Case shiller on zip code basis

[Fearful]

No. In fact my data won’t even tell me if a sale is the first sale or not. But a house must sell at least twice between 1999 and today to affect the index.

Cool, thanks. For what it’s worth, C-S excludes the first sale. I think they managed to collect the data going way, way back.

[XBoxBoy]

DWCap, you’re right that you can interpret things to mean that the rate of decline must slow, instead of the bottom must come sooner. However, given all the issues, (still plenty of foreclosures in the works, many which haven’t hit the market, looming crisis with option arms, probably recession coming, etc) I don’t see any reason for the rate of decline to slow.

Can you give some solid reasons for the rate to slow? I’m certainly open-minded about this. The only reason I get from people about why it will be 2011 before the bottom is that in the last downturn it took that long. Fine, I can accept that, but it’s not a given that this time will be the same.

The only thing I think that could slow the rate of decline is if we get a good bit of knife catching in the next couple of months. However, with all the fear that is starting to spread, I’m suspicious that there will be more foreclosures coming onto the market than knife catchers, so that won’t slow things at all.

Just my two cents though.
XBox

[XBoxBoy]

DWCap, you’re right that you can interpret things to mean that the rate of decline must slow, instead of the bottom must come sooner. However, given all the issues, (still plenty of foreclosures in the works, many which haven’t hit the market, looming crisis with option arms, probably recession coming, etc) I don’t see any reason for the rate of decline to slow.

Can you give some solid reasons for the rate to slow? I’m certainly open-minded about this. The only reason I get from people about why it will be 2011 before the bottom is that in the last downturn it took that long. Fine, I can accept that, but it’s not a given that this time will be the same.

The only thing I think that could slow the rate of decline is if we get a good bit of knife catching in the next couple of months. However, with all the fear that is starting to spread, I’m suspicious that there will be more foreclosures coming onto the market than knife catchers, so that won’t slow things at all.

Just my two cents though.
XBox

[XBoxBoy]

DWCap, you’re right that you can interpret things to mean that the rate of decline must slow, instead of the bottom must come sooner. However, given all the issues, (still plenty of foreclosures in the works, many which haven’t hit the market, looming crisis with option arms, probably recession coming, etc) I don’t see any reason for the rate of decline to slow.

Can you give some solid reasons for the rate to slow? I’m certainly open-minded about this. The only reason I get from people about why it will be 2011 before the bottom is that in the last downturn it took that long. Fine, I can accept that, but it’s not a given that this time will be the same.

The only thing I think that could slow the rate of decline is if we get a good bit of knife catching in the next couple of months. However, with all the fear that is starting to spread, I’m suspicious that there will be more foreclosures coming onto the market than knife catchers, so that won’t slow things at all.

Just my two cents though.
XBox

[XBoxBoy]

DWCap, you’re right that you can interpret things to mean that the rate of decline must slow, instead of the bottom must come sooner. However, given all the issues, (still plenty of foreclosures in the works, many which haven’t hit the market, looming crisis with option arms, probably recession coming, etc) I don’t see any reason for the rate of decline to slow.

Can you give some solid reasons for the rate to slow? I’m certainly open-minded about this. The only reason I get from people about why it will be 2011 before the bottom is that in the last downturn it took that long. Fine, I can accept that, but it’s not a given that this time will be the same.

The only thing I think that could slow the rate of decline is if we get a good bit of knife catching in the next couple of months. However, with all the fear that is starting to spread, I’m suspicious that there will be more foreclosures coming onto the market than knife catchers, so that won’t slow things at all.

Just my two cents though.
XBox

[XBoxBoy]

DWCap, you’re right that you can interpret things to mean that the rate of decline must slow, instead of the bottom must come sooner. However, given all the issues, (still plenty of foreclosures in the works, many which haven’t hit the market, looming crisis with option arms, probably recession coming, etc) I don’t see any reason for the rate of decline to slow.

Can you give some solid reasons for the rate to slow? I’m certainly open-minded about this. The only reason I get from people about why it will be 2011 before the bottom is that in the last downturn it took that long. Fine, I can accept that, but it’s not a given that this time will be the same.

The only thing I think that could slow the rate of decline is if we get a good bit of knife catching in the next couple of months. However, with all the fear that is starting to spread, I’m suspicious that there will be more foreclosures coming onto the market than knife catchers, so that won’t slow things at all.

Just my two cents though.
XBox

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

Just wanted to make a comment on “rate of decline.” I’m assuming the “rate” esmith is referring to is the -3% from peak per month rate. One fundamental reason this measure of rate can’t hold up is it translates to an ever-rising monthly % decline. For example, the peak CS # was 250. In order to retract 3% from total each month it must fall by 7.5 each month. Falling from 209, then 202, then 194 fits this perfectly. However, on a monthly basis, falling from 209 to 201.5 is a 3.6% fall. from 201.5 to 194 is a 3.7% fall. Continue this on to say, falling from 15 to 7.5, while being another 3% decline in peak terms, the monthly fall is not 3.6% or 3.7%, but 50%.
I would maintain that the decline will decrease in absolute terms (from falling 7.5 or 3% each time) but could maintain a fairly steady monthly decline (if very bearish say 2% per month). This is much more realistic, and instead of meaning the value will hit 0 in 2010, it would hit about 100 at the end of 2010, representing a 50% fall. Of course, I’m not THAT bearish, I just wanted to distinguish between an absolute rate of decline and a monthly rate.

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[robson]

ps-excellent work, i look forward to future updates

[Author]

Posts