SIGNS OF A TURNING HOUSING MARKET

(Blimey - this is getting worse not better.....time to put a stopper in the bottle!)

But thinking about it, a poll producing a 50-50 result might also tend to determine the result.

"Daytona" wrote

Yes - but my statement is still correct. The poll did *not* ask whether people thought there would be a "small crash" or even just a "big crash". Hence, ** only 23% ** of voters actually voted for the possibility of a "crash" (the only "crash" option being for a "very big crash").

"Daytona" wrote

It appeared to me that you were trying to impose a certain outlook on the data. Your "summary" suggested an overwhelming consensus of a *reduction* in prices, whereas actually 25% voted for "same as now" :-

Why ? It lacked the necessary context in fine crap journalistic/pollster tradition. People, like me, that think they'll be a crash, but not a very big one will not have voted. Therefore it's inaccurate to say 'But only 23% think there will be a "crash" ...'

Your assumption.

It did ?

This is what I said : "After 1,953 votes, 86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years, 11% say they will."

Read what I said without making assumptions. Where did I say an overwhelming consensus thought there'd be a reduction ?

In an inflationary environment an asset that people think will stay at the same price is declining in real terms. That was the reason I counted the "stay the same" votes with the "decline" votes.

Daytona

Do we have the start of one in the second largest buyer of mortgage-backed derivatives?

"First, we hear that banks are reporting they expect to benefit from interest rate rises, contrary to past experience in rising rate environments. Since they are big in the derivatives markets, where Freddie is one of the biggest players, it may well be that their optimism is because they are the counterparties to Freddie's derivatives contracts."

In another post here I wondered who was holding all the insurance on such derivatives. Could Freddie have been holding a boatload of it's own derivatives without adequate time-matching of liabilities? It'd explain what's being hinted at here.

And this is exactly the sort of news I'd expect to see if the mortgage bubble started bursting. The next question is whether we'll see anything similar at Fannie.

FoFP

"Daytona" wrote

Well, I guess because it is the truth! Of the five options, only *one* answer included the possibility of a crash. Only 23% of voters chose this option. Therefore "... only 23% [of voters] think there will be a crash."

"Daytona" wrote

As did your initial comment!

"Daytona" wrote

Perhaps so, perhaps not. But that doesn't invalidate the accuracy of my comment. We were, after all, only considering the "1,953 votes" which had been cast - your initial comment on the poll made this clear.

"Daytona" wrote

I beg to differ - it is perfectly accurate. It was yourself that initiated the discussion based on the "1,953 votes" which had been cast. You cannot now add 'non-votes' to the discussion to try to invalidate my comment - it won't wash.

"Daytona" wrote

Not an assumption, merely how *your* comment came across.

"Daytona" wrote

Well I'd class 86% of people as quite a consensus. Don't you? Well, it doesn't matter anyway. As long as a single reader (or more) considered that it meant that, then it *did* "suggest" the same (at least to that/those reader(s)!).

"Daytona" wrote

Hmmm. A big assumption on your part! - The poll could just as easily be based on *real* prices, as *nominal* ones. As it is more usual to consider variations in *real* house prices, I'd suggest *that* is the more reasonable assumption.

Again you've misquoted the option. It said "there's going to be a very big crash".

No it didn't. It was quite clear. It said "86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years" is a clear factual statement. It allows no room for interpretation, suggestion or assumption. If you wish to do so the that's your prerogative. It does not mean that I wrote what you suggest I did. You told me that I suggested something other than what I said, which is what annoyed me.

It does, because people that think they'll be a crash but not a 'very big one' may have voted for "Down - a little". This is what I did.

It was quite clear. It said "86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years" is a clear factual statement. It allows no room for interpretation, suggestion or assumption. If you wish to do so the that's your prerogative. It does not mean that I wrote what you suggest I did. You told me that I suggested something other than what I said, which is what annoyed me.

Yes and I said "86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years" this means something different to what you thought that I suggested, which is why I said read what I said without making assumptions. You said 'Your "summary" suggested an overwhelming consensus of a *reduction* in prices,'. That is incorrect; it didn't.

Really ? That sounds rather arrogant. It matters to me.

"86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years" is a clear factual statement. It allows no room for interpretation, suggestion or assumption. If you wish to do so the that's your prerogative. It does not mean that I wrote what you suggest I did. You told me that I suggested something other than what I said, which is what annoyed me.

Nothing wrong with that as it was clearly stated - "86% say prices will not increase during the next 2 years" If you or others chose to read that as 'Your "summary" suggested an overwhelming consensus of a

Daytona