Home sales beat January numbers in U.S. and state & stocks jump on home sales.

[CAwireman]

…But volume is off 28% in California on an annual basis, and the median price has taken a 26% hit, Realtors say. March 25, 2008

WASHINGTON — Sales of existing U.S. homes rose 2.9% in February from January — the first increase since July — and California posted a 9.5% rise in sales, reports Monday showed.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-homes25mar25,1,2429359.story

Stocks jump on Housing data

http://www.forbes.com/markets/2008/03/24/housing-realtors-update2-markets-econ-cx_lal_0324markets43.html

Noise or some marginal firming up due to a bit of early spring sales?

[cr]

Keep in mind these numbers almost always end up being revised – and typically for worse.

Even still, month-to-month is insignificant no matter what it is, and builder confidence in the west is down.

It seems like the media is starting to push “it’s a good time to buy”, buyer’s market, etc. Their logic may be okay, but I think it’s safe to say anything bought today will be worth less in a year, 2years, and IMO 3, 4, and 5 years from now. Maybe more.

[cr]

Keep in mind these numbers almost always end up being revised – and typically for worse.

Even still, month-to-month is insignificant no matter what it is, and builder confidence in the west is down.

It seems like the media is starting to push “it’s a good time to buy”, buyer’s market, etc. Their logic may be okay, but I think it’s safe to say anything bought today will be worth less in a year, 2years, and IMO 3, 4, and 5 years from now. Maybe more.

[cr]

Keep in mind these numbers almost always end up being revised – and typically for worse.

Even still, month-to-month is insignificant no matter what it is, and builder confidence in the west is down.

It seems like the media is starting to push “it’s a good time to buy”, buyer’s market, etc. Their logic may be okay, but I think it’s safe to say anything bought today will be worth less in a year, 2years, and IMO 3, 4, and 5 years from now. Maybe more.

[cr]

Keep in mind these numbers almost always end up being revised – and typically for worse.

Even still, month-to-month is insignificant no matter what it is, and builder confidence in the west is down.

It seems like the media is starting to push “it’s a good time to buy”, buyer’s market, etc. Their logic may be okay, but I think it’s safe to say anything bought today will be worth less in a year, 2years, and IMO 3, 4, and 5 years from now. Maybe more.

[cr]

Keep in mind these numbers almost always end up being revised – and typically for worse.

Even still, month-to-month is insignificant no matter what it is, and builder confidence in the west is down.

It seems like the media is starting to push “it’s a good time to buy”, buyer’s market, etc. Their logic may be okay, but I think it’s safe to say anything bought today will be worth less in a year, 2years, and IMO 3, 4, and 5 years from now. Maybe more.

[capeman]

Month to month is attributed to the start of the Spring buying season but the fact that YOY is greatly negative makes this a bad report any way you look at it. It was spun positive just like the BSC deal was.

Look to lose those stock gains tomorrow when the Case/Schiller numbers come out or the next day.

[capeman]

Month to month is attributed to the start of the Spring buying season but the fact that YOY is greatly negative makes this a bad report any way you look at it. It was spun positive just like the BSC deal was.

Look to lose those stock gains tomorrow when the Case/Schiller numbers come out or the next day.

[capeman]

Month to month is attributed to the start of the Spring buying season but the fact that YOY is greatly negative makes this a bad report any way you look at it. It was spun positive just like the BSC deal was.

Look to lose those stock gains tomorrow when the Case/Schiller numbers come out or the next day.

[capeman]

Month to month is attributed to the start of the Spring buying season but the fact that YOY is greatly negative makes this a bad report any way you look at it. It was spun positive just like the BSC deal was.

Look to lose those stock gains tomorrow when the Case/Schiller numbers come out or the next day.

[capeman]

Month to month is attributed to the start of the Spring buying season but the fact that YOY is greatly negative makes this a bad report any way you look at it. It was spun positive just like the BSC deal was.

Look to lose those stock gains tomorrow when the Case/Schiller numbers come out or the next day.

[LA_Renter]

Big Picture has a great write up on these bogus headlines

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/how-counter-pro.html

“In a front page, 3rd paragraph snafu, the Journal writes: “On Monday, new data suggested that pressures like these are starting to drive prices low enough to attract some buyers back into the market. Sales of previously occupied homes jumped 2.9% in February from the month before, the National Association of Realtors said, the first increase since July.”

As we noted yesterday, that was not what the data stated at all: “Changes from January to February are measuring seasonal differences, not actual improvements in house sales.” Can you imagine what it would be like if we reported retail sales from December to January this way? Headlines would misleadingly state: “Retail sales plummet 65%!” That is why with highly seasonal data series, the preferred methodology is to report year-over-year data — not month-to-month variations.

And what were those numbers? The year-over-year data for existing home sales were DOWN 23.8% below February 2007 levels. That datapoint never found its way into the WSJ article at all. I cannot recall a more blatant misreporting of fact, or a larger or more embarrassing error in a front page WSJ article, ever.

While the NAR might be high-fiving each other over their successful deception at the Journal, they may wish to reconsider. As we noted over a year ago, many realtors in the field are finding the NAR tactics frustratingly counter-productive.

