Property prices are on the way back up!

Ideo

And in fact, I wouldn't be too surprised to see the register pushed out to Jan next year, after the interest TRS running out

Degsy

goodie2shoes wrote: »

absolutely. my friend's dad who has recently retired from the Gardaí just purchased an apartment in D6 as his son will be starting UCD in Autumn. (i doubt he needed a mortgage).

he figures the amount he would have to pay in rent made it worthwhile. and he can rent it out when the academic year is over, and/or when the son is finished college thereby generating an income.

it's not stupid at all.:D

So this man,who's at least 60 years of age and has lived through at least two recessions has bought an apartment in one of the most overpriced areas of Dublin for cash,with his retirement money for his kid because its cheaper than renting a bedsit for the kid to live?

Thats actually your story,yeah? :rolleyes:

Its quite insulting to the intelligence really.

goodie2shoes

Degsy wrote: »

So this man,who's at least 60 years of age and has lived through at least two recessions has bought an apartment in one of the most overpriced areas of Dublin for cash,with his retirement money for his kid because its cheaper than renting a bedsit for the kid to live?

Thats actually your story,yeah? :rolleyes:

Its quite insulting to the intelligence really.

No he's just turned 50 actually, having availed of the Govt's very generous early retirement package. FYI he was "retired" all of 3 days as he had a good paying job lined-up even before he quit the Gardaí.

He bought the apt. at a very good price, as the landlord owner was desperate to sell and needed a quick sale.

Believe what you want. I wasn't insulting your intelligence. I dont think I could.;)

OMD

gurramok wrote: »

Huh? Only RIL went up in value from Q4 2011 to Q1 2012, the others including FTB and Mover Purchasers went down. RIL is a tiny part of the market at the moment, only 25m worth of those mortgages were taken out in Q1 2012.

And the volumes are down in each segment, less people taking out all types of mortgages. What does that say? It says that fewer people are taking out slightly larger mortgages, agree?

It ain't a herd in numbers jumping in yet to prop up the market. We'll see what Q2 springs up when those figures are released though a March rise was recorded in prices which is part of the downward momentum in Q1 banking figures.

The number of mortgage loans issued in each segment decreased on both a year-on-year and a quarter-on-quarter basis.

2012 Q1 1,211 46.0% 873 33.2% 129 4.9% 123 4.7% 294 11.2% 2,630
2011 Q4 1,887 48.9% 1,206 31.3% 131 3.4% 204 5.3% 428 11.1% 3,856

The value of mortgage loans issued to the RIL segment increased on both a quarter-on-quarter and a year-on-year basis. All other segments contracted compared with Q1 2011 and Q4 2011

2012 Q1 198 44.0% 182 40.4% 25 5.6% 18 4.0% 27 6.0% 450
2011 Q4 301 47.1% 248 38.8% 22 3.5% 32 5.0% 36 5.6% 639

You quoted the report. At least read the bloody thing before you comment. FFS

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

Cash sales are probably selling at more or less the same as non cash buyers except in certain circumstances. Without the cash sales the index is less meaningful but that is not the reason it is meaningless.

If the monthly index is meaningless it is because the sample size is too small, not specifically because cash sales are excluded. The main advantage of including them is to increase the sample size, not because they are buying at significantly different prices.

Any report that is issued with the conclusion - "house prices are rising", that has left out a significant portion of actual sales - is meaningless.


The size of the "sample" is not in question because the report found that "house prices are rising".

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

Any report that is issued with the conclusion - "house prices are rising", that has left out a significant portion of actual sales - is meaningless.


The size of the "sample" is not in question because the report found that "house prices are rising".

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

Theboinkmaster

Catweasel wrote: »

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

In the context of concluding on house market recovery or finding the "bottom" the report is indeed meaningless.

We have a few years of sustained price drops to go yet IMO.

Catweasel

Theboinkmaster wrote: »

In the context of concluding on house market recovery or finding the "bottom" the report is indeed meaningless.

We have a few years of sustained price drops to go yet IMO.

Agreed. The point being argued by others is that the report is meaningless because cash sales are excluded.

