Union Tribune data off!

[moneymaker]

Looking in the paper today in the business section on page C4 they have housing data for November 2011 year over year. If you look at 92116 I think single family went down 28.5% condos went down 11.3% but the combined aggregate went up 43.9%. Wow is that the kind of numbers our government puts out too!

[Rich Toscano]

That could happen based on a shift in the mix of what sold. Both condos and houses could be down, but if way more houses sold than condos compared to last year, the aggregate could be up.

[moneymaker]

The condo numbers are about the same and houses went from 10 to 15, once again down 28.5% so how can the median overall be up? I guess there was 1 new house sold in ’11 but none in ’10 so I would think that would not be factored in. When I crunch the numbers I get down by 15.85%

[Rich Toscano]

Houses went from 10 to 15, while condos stayed the same, so if houses are significantly more expensive than condos the overall median could be up.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Houses went from 10 to 15, while condos stayed the same, so if houses are significantly more expensive than condos the overall median could be up.[/quote]

I think its Doug Manchesters fault.

[moneymaker]

Could be UR. Here’s the link for those that don’t suscribe https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?hl=en_US&key=0ApirbA6O0ttAdEtzT1NYT3VseENMOVNZc0FqaGtEX1E&hl=en_US&f=true&noheader=true&gid=1
I’m sure the other numbers don’t compute as well or I’m missing something.

[moneymaker]

[quote=Rich Toscano]Houses went from 10 to 15, while condos stayed the same, so if houses are significantly more expensive than condos the overall median could be up.[/quote]

I agree Rich, however houses went down as well.

[briansd1]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
I think its Doug Manchesters fault.[/quote]

The UT is not a serious paper. It’s always been a cheerleader for San Diego developers.

Now that Doug Manchester owns the UT, we’ll get nothing but cheerleading positive news. He himself said those were his plans for the paper.

i only reluctantly scan the UT webpage for local news. But I would not pay for a subscription.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=threadkiller][quote=Rich Toscano]Houses went from 10 to 15, while condos stayed the same, so if houses are significantly more expensive than condos the overall median could be up.[/quote]

I agree Rich, however houses went down as well.[/quote]

It doesn’t matter, as long as the proportion of houses sold went up, it’s still possible that the overall median could have gone up. Just do the math on a theoretical example, you will see it’s possible.

[enron_by_the_sea]

[quote=urbanrealtor]
I think its Doug Manchesters fault.[/quote]

LOL! Today I heard that Doug Manchester has ordered UT newsroom to “focus on positive aspects of San Diego” and “be the cheerleader for the city”!

You know what that means in terms of UT reporting in 2012 –

(a) Our housing has reached bottom, buy now or be priced out forever!
(b) YES on Chargers Stadium. Of course its going to pay for itself and generate so much money for the city such that it can close its budget deficit that it really does not have.
(c) YES for convention center. See (b)
(d) What potholes? Potholes are in the eyes of the beholder!

[moneymaker]

To be fair UT received their data from google looks like. Where did Google get it from? Perhaps it is just a combination of different typos on the same line. You know like 238k should have been 338k and 342,500 should have been 284,444

[Reality]

It’s also reporting the Median. Unless you have a list of all homes sold you wouldn’t be able to check it.

[Reality]

The overall median listed of $342,500 for November 2011 is correct from a quick check of sales on SDLookup. Although no home sold for $342,500, with 28 sales it is taking the average of the 14th and 15th ranked home prices for the month.

[moneymaker]

Ok I have it figured out now. With 10 houses and 13 condos sold in ’10 the median would be a condo. With 15 houses and 12 condos sold in ’11 the median would be a house. Hence we are saying houses cost 43.9% more in ’11 than condos cost in ’10. Hence it all boils down to “damn statistics”.

[Reality]

[quote=threadkiller]Ok I have it figured out now. With 10 houses and 13 condos sold in ’10 the median would be a condo. With 15 houses and 12 condos sold in ’11 the median would be a house. Hence we are saying houses cost 43.9% more in ’11 than condos cost in ’10. Hence it all boils down to “damn statistics”.[/quote]

That’s assuming condos are always cheaper. However, this one sure wasn’t:

http://www.sdlookup.com/MLS-110044653-4452_Caminito_Fuente_San_Diego_CA_92116

[Author]

Posts