Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A Record Drop In Home Prices
Washington Post ^ | October 26, 2006 | Kirstin Downey

Posted on 10/26/2006 12:53:25 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts

The price of existing homes last month fell 2.2 percent, the largest monthly decline in the almost four decades the number has been tracked, according to an industry report released yesterday.

Nationwide, the number of existing single-family homes sold fell 14.2 percent in September compared with September 2005, according to the report from the National Association of Realtors. The number of sales has fallen each month since March.

Prices fell everywhere in the country, with the Northeast and West most affected. Declines were more moderate in the South, which includes the Washington area....

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy
KEYWORDS: bubble; bubblebrigade; depression; despair; doom; frbubbleheads; gggsalesman; goldsalesman; miserytonight; realestate; tinfoil
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-346 next last
To: GodGunsGuts

ESL?


121 posted on 10/27/2006 9:49:36 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts. You know who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot; GodGunsGuts
GGG - It would appear they are taking their toll has household net worth has been steadily declining every year.

Toddsterpatriot - Net worth, calculated by subtracting liabilities from assets, had increased 13% in 2003, 9.7% in 2004 and 8.5% in 2005

OWNED!

122 posted on 10/27/2006 9:56:42 AM PDT by Fan of Fiat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Fan of Fiat

LOL!


123 posted on 10/27/2006 9:59:31 AM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts. You know who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: DonnDe

You are correct:

"Median" is not the same as "Mean" nor the same as "Mode".

From my (admittedly simple) example, the "median" price of all houses sold in August was $100,000 and the "median" price of all houses sold in September was $105,000.

And the "mode" for all houses sold in August was $100,000 while the "mode" for all houses sold in September was $105,000.

Given the assumptions I presented, neither of these last two statistics is very useful, IMHO.

Nevertheless...

Let's look at two months of assumed sales data in which each house (in an admittedly small sample) has a different selling price to see what can happen to the "Median", in spite of price inflation, if fewer "expensive homes" are sold in "Month 2" than "Month 1".



11 Sales in.........9 Sales in
Month One.........Month Two
Model..$Price.....Model..$Price

A.....100,000.....A.....105,000
B.....110,000.....B.....115,500
C.....120,000.....C.....126,000
D.....130,000.....D.....136,500
E.....140,000.....E.....147,000
F.....150,000.....F.....157,500
G.....160,000.....G.....168,000
H.....170,000.....H.....178,500
I......180,000.....I.....189,000
J......190,000
K.....200,000

Median: $150,000 $147,000

Do you agree?

BTW, I agree with you that if the number of less expensive homes sold should increase in Month 2, those sales would also cause the "Median" to decrease. As a quick example, if three Model "A" homes were sold in Month 2 instead of just one, thereby keeping the total number of homes sold at 11, the "Median" price would drop to $136,500.

So I think my point is still valid: The application of statistical analysis to diverse data populations can create useless (but "dramatic" and "newsworthy") conclusions.


124 posted on 10/27/2006 10:04:21 AM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
GGG - The Gold Pimp Daddy

Gold-Pimp

That pic is funny! I don't care who you are.

125 posted on 10/27/2006 10:04:40 AM PDT by Fan of Fiat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: DonnDe

You are correct:

"Median" is not the same as "Mean" nor the same as "Mode".

From my (admittedly simple) example, the "median" price of all houses sold in August was $100,000 and the "median" price of all houses sold in September was $105,000.

And the "mode" for all houses sold in August was $100,000 while the "mode" for all houses sold in September was $105,000.

Given the assumptions I presented, neither of these last two statistics is very useful, IMHO.

Nevertheless...

Let's look at two months of assumed sales data in which each house (in an admittedly small sample) has a different selling price to see what can happen to the "Median", in spite of price inflation, if fewer "expensive homes" are sold in "Month 2" than "Month 1".



11 Sales in.........9 Sales in
Month One.........Month Two
Model..$Price.....Model..$Price

A.....100,000.....A.....105,000
B.....110,000.....B.....115,500
C.....120,000.....C.....126,000
D.....130,000.....D.....136,500
E.....140,000.....E.....147,000
F.....150,000.....F.....157,500
G.....160,000.....G.....168,000
H.....170,000.....H.....178,500
I......180,000.....I.....189,000
J......190,000
K.....200,000

Median: $150,000 $147,000

Do you agree?