My point is that the report is not meaningless due to the exclusion of cash sales, though it may be less meaningful. If the report is meaningless it is because of sample size and lack of data, not because of a skew introduced by the omission of cash transactions.

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

But there is no conclusion that house prices are rising in the report. The report is factual and does not draw conclusions. The report merely reports the numbers based on its methodology, which it acknowledges poses a challenge and it freely acknowledges that cash transactions are out of scope.

The report is not meaningless, its meaning just has to understood within its limitations.

I think you'll find that in any statistical analysis, sample size is very much relevant.

I'm intrigued as to why people think that cash sales should sell at different prices to other houses.

Sorry, but the conclusion is when the CSO states:

House price increase.

It's methodolgy excludes 30% cash transactions. We don't know how much these properties sold for and that is the issue.

Leaving out cash transactions and concluding from the part information included that house prices have risen, when in actual fact that cannot be verified is wrong.

LLU

goodie2shoes wrote: »

HOUSE prices increased by 0.2pc in May with Dublin up for a third month in a row although year-on-year there was a drop.

According to the latest figures from the Central Statistics Office, the 0.2pc increase in May compares with a drop of 1.1pc in April and 1.2pc in May of last year.

National prices fell by 15.3pc in the year ended May.

And in Dublin, prices were 17.5pc lower than a year ago.

The price of properties excluding Dublin rose by 0.1pc in May compared with a decline of 2.1pc in May last year.

Dublin house prices are 55pc lower than at their highest level in 2007.

Dublin apartment prices are 61pc lower than in February of the same year.

http://www.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/house-prices-up-02pc-in-may-but-dublin-climbs-for-third-month-in-row-3149448.html

Yes it looks like we're seeing an irreversible trend - but this could change.

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

Sorry, but the conclusion is when the CSO states:

House price increase.

It's methodolgy excludes 30% cash transactions. We don't know how much these properties sold for and that is the issue.

Leaving out cash transactions and concluding from the part information included that house prices have risen, when in actual fact that cannot be verified is wrong.

I think we need to distinguish between the conclusions you drew from the report and what the CSO actually said.

The CSO is pretty clear that about the dangers of interpretations and the scope of its report

“Residential property prices grew by 0.2% in the month of May. This compares with a decline of 1.1% recorded in April and a decline of 1.2% recorded in May of last year.”

“care should still be taken when interpreting monthly figures which may indicate short-term volatility rather than underlying change in longer term price trends.”

“Not all residential property transactions are funded by a mortgage (i.e. they are cash based) and these transactions are excluded from the scope of the index.”

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_may2012.pdf


The CSO does not mention the impact that including or excluding the cash transactions would have (other than they cover in excess of 75% of stamp duty returns) but I have seen no evidence to suggest that including them would significantly impact on the overall index (other than, obviously, increasing sample size)

Snakeblood

Catweasel wrote: »

The CSO does not mention the impact that including or excluding the cash transactions would have (other than they cover in excess of 75% of stamp duty returns) but I have seen no evidence to suggest that including them would significantly impact on the overall index (other than, obviously, increasing sample size)

The issue I'd have is that generally speaking, Cash buyers are seen as being able to command lower prices for things, not just houses. There's less faffing around with banks, which is a big incentive to process a sale through cash, considering how banks are seen at the moment (not lending, changing terms of mortgage, reassessments constantly).

I haven't seen evidence that it would tip the price index down, but I can think of several reasons why it would push the price index down, and not one why a cash sale would command an increased price from someone selling a house.

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

I think we need to distinguish between the conclusions you drew from the report and what the CSO actually said.

The CSO is pretty clear that about the dangers of interpretations and the scope of its report

“Residential property prices grew by 0.2% in the month of May. This compares with a decline of 1.1% recorded in April and a decline of 1.2% recorded in May of last year.”

“care should still be taken when interpreting monthly figures which may indicate short-term volatility rather than underlying change in longer term price trends.”

“Not all residential property transactions are funded by a mortgage (i.e. they are cash based) and these transactions are excluded from the scope of the index.”

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/releasespublications/documents/prices/2012/rppi_may2012.pdf


The CSO does not mention the impact that including or excluding the cash transactions would have (other than they cover in excess of 75% of stamp duty returns) but I have seen no evidence to suggest that including them would significantly impact on the overall index (other than, obviously, increasing sample size)

From the link you provided:

"Residential property prices grew by 0.2% in the month of May"

"In Dublin residential property prices rose by 0.2% in May"

"Dublin house prices increased by 0.5% in the month"
"The price of residential properties in the Rest of Ireland (i.e. excluding Dublin) rose by 0.1%"

It's not MY conclusion - it is theirs.

Let's say that 300 properties sold in Dublin in May and 200 required mortgages - the other 100 didn't. Now to conclude as they have done, that this means that "ALL" property prices have risen is wrong.

This really tells us the level of lending the banks are engaging in - not the actual sales prices and as you and I both know the media and VI's will spin this as the signs of "recovery".

Look at it another way: If the report was only based on cash transactions and that concluded that prices fell - then you wold hear the VI's screaming " But you haven't taken non cash sales into account".

Until we have the register all if this is pretty meaningless and only serves to lull more people into buying property.

gurramok

OMD wrote: »

You quoted the report. At least read the bloody thing before you comment. FFS

What is wrong with my post? It quotes the figures from the report. Enlighten us.

robd

This is a really dumb thread.

If you don't agree that the property market has turned and want to throw money at it you're part of the herd.

Lots of anecdotal (i.e. statistically irrelevant) evidence of Dads of Friends buying a place.

Best advice I can give it, wait till the Year on Year figures show an increase. Monthly figures are irrelevant in a small market with low liquidity. It's not about trying to buy at the lowest price before things go back up. If you don't understand why (I already posted why) then do as you wish, it's your money and your life after all.

Also, if you have the cash and aren't too worried about the short term (5 year) losses and you're just sick of renting etc. then buying now, if you can get the place you want at a fair price, probably isn't going to make much difference to you. Psychologically, people in this country seem to feel more secure owning (even when it's the bank who really owns). Rent is dead money isn't true at all, but people genuinely subscribe to this theory. The feeling of security is an important thing in life, again even when that's not necessarily the case. Above all keep your mortgage below 80% of value. The lower the ratio the better.

Bobeagleburger

robd wrote: »

This is a really dumb thread.

If you don't agree that the property market has turned and want to throw money at it you're part of the herd.

Lots of anecdotal (i.e. statistically irrelevant) evidence of Dads of Friends buying a place.

Best advice I can give it, wait till the Year on Year figures show an increase. Monthly figures are irrelevant in a small market with low liquidity. It's not about trying to buy at the lowest price before things go back up. If you don't understand why (I already posted why) then do as you wish, it's your money and your life after all.

Also, if you have the cash and aren't too worried about the short term (5 year) losses and you're just sick of renting etc. then buying now, if you can get the place you want at a fair price, probably isn't going to make much difference to you. Psychologically, people in this country seem to feel more secure owning (even when it's the bank who really owns). Rent is dead money isn't true at all, but people genuinely subscribe to this theory. The feeling of security is an important thing in life, again even when that's not necessarily the case. Above all keep your mortgage below 80% of value. The lower the ratio the better.

Good post.

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

From the link you provided:

"Residential property prices grew by 0.2% in the month of May"

"In Dublin residential property prices rose by 0.2% in May"

"Dublin house prices increased by 0.5% in the month"
"The price of residential properties in the Rest of Ireland (i.e. excluding Dublin) rose by 0.1%"

It's not MY conclusion - it is theirs.

CSO address this - “care should still be taken when interpreting monthly figures which may indicate short-term volatility rather than underlying change in longer term price trends.”

daltonmd wrote: »

Let's say that 300 properties sold in Dublin in May and 200 required mortgages - the other 100 didn't. Now to conclude as they have done, that this means that "ALL" property prices have risen is wrong.

CSO does not anywhere claim that "ALL" prices have risen. In fact, it states the exact opposite. “Not all residential property transactions are funded by a mortgage (i.e. they are cash based) and these transactions are excluded from the scope of the index.”

You are inferring they are referring to ALL prices, even though explicitly say otherwise. It is your conclusion that “ALL” prices have risen, not the CSO.

