august?

Indeed.

Or perhaps they don't understand the difference between a fall in the rate at which prices are increasing and a fall in prices.

Indeed it was, sorry. There was something in there which made the words take a wrong turn in my senile brain, causing it to think it was on about august-august-august as well as just july-july and august-august. It must have been the phrase "over the same period last year" that did it (at the end of a paragraph in the middle, which starts with an incomplete sentence).

Have you ever tried to explain this to someone who doesn't already understand it without getting that slightly glazed look? Alternatively, the glaze can be cleverly concealed behind animated eyes but then you're left with the feeling that to have admitted an interest in the distinction makes you something of a pariah.

Genius is pain.

In message , David Off writes

I have lost count of the number of articles, over the past few years, which state categorically in the headline that house prices are falling. Then, reading the article, it is either a report on a prediction that house prices will fall, or a report based on the fact that house prices are rising, but the rate of inflation is falling.

There was a big fuss a few weeks ago that prices were falling and I heard the woman on the Steve Wright Show say that it was obviously rubbish -the rate of the rise was falling. If it's simple enough for Radio 2, it should be simple enough for the rest of us.

I saw a full page article on Ebay fraud a couple of weeks ago, (Express or Mail?). Headline "Ebay Riddled With Fraudulent Transactions", (or similar). In the body of the article it stated that there were 3 million ebay transactions a day in the UK, and 200 were fraudulent. I think the press think we are stupid - possibly we are ?

On what volume? and how did that volume compare with other months?

Jim.

Well Ms Haurant (or the Guardian's subs but she put her name to the piece) has taken published figures and has interpreted them. That requires her to do some mathematical calculation.

Yes but she also said in the article that pressures on first time buyers will have eased. But I would not call a year on year increase of 13.6% along with an increase in lending rates an easing of pressures.

Again she has looked at some figures and made an, incorrect, interpretation of them. This requires some kind of mathematical process to click into life in her journalist brain.

Can you show which calculation/s would have been required?

But you've omitted to mention the very information - the recent change in the rate-of-change - which informed the judgment.

No, it requires only a notion of magnitude rather than manipulation of figures - mathematics usually takes us a stage beyond "x is greater than y".

You are pressing on us your interpretation of her interpretation of decidedly shaky figures - themselves interpretations. Nothing useful can be concluded from it.

At the moment the only reliable information, albeit local, will be anecdotal - those who are trying to buy and sell. If, as many are suggesting, we're at a turning point then things will be a little clearer in a few months time. But probably only marginally.

endless drivel deleted.

I'm not pressing anything on you mate.

The article says house price inflation has fallen:

"The figures revealed that house prices across the UK increased by 13.6% between August 2003 and the same month this year, compared with 14.3% in July."

The article says house prices have increased over the month in question:

"with prices rising by 0.4% from July to August"

The article's title says house prices have fallen: "House prices show August fall"

Obviously the author (or her sub), unless she is some lower form of life like a jellyfish, has had to make some calculation in her mind to arrive at an incorrect conclusion.

Are you sure? Did you have to perform any calculation to draw your incorrect conclusion?

You wouldn't? Surely when someone has been feeling the pressure of worrying whether they can ever afford to buy, and then realise there is no way, this *does* take the pressure off, because they can at last dismiss the idea! :-)

She has identified a negative second derivative, and interpreted that as good news for FTBs. That's hardly incorrect. But I'd agree that presenting it an easing of pressure as opposed to a glimmer of hope is a bit of an exaggeration.

In message , Ronald Raygun writes

I dont think she did it knowingly

What is it?

Moreover, after those 2 hours you'd be going the fastest (7mph) and would have travelled almost 13 miles, while after another 2 hours you'd be back to 5mph and after a further 2 hours you'd be going backwards at 1mph, and about 15 mins before then your distance from where this scenario began would have peaked at just over 30 miles.

I think it was naughty of you to introduce a third derivative.

isn't that a -ve 3rd derivative?

The housing market could be said to have been rising at velocity v the market being static when v=0. The -ve second derivative could be a constant decelaration.

In message , Timothy Lee writes

Sounds a bit like the differentiation and integration I did at 'A' Level nearly 30 years ago.

Got it in one, grandad.

And after all this time the stuff no longer has any relevance in this day and age. They no longer teach it because it's not cool enough. So Ms Haurant, presumably a youngster, could't have done it knowingly. :-)