[Daniel]

Lemme know if you end up picking this one, maybe we can barbecue together 🙂

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/apa/669359858.html

May be a bit too far west for you, though. This is right next to Del Mar.

[Daniel]

Lemme know if you end up picking this one, maybe we can barbecue together 🙂

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/apa/669359858.html

May be a bit too far west for you, though. This is right next to Del Mar.

[Daniel]

Lemme know if you end up picking this one, maybe we can barbecue together 🙂

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/apa/669359858.html

May be a bit too far west for you, though. This is right next to Del Mar.

[Daniel]

Lemme know if you end up picking this one, maybe we can barbecue together 🙂

http://sandiego.craigslist.org/nsd/apa/669359858.html

May be a bit too far west for you, though. This is right next to Del Mar.

[Daniel]

I actually think the article is good. Now, “bottom” is a very charged word, and most folks, when thinking of a “bottom”, think of a price bottom. That’s not quite how economists view things, for them the volume bottom is more important, as volume is what goes into GDP calculation, not prices.

So I agree that we’re likely to see the bottom of housing activity this year, and we’re likely to see a slight pick-up starting next year. And prices may “stabilize”, meaning that they won’t fall as abruptly anymore. This, by the way, is sort of obvious: were prices to keep dropping at the current rate, they would reach zero in a couple of years, so it’s inevitable that the decline will slow. But prices are still likely to fall, albeit more slowly, for several years, especially in the bubble areas.

[Daniel]

I actually think the article is good. Now, “bottom” is a very charged word, and most folks, when thinking of a “bottom”, think of a price bottom. That’s not quite how economists view things, for them the volume bottom is more important, as volume is what goes into GDP calculation, not prices.

So I agree that we’re likely to see the bottom of housing activity this year, and we’re likely to see a slight pick-up starting next year. And prices may “stabilize”, meaning that they won’t fall as abruptly anymore. This, by the way, is sort of obvious: were prices to keep dropping at the current rate, they would reach zero in a couple of years, so it’s inevitable that the decline will slow. But prices are still likely to fall, albeit more slowly, for several years, especially in the bubble areas.

[Daniel]

I actually think the article is good. Now, “bottom” is a very charged word, and most folks, when thinking of a “bottom”, think of a price bottom. That’s not quite how economists view things, for them the volume bottom is more important, as volume is what goes into GDP calculation, not prices.

So I agree that we’re likely to see the bottom of housing activity this year, and we’re likely to see a slight pick-up starting next year. And prices may “stabilize”, meaning that they won’t fall as abruptly anymore. This, by the way, is sort of obvious: were prices to keep dropping at the current rate, they would reach zero in a couple of years, so it’s inevitable that the decline will slow. But prices are still likely to fall, albeit more slowly, for several years, especially in the bubble areas.

[Daniel]

I actually think the article is good. Now, “bottom” is a very charged word, and most folks, when thinking of a “bottom”, think of a price bottom. That’s not quite how economists view things, for them the volume bottom is more important, as volume is what goes into GDP calculation, not prices.

So I agree that we’re likely to see the bottom of housing activity this year, and we’re likely to see a slight pick-up starting next year. And prices may “stabilize”, meaning that they won’t fall as abruptly anymore. This, by the way, is sort of obvious: were prices to keep dropping at the current rate, they would reach zero in a couple of years, so it’s inevitable that the decline will slow. But prices are still likely to fall, albeit more slowly, for several years, especially in the bubble areas.

[Daniel]

I actually think the article is good. Now, “bottom” is a very charged word, and most folks, when thinking of a “bottom”, think of a price bottom. That’s not quite how economists view things, for them the volume bottom is more important, as volume is what goes into GDP calculation, not prices.

So I agree that we’re likely to see the bottom of housing activity this year, and we’re likely to see a slight pick-up starting next year. And prices may “stabilize”, meaning that they won’t fall as abruptly anymore. This, by the way, is sort of obvious: were prices to keep dropping at the current rate, they would reach zero in a couple of years, so it’s inevitable that the decline will slow. But prices are still likely to fall, albeit more slowly, for several years, especially in the bubble areas.

[Daniel]

Speaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.

At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.

What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.

That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.

[Daniel]

Speaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.

At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.

What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.

That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.

[Daniel]

Speaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.

At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.

What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.

That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.

[Daniel]

Speaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.

At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.

What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.

That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.

[Daniel]

Speaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.

At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.

What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.

That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.

[Daniel]

I find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.

Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.

[Author]

Posts