Catweasel

Snakeblood wrote: »

The issue I'd have is that generally speaking, Cash buyers are seen as being able to command lower prices for things, not just houses. There's less faffing around with banks, which is a big incentive to process a sale through cash, considering how banks are seen at the moment (not lending, changing terms of mortgage, reassessments constantly).

I haven't seen evidence that it would tip the price index down, but I can think of several reasons why it would push the price index down, and not one why a cash sale would command an increased price from someone selling a house.

I can tell you from experience that most people are interested in achieving the highest price from property and only a minority are tempted by the lower price but more certain cash bid.

Let’s consider 5 scenarios and the probable outcome:
1. Seller needs cash quick and has low debt on the property – lower Cash bid may win out over mortgage approved buyer.
2. Seller is in negative equity or needs to clear a large debt – will take highest bid regardless of cash or mortgage approved bidder.
3. Seller is in no rush to sell and has low debt – will probably take the highest offer regardless of cash or mortgage approved bidder.
4. Seller has competing cash and mortgage bids – will probably try to play bidders off against each other – pushes prices up, person who wants house more or has more resources will stay in the game longer. If all else equal will go with cash.
5. Bank won’t fund a property – cash buyer will win out

So lots of scenarios and sometimes cash is king, sometimes the highest price wins.
There is a myth that cash buyers push down prices but there is no evidence to support that. Most times the highest bid will win outregardless of source of finance.

1Tony1

Hope it keeps going up!

strandroad

Snakeblood wrote: »

The issue I'd have is that generally speaking, Cash buyers are seen as being able to command lower prices for things, not just houses. There's less faffing around with banks, which is a big incentive to process a sale through cash, considering how banks are seen at the moment (not lending, changing terms of mortgage, reassessments constantly).

I haven't seen evidence that it would tip the price index down, but I can think of several reasons why it would push the price index down, and not one why a cash sale would command an increased price from someone selling a house.

Not for this one particular house, no. I agree that a cash buyer is more likely to get a lower price as they can close quickly.

But looking at the bigger picture they can change it quaite a lot. The supply in some places is fairly limited. If there is an influx of cash buyers (such as thousands of PS retirees) they buy what they want perhaps even cheaper and drive the prices down, but this is not counted in this report. Their activity leaves an even smaller pool of houses for those who need mortgages, so in some cases they start competing and some houses start selling closer to asking or above. This gets counted in the report - as an increase.

If both types of activities were counted, most likely there would be no increase and instead a further decrease, due in part to the negotiating power of cash.

Snakeblood

Catweasel wrote: »

I can tell you from experience that most people are interested in achieving the highest price from property and only a minority are tempted by the lower price but more certain cash bid.

Let’s consider 5 scenarios and the probable outcome:
1. Seller needs cash quick and has low debt on the property – lower Cash bid may win out over mortgage approved buyer.
2. Seller is in negative equity or needs to clear a large debt – will take highest bid regardless of cash or mortgage approved bidder.
3. Seller is in no rush to sell and has low debt – will probably take the highest offer regardless of cash or mortgage approved bidder.
4. Seller has competing cash and mortgage bids – will probably try to play bidders off against each other – pushes prices up, person who wants house more or has more resources will stay in the game longer. If all else equal will go with cash.
5. Bank won’t fund a property – cash buyer will win out

So lots of scenarios and sometimes cash is king, sometimes the highest price wins.
There is a myth that cash buyers push down prices but there is no evidence to support that. Most times the highest bid will win outregardless of source of finance.

I think you're arguing something I'm not arguing. I'm saying that all other things being equal, the likelihood is, because of the relative advantages of cash vs. credit, cash purchases will tend to be cheaper than credit for the same stock, and won't be more in the current climate. Certainly not all cases, maybe not most, but then, I didn't say that.

From your examples:
1: Cash wins
2: Doesn't matter- Cash probably wins all else being equal as it's faster
3: Doesn't matter- Cash probably wins all else being equal as it's faster
4: Doesn't matter- Cash probably wins all else being equal as it's faster
5: Cash wins.

