Property asking prices to rise by 59%......

Jan 21, 2006 9 Replies
D

Had to laugh at this, it must be the shortest period to measure asking prices that I've come across -


"Rightmove: House prices rise sharply in 2006



Monday, 16 Jan 2006 11:01 Rightmove: recorded fastest weekly rise in



19 months

The property market has started 2006 with a bang, recording the fastest weekly rise in house prices in 19 months.



Average asking prices rose by £2,048, or 0.9 per cent, in the first week of 2006 - the largest weekly rise since May 2004 according to Rightmove.co.uk."


That's an annualised growth rate of 59%.



Daytona


Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

"Daytona" wrote

Possibly even nearly 64%!

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
R

How? Are there 55 weeks in your year?

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

"Ronald Raygun" wrote

Hehe - 0.94999%pw could be rounded and shown as 0.9%pw.

If that were the case here, then the annualised growth is actually more like 63.7%. Rounded to the nearest whole %, that's 64%!

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

At that rate i'll be a billionaire much quicker than I thought. :-)

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
R

OK, I'll see your 5%, and raise you another 9%.

The article referred to in the OP seems to derive the 0.9% figure out of thin air, noting that prices are about 0.1% up on two months ago, there having been 0.8% fall inbetween.

The data given claim a rise by £2048 to £196,319, which is actually more like 1.05%, annualising to nearly 73%.

Oh what fun it is to lie with statistics.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

"Tim" wrote

Nitpick: 0.94999 rounds to 0.95 which usually rounds up, i.e. to 1.0.

0.94444% would work though.
Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
T

"John Redman" wrote

Nitpick back: 0.94999 rounded to one decimal place *is* 0.9 and certainly *not* 1.0 !!

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
J

Counter-nitpick: IIRC one rounds from right to left, so 0.94999 resolves to

0.95 which would round up.

I just tried this in Excel and 0.94999 displayed to one place is 0.9 whereas

0.95 directly entered as such displays as 1.0.
Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn
R

I guess you don't RC, then.

No. Rounding incrementally is not permitted. You can't round to 2 places and then to 1, if you want to go to 1 you have to go straight there from the original number.

The whole point of rounding is to ensure the number you round

*to* is as close to the original number as possible. Clearly 0.3 is closer to 0.346 than 0.4 is, yet by your method 0.346 would round to 0.35 and then 0.4, which is wrong.

Well, there you go then.

Vote
Twitter Facebook LinkedIn

Join the Discussion

Have something to add? Share your thoughts — no account required.

Didn't find your answer?

Ask the community — no account required