BTW, I agree with you that if the number of less expensive homes sold should increase in Month 2, those sales would also cause the "Median" to decrease. As a quick example, if three Model "A" homes were sold in Month 2 instead of just one, thereby keeping the total number of homes sold at 11, the "Median" price would drop to $136,500.

So I think my point is still valid: The application of statistical analysis to diverse data populations can create useless (but "dramatic" and "newsworthy") conclusions.


126 posted on 10/27/2006 10:04:41 AM PDT by pfony1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Still a net increase of 230% over my initial purchase price.
127 posted on 10/27/2006 10:05:21 AM PDT by Caipirabob (Communists... Socialists... Democrats...Traitors... Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fan of Fiat; Toddsterpatriot; GodGunsGuts

Owned: Pretty much describes the entire thread.

128 posted on 10/27/2006 10:09:31 AM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: pfony1

Actually the median is the preferred measure of central tendency for non-symmetric distributions - which home prices typically are. Average net worth and annual income are also typically non-symetric.

The mode is rarely useful.


129 posted on 10/27/2006 10:14:40 AM PDT by ladyjane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: pfony1
So I think my point is still valid: The application of statistical analysis to diverse data populations can create useless (but "dramatic" and "newsworthy") conclusions.

I fully agree that many of these stats are misunderstood and misused by reporters. You have to be careful with your sample size, though. I'm not sure how many houses transact in a month, but let's say one-half million. Using your example and saying that transactions went from 11 to 9 would represent a fall of 100,000 homes in a month, which is not an insignificant number. I think we would agree that since so few in the media truly understand these reports, that they get dumbed-down and misinterpreted.

130 posted on 10/27/2006 10:41:15 AM PDT by DonnDe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Fan of Fiat
I think you just helped me pick out my Halloween costume.
131 posted on 10/27/2006 11:49:15 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Mase; Toddsterpatriot

A very large portion of household net worth appreciation is a function of real estate appreciation. Take away real estate appreciation (i.e. bubble pops) and there goes your rosy household net worth numbers.


132 posted on 10/27/2006 2:41:42 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
A very large portion of household net worth appreciation is a function of real estate appreciation.

I don't suppose you have any hard numbers to back up your theory? Something a little more solid than your usual "gold stocks paid better dividends than most other investments for the last five years" canard. Maybe a scribbled graph or a cartoon with angels?

133 posted on 10/27/2006 3:14:34 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts. You know who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Take away real estate appreciation (i.e. bubble pops) and there goes your rosy household net worth numbers.

How about you crunch some numbers for a change. Tell us (with a reliable source) what percent of our total household net worth is represented by homeowner equity and then explain why that should scare anyone or why it indicates, in any way, that we're doomed.

134 posted on 10/27/2006 3:24:17 PM PDT by Mase
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Mase; Toddsterpatriot

I took a look at the FED numbers that Mase provided. Don't you guys bother reading your own links?


135 posted on 10/27/2006 5:39:22 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Share your insight. If you had read the link you wouldn't have said net worth was dropping. Why don't you use the link and get some facts to back up your real estate assertion.
136 posted on 10/27/2006 5:43:02 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts. You know who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

I never meant to say household net worth was dropping. But you already know that don't you. The rate of appreciation of household net worth is steadily declining. But then again, you already know that too (but you won't admit it).


137 posted on 10/27/2006 6:25:39 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
The rate of appreciation of household net worth is steadily declining.

Net worth, calculated by subtracting liabilities from assets, had increased 13% in 2003, 9.7% in 2004 and 8.5% in 2005

Yes, it has. Despite ever increasing triple deficits.

But then again, you already know that too (but you won't admit it).

Why wouldn't I admit it, it's the truth. How about proving the "truth" you claimed about real estate?

138 posted on 10/27/2006 6:30:07 PM PDT by Toddsterpatriot (Goldbugs, immune to logic and allergic to facts. You know who you are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Toddsterpatriot

Feel free to take a look-see at Mase's FED link in post #113. Go to page 110 of the link and see how much of household net worth appreciation is tied to real estate.


139 posted on 10/27/2006 6:43:33 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: sten

Also remember, as the boomers take early retirements, those jobs that normally would go to younger workers here in the USA are being sent overseas. Those who own homes and are in their 40s and early 50s will furher see their homes decrease as there are fewer qualified buyers. We are just seeing the beginning of a dangerous trend of deflation.


140 posted on 10/27/2006 6:51:54 PM PDT by DownInFlames
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 341-346 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson