- This topic has 588 replies, 43 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by Aecetia.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 24, 2007 at 4:04 PM #54880May 24, 2007 at 4:04 PM #54894sdcellarParticipant
SDA – I’m wondering if that’s your artist’s rendition of powayseller!
May 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM #54882AnonymousGuestsdc, thank you for calling me thick-skinned and not thick-skulled.
Aw, FSD, have some fun! My numbers are true at face value. Sure, it doesn’t tell the full story, since monthly data bounces around so much. But, it’s fun to say, ‘La Jolla prices for resale homes are down 34%, already!’
Disingenuous I’m not, though: disingenuous would be comparing the May ’06 peak of $2,356K to the Feb. ’07 trough of $1,470K and saying that home prices are off 38%. That’s playing with the data, which I’m not.
May 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM #54897AnonymousGuestsdc, thank you for calling me thick-skinned and not thick-skulled.
Aw, FSD, have some fun! My numbers are true at face value. Sure, it doesn’t tell the full story, since monthly data bounces around so much. But, it’s fun to say, ‘La Jolla prices for resale homes are down 34%, already!’
Disingenuous I’m not, though: disingenuous would be comparing the May ’06 peak of $2,356K to the Feb. ’07 trough of $1,470K and saying that home prices are off 38%. That’s playing with the data, which I’m not.
May 24, 2007 at 5:37 PM #54902(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantjg – I know, I know, I should lighten up …
BUT La Jolla prices are up 9.5% since the end of 2006 (December). It’s right there in your chart. The soft landing is at hand. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek).
May 24, 2007 at 5:37 PM #54916(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantjg – I know, I know, I should lighten up …
BUT La Jolla prices are up 9.5% since the end of 2006 (December). It’s right there in your chart. The soft landing is at hand. (Tongue firmly planted in cheek).
May 24, 2007 at 5:38 PM #54904(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantHere is another absolutely true example that is equally (un)enlightening.
First, some ground rules:
1. I chose to review data based on the government fiscal year calendar, which starts in October, so as to not to cherry-pick data and bias my results2. I chose to look at data over long periods, 4 years in this example, so that short-term rapid swings have minimal impact on my results.
I found that La Jolla Prices dropped by 7% from Oct 99 to Oct 03, while San Diego prices increased by 93% in the same period !
Statistics from October 1999 to October 2003 per DataQuick (via SD-UT) :
Median SFR resale in La Jolla
10/99 : 1.145 Million
10/03 : 1.060 Million
A drop of 7%Median SFR resale in San Diego
10/99 : 214.5 K
10/03 : 415 K
An increase of 93%So, over a period of 4 years La Jolla median price stagnated and even fell a little bit while the rest of San Diego almost doubled !
While the numbers are incontrovertible fact, the conclusion is false because I ignored the variability in the statistics.
May 24, 2007 at 5:38 PM #54918(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantHere is another absolutely true example that is equally (un)enlightening.
First, some ground rules:
1. I chose to review data based on the government fiscal year calendar, which starts in October, so as to not to cherry-pick data and bias my results2. I chose to look at data over long periods, 4 years in this example, so that short-term rapid swings have minimal impact on my results.
I found that La Jolla Prices dropped by 7% from Oct 99 to Oct 03, while San Diego prices increased by 93% in the same period !
Statistics from October 1999 to October 2003 per DataQuick (via SD-UT) :
Median SFR resale in La Jolla
10/99 : 1.145 Million
10/03 : 1.060 Million
A drop of 7%Median SFR resale in San Diego
10/99 : 214.5 K
10/03 : 415 K
An increase of 93%So, over a period of 4 years La Jolla median price stagnated and even fell a little bit while the rest of San Diego almost doubled !
While the numbers are incontrovertible fact, the conclusion is false because I ignored the variability in the statistics.
May 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM #54912AnonymousGuestIncontrovertible? C’mon.
I pick the peak and compare it to the most recent monthly median.
You play games. Neat, FSD.
May 24, 2007 at 8:57 PM #54927AnonymousGuestIncontrovertible? C’mon.
I pick the peak and compare it to the most recent monthly median.
You play games. Neat, FSD.
May 24, 2007 at 9:12 PM #54917AnonymousGuestJeez, FSD, should I ignore that one day spike back on January 21, 1980, too? Pretend that it never happened? Average it out?
http://piggington.com/daily_gold_over_78_82
Live with it, man. It happened. Prices peaked at $2.4MM in La Jolla.
Five years from now, when real prices are way down everywhere, in the depths of the depression, you’ll get to say, “I remember when…”
May 24, 2007 at 9:12 PM #54931AnonymousGuestJeez, FSD, should I ignore that one day spike back on January 21, 1980, too? Pretend that it never happened? Average it out?
http://piggington.com/daily_gold_over_78_82
Live with it, man. It happened. Prices peaked at $2.4MM in La Jolla.
Five years from now, when real prices are way down everywhere, in the depths of the depression, you’ll get to say, “I remember when…”
May 25, 2007 at 8:26 AM #54960(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantMonthly median sales in a particular zip are the result of the particular mix of sales in a zip code with 25 or so samples. This small sample produces noisy estimates.
Any statistic with 25 samples is going to be noisy. I thought you were a statistics guy. If you have trouble with the concept of noise in time-series data, then go ahead and continue to believe that La Jolla’s prices have dropped by 34%. I don’t care.
But if you believe that, then you have to believe that prices have recovered 9% from the bottom in Dec 2006.
May 25, 2007 at 8:26 AM #54975(former)FormerSanDieganParticipantMonthly median sales in a particular zip are the result of the particular mix of sales in a zip code with 25 or so samples. This small sample produces noisy estimates.
Any statistic with 25 samples is going to be noisy. I thought you were a statistics guy. If you have trouble with the concept of noise in time-series data, then go ahead and continue to believe that La Jolla’s prices have dropped by 34%. I don’t care.
But if you believe that, then you have to believe that prices have recovered 9% from the bottom in Dec 2006.
May 25, 2007 at 8:44 AM #54970AnonymousGuestYou say prices ‘hit bottom’ in December ’06. I say ‘local minima in noisy data.’
Why do you say ‘samples’? It’s the universe of home sales for the month. There is no sampling involved whatsoever.
Prices are dropping in La Jolla. Get used to it.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.