There's no situation where cash isn't preferable to a mortgage, and it's a stupid cash buyer who doesn't know that they hold the cards vs. mortgages and can bid accordingly. The balance of probabilities favours the more advantageous payment method getting cheaper properties.

goodie2shoes

robd wrote: »

This is a really dumb thread.

If you don't agree that the property market has turned and want to throw money at it you're part of the herd.

Lots of anecdotal (i.e. statistically irrelevant) evidence of Dads of Friends buying a place.

Best advice I can give it, wait till the Year on Year figures show an increase. Monthly figures are irrelevant in a small market with low liquidity. It's not about trying to buy at the lowest price before things go back up. If you don't understand why (I already posted why) then do as you wish, it's your money and your life after all.

Also, if you have the cash and aren't too worried about the short term (5 year) losses and you're just sick of renting etc. then buying now, if you can get the place you want at a fair price, probably isn't going to make much difference to you. Psychologically, people in this country seem to feel more secure owning (even when it's the bank who really owns). Rent is dead money isn't true at all, but people genuinely subscribe to this theory. The feeling of security is an important thing in life, again even when that's not necessarily the case. Above all keep your mortgage below 80% of value. The lower the ratio the better.

"RENT IS DEAD MONEY isn't true at all". LOL spoken like a true landlord.
a work colleague of mine has been renting for the past 10 years at an average rent of €800 pm. He has paid over €96,000 in rent! What has he got to show for it? Nothing. His landlord can kick him out whenever he likes and there's nothing he can do about it. So much for your "feeling of security" eh?

on one hand you advise people not to invest their cash in property, but in the next sentence you advise them to keep their mortgage below 80% LTV???? Duh!

your posts are so riddled with contradictions it's hard to take them seriously.:o

jmayo

goodie2shoes wrote: »

the problem with the herd (and its' mentality) is it lurches first one way and then the other. (like sheep do).

Sheep are in a flock not a herd

goodie2shoes wrote: »

remember those folk telling you property could only go up?
well they're at it again, except this time they're telling you it can only go down!

don't believe them unless you want to be part of that herd. AGAIN!:D

So far you have failed to give any concrete economic reasons in this thread why you think now is a good time to buy and why houses are such good value, bar comparing us to the UK in the late 80s and how one should never follow the herd. :rolleyes:

And claiming that we will come out of our bubble burst like the Uk in the 80s has no relevance because we are no UK and the economic circumstances are totally different.
I can give you loads of economic reasons why house prices will probably come down and none of them involve following a herd or comparing us to some country at some other time.

And if we were to compare us to other countries' bubble bursts it could mostly point towards more price decreases and stagnation.
See Japan for instance.

Zamboni

goodie2shoes wrote: »

a work colleague of mine has been renting for the past 10 years at an average rent of €800 pm. He has paid over €96,000 in rent! What has he got to show for it? Nothing. His landlord can kick him out whenever he likes and there's nothing he can do about it. So much for your "feeling of security" eh?

If your colleague had bought in 2002 he would potentially:

Be looking at a similar value or less for his property now. No capital gain/possible loss.
Have paid ten years of mortgage repayments.
Have paid ten years of interest.
Have paid ten years of maintenance, repairs, servicing.
Have paid ten years of various insurance and assurance policies in relation to the mortgage.

It is entirely possible this could have cost a hell of a lot more than €96k.
Obviously it is impossible to retrospectively come up with exact hypothetical figures but the point is, don't dismiss Robd's "rent is not dead money" out of hand.

daltonmd

Catweasel wrote: »

CSO address this - “care should still be taken when interpreting monthly figures which may indicate short-term volatility rather than underlying change in longer term price trends.”



CSO does not anywhere claim that "ALL" prices have risen. In fact, it states the exact opposite. “Not all residential property transactions are funded by a mortgage (i.e. they are cash based) and these transactions are excluded from the scope of the index.”

You are inferring they are referring to ALL prices, even though explicitly say otherwise. It is your conclusion that “ALL” prices have risen, not the CSO.