Why? It seems that Realtors were having a hard have time convincing home sellers to price their houses more realistically. Even as home builders were slashing new-home prices to move bloated inventories, “many home sellers are still holding off, hoping – along with FAR and NAR – that prices will start moving back up soon.” Hence, the impact of today’s successful deception and incompetence on the part of the WSJ may ultimately be less flexible pricing of homes, negatively impacting sales.

Call it another pyrrhic victory for the National Association of Realtors “

[LA_Renter]

Big Picture has a great write up on these bogus headlines

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/how-counter-pro.html

“In a front page, 3rd paragraph snafu, the Journal writes: “On Monday, new data suggested that pressures like these are starting to drive prices low enough to attract some buyers back into the market. Sales of previously occupied homes jumped 2.9% in February from the month before, the National Association of Realtors said, the first increase since July.”

As we noted yesterday, that was not what the data stated at all: “Changes from January to February are measuring seasonal differences, not actual improvements in house sales.” Can you imagine what it would be like if we reported retail sales from December to January this way? Headlines would misleadingly state: “Retail sales plummet 65%!” That is why with highly seasonal data series, the preferred methodology is to report year-over-year data — not month-to-month variations.

And what were those numbers? The year-over-year data for existing home sales were DOWN 23.8% below February 2007 levels. That datapoint never found its way into the WSJ article at all. I cannot recall a more blatant misreporting of fact, or a larger or more embarrassing error in a front page WSJ article, ever.

While the NAR might be high-fiving each other over their successful deception at the Journal, they may wish to reconsider. As we noted over a year ago, many realtors in the field are finding the NAR tactics frustratingly counter-productive.

Why? It seems that Realtors were having a hard have time convincing home sellers to price their houses more realistically. Even as home builders were slashing new-home prices to move bloated inventories, “many home sellers are still holding off, hoping – along with FAR and NAR – that prices will start moving back up soon.” Hence, the impact of today’s successful deception and incompetence on the part of the WSJ may ultimately be less flexible pricing of homes, negatively impacting sales.

Call it another pyrrhic victory for the National Association of Realtors “

[LA_Renter]

Big Picture has a great write up on these bogus headlines

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/how-counter-pro.html

“In a front page, 3rd paragraph snafu, the Journal writes: “On Monday, new data suggested that pressures like these are starting to drive prices low enough to attract some buyers back into the market. Sales of previously occupied homes jumped 2.9% in February from the month before, the National Association of Realtors said, the first increase since July.”

As we noted yesterday, that was not what the data stated at all: “Changes from January to February are measuring seasonal differences, not actual improvements in house sales.” Can you imagine what it would be like if we reported retail sales from December to January this way? Headlines would misleadingly state: “Retail sales plummet 65%!” That is why with highly seasonal data series, the preferred methodology is to report year-over-year data — not month-to-month variations.

And what were those numbers? The year-over-year data for existing home sales were DOWN 23.8% below February 2007 levels. That datapoint never found its way into the WSJ article at all. I cannot recall a more blatant misreporting of fact, or a larger or more embarrassing error in a front page WSJ article, ever.

While the NAR might be high-fiving each other over their successful deception at the Journal, they may wish to reconsider. As we noted over a year ago, many realtors in the field are finding the NAR tactics frustratingly counter-productive.

Why? It seems that Realtors were having a hard have time convincing home sellers to price their houses more realistically. Even as home builders were slashing new-home prices to move bloated inventories, “many home sellers are still holding off, hoping – along with FAR and NAR – that prices will start moving back up soon.” Hence, the impact of today’s successful deception and incompetence on the part of the WSJ may ultimately be less flexible pricing of homes, negatively impacting sales.

Call it another pyrrhic victory for the National Association of Realtors “

[LA_Renter]

Big Picture has a great write up on these bogus headlines

http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/how-counter-pro.html

“In a front page, 3rd paragraph snafu, the Journal writes: “On Monday, new data suggested that pressures like these are starting to drive prices low enough to attract some buyers back into the market. Sales of previously occupied homes jumped 2.9% in February from the month before, the National Association of Realtors said, the first increase since July.”

As we noted yesterday, that was not what the data stated at all: “Changes from January to February are measuring seasonal differences, not actual improvements in house sales.” Can you imagine what it would be like if we reported retail sales from December to January this way? Headlines would misleadingly state: “Retail sales plummet 65%!” That is why with highly seasonal data series, the preferred methodology is to report year-over-year data — not month-to-month variations.

And what were those numbers? The year-over-year data for existing home sales were DOWN 23.8% below February 2007 levels. That datapoint never found its way into the WSJ article at all. I cannot recall a more blatant misreporting of fact, or a larger or more embarrassing error in a front page WSJ article, ever.

While the NAR might be high-fiving each other over their successful deception at the Journal, they may wish to reconsider. As we noted over a year ago, many realtors in the field are finding the NAR tactics frustratingly counter-productive.

Why? It seems that Realtors were having a hard have time convincing home sellers to price their houses more realistically. Even as home builders were slashing new-home prices to move bloated inventories, “many home sellers are still holding off, hoping – along with FAR and NAR – that prices will start moving back up soon.” Hence, the impact of today’s successful deception and incompetence on the part of the WSJ may ultimately be less flexible pricing of homes, negatively impacting sales.

Call it another pyrrhic victory for the National Association of Realtors “

[Author]

Posts