The report clearly concludes a rise in house prices in Dublin and nationally - it states this while acknowledging it has omitted a very large chunk of transactions, meaning that it cannot conclude this as absolute fact. If you cannot see the point I am trying to make then that's your prerogative.

robd

goodie2shoes wrote: »

"RENT IS DEAD MONEY isn't true at all". LOL spoken like a true landlord.
a work colleague of mine has been renting for the past 10 years at an average rent of €800 pm. He has paid over €96,000 in rent! What has he got to show for it? Nothing. His landlord can kick him out whenever he likes and there's nothing he can do about it. So much for your "feeling of security" eh?

on one hand you advise people not to invest their cash in property, but in the next sentence you advise them to keep their mortgage below 80% LTV???? Duh!

your posts are so riddled with contradictions it's hard to take them seriously.:o

goodie2shoes.

Your posts are just getting annoying at this stage. You seem to just believe and pick up what you want from mine and other peoples posts. I never advised people not to invest their cash in property. I clearly stated if you are buying property make sure to have < 80% LTV. Given the number of people that took 100% mortgages in the last decade and that 92% mortgages are still available this isn't universally thought of.

Again you bring in anecdotal evidence of some distant person. A work colleague not exactly being a close friend of family member. Anecdotal evidence is complete rubbish to any study of anything. A basic higher education in most fields teaches this, yet you keep going back to it.

In giving your spectacular €96,000 figure, you are completely ignoring the interest element of having a mortgage which itself is dead money too. A €250k mortgage would cost you €1200 per month over 30 years at 4% interest, thus you'd be paying an average of €9,000 per annum in interest over the first 10 years. That's €90,000 over the 10 years. You'd have knocked about €55k off your mortgage but that would probably just cover the negative equity over that period. You could have saved €400 per month in a bank (the difference between rent and mortgage, €1200-800) and had €48,000 cash in the bank. Thus you'd be in a better position. Thus you're completely wrong in your hear say analysis/anecdotal evidence. Q.E.D.

Also, the gist of my post re "Rent is Dead Money", is that people are comfortably believing this and they are perfectly entitled to believe this if they wish. You're clearly one of this herd.

Unfortunately, it's becoming clearer and clearer that you really have no idea what you're taking about.

Snakeblood

daltonmd wrote: »

The report clearly concludes a rise in house prices in Dublin and nationally - it states this while acknowledging it has omitted a very large chunk of transactions, meaning that it cannot conclude this as absolute fact. If you cannot see the point I am trying to make then that's your prerogative.

I think the report makes clear that it can only speak about mortgages within its terms of reference. It's not pulling a fast one.

daltonmd

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think the report makes clear that it can only speak about mortgages within its terms of reference. It's not pulling a fast one.

Maybe not snakeblood, but google the amount of reports this generated stating a recovery in the market.

A lot of people won't bother with the details of the report and may be influenced to buy a property, thinking we are in recovery.

I'm not saying this is the case or it's not the case - but I do think that the cash transactions could be the difference between a view of "increases" and "falls" given that the margin is so small.

I think it's pointless at this stage and am looking forward to when the register comes out.

Catweasel

Snakeblood wrote: »

I think you're arguing something I'm not arguing. I'm saying that all other things being equal, the likelihood is, because of the relative advantages of cash vs. credit, cash purchases will tend to be cheaper than credit for the same stock.

Apologies, I agree with that...I'm arguing that there should not be a significant difference between a cash purchase and a credit purchase price. All other things being equal a cash bid is preferable for a vendor but it would be a rare vendor who turns down a higher credit bid in favour of a significantly lower cash one.

Catweasel

daltonmd wrote: »

Maybe not snakeblood, but google the amount of reports this generated stating a recovery in the market.

A lot of people won't bother with the details of the report and may be influenced to buy a property, thinking we are in recovery.

I'm not saying this is the case or it's not the case - but I do think that the cash transactions could be the difference between a view of "increases" and "falls" given that the margin is so small.

I think it's pointless at this stage and am looking forward to when the register comes out.

We're not that far apart on what we are saying. You are right that people read the headline but that is not stated in the report. It would also be helpful if there was a margin of error stated in the report (I estimate it might be + - 3% for the monthly figures)

Where we might differ is that I don't think the cash sales per se will produce a significant change in the index, other than helping the main flaw/contributer to volitility currently which is the small sample size.