Mark Hanson doesn't think we're out of the woods yet

[quote author="awgee" date=1256875830]If you want to convince yourself that a 20 months supply is a healthy market, cool.



A question for you folks:

Why do you think it is that the smart money, (the over $2mil) market is not buying, and the not so smart money is buying?</blockquote>


It's funny that you call purchases under $2mil not so smart money. Thats calling out a lot of people as "not so smart money." There's plenty of people, especially investors, that have the money to make the large purchases but choose to purchase multiple properties at lower costs. Over the last two months, the demand for housing above $2m has been close to its peak levels of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Granted, I did not include areas like coto de caza in my analysis, but only areas along the coast that justify the $2m + pricing. It's just a matter of having more houses on the market, and the majority of the $2m+ houses on the market right now are crap. The good ones all sell, and leave the shabby ones to sit.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1256850681]Steve Thomas' October 19 data:

Slice Listings Deals Time in months 2 weeks ago 1 year ago 2 years ago



$2m-$4m 698 36 19.39 20.41 22.42 25.09

$4m + 380 12 31.67 32.17 34.30 31.63



Yeah, they are just flying off the shelves.</blockquote>


Well, in Newport they are:

Closed Sales

$2-$4m

Sept 09 26

Sept 05 27



(Thanks Rolar for posting the info)



Per my post, I was referring specifically to Newport Coast and even more specifically, ocean view properties in the low 2mil range.



Someone who has a few million in cash sitting around is probably in the smart money category. Also, there's a big difference between an investor and a home owner. An investor should wait... a home buyer has to factor in other variables. My home is not an investment for me.
 
Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256884355][quote author="awgee" date=1256875830]If you want to convince yourself that a 20 months supply is a healthy market, cool.



A question for you folks:

Why do you think it is that the smart money, (the over $2mil) market is not buying, and the not so smart money is buying?</blockquote>


It's funny that you call purchases under $2mil not so smart money. Thats calling out a lot of people as "not so smart money." There's plenty of people, especially investors, that have the money to make the large purchases but choose to purchase multiple properties at lower costs. Over the last two months, the demand for housing above $2m has been close to its peak levels of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Granted, I did not include areas like coto de caza in my analysis, but only areas along the coast that justify the $2m + pricing. It's just a matter of having more houses on the market, and the majority of the $2m+ houses on the market right now are crap. The good ones all sell, and leave the shabby ones to sit.</blockquote>


I did not call out the under $2 mil as the not so smart money.

I called the over $2 mil as the smart money.

I made no monetary reference to the not so smart money.

It is easy to claim sales are close to peak when you data mine, ie. only the coast, only where they are justified, the rest are shabby.

As you are prone to say, "the number don't lie" and Thomas' data includes all the numbers.

20 months for the over $2mil

and 30 months for the over $4mil

Yeah, that is some demand.

But, keep on data mining and convincing yourself.

Is anybody else convinced?
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1256895720][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256884355][quote author="awgee" date=1256875830]If you want to convince yourself that a 20 months supply is a healthy market, cool.



A question for you folks:

Why do you think it is that the smart money, (the over $2mil) market is not buying, and the not so smart money is buying?</blockquote>


It's funny that you call purchases under $2mil not so smart money. Thats calling out a lot of people as "not so smart money." There's plenty of people, especially investors, that have the money to make the large purchases but choose to purchase multiple properties at lower costs. Over the last two months, the demand for housing above $2m has been close to its peak levels of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Granted, I did not include areas like coto de caza in my analysis, but only areas along the coast that justify the $2m + pricing. It's just a matter of having more houses on the market, and the majority of the $2m+ houses on the market right now are crap. The good ones all sell, and leave the shabby ones to sit.</blockquote>


I did not call out the under $2 mil as the not so smart money.

I called the over $2 mil as the smart money.

I made no monetary reference to the not so smart money.

It is easy to claim sales are close to peak when you data mine, ie. only the coast, only where they are justified, the rest are shabby.

As you are prone to say, "the number don't lie" and Thomas' data includes all the numbers.

20 months for the over $2mil

and 30 months for the over $4mil

Yeah, that is some demand.

But, keep on data mining and convincing yourself.

Is anybody else convinced?</blockquote>


Yes, actually. I believe others are convinced. And you call it data mining and I call it breaking down into specifics instead of throwing out vague facts about an entire county/state. You need to realize that there is more than one market.



"Why do you think it is that the smart money, (the over $2mil) market is not buying, and the not so smart money is buying?" - That sounds like monetary referencing to me. iiiiiiif the smart money is over $2m.... what does that make the under $2m? You slipped, accept it, don't try to argue your way out and we can move on.



Again, what is the average months of supply in a healthy market in those price ranges? Others even admitted that noting the months of supply on houses over $4m is pointless...
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1256890730]Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.</blockquote>


I've been referencing 2003, 2004 and 2005 numbers....
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1256890730]Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.</blockquote>
Sales as a proportion of total inventory is up, but only because of low inventory levels not because there are more buyers. There are less buyers out than there were in the bubble days, that's for sure because of the loan qualification standards. It's simple economics....a slight decrease number of buyers + a bigger drop in supply of homes for sales = a seller's market. The gov't has a lot to do with inventory being so low...Fed buying all those MBS bonds to bring mortgage rates down, market-to-fantasy accounting for lenders, all the TARP and free money for banks, the extend and pretend strategy used by the lenders, and a lot of potential sellers who can't see because they are underwater. One of the reasons why I don't think prices will drop much over 10% over from here over the next few years (I see an even smaller chance of price increases of over 10%) is due to the expectation that REOs will trickle onto the market over years and years and interest rates are going to remain low for years....welcome to Japan's Lost Decade 2.0.
 
[quote author="readytopurchase" date=1256727333]http://mhanson.com/archives/274



It just amazes me that on mainstream media, all we hear is how the housing market has bottomed/corrected itself, and through sites like Mark's, Dr. Housing Bubble, and IHB, we hear the truth - based in facts and figures. Stop lying, NAR!</blockquote>


Mark Hanson: To Catch a Predatory Lender
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256899069][quote author="graphrix" date=1256890730]Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.</blockquote>


I've been referencing 2003, 2004 and 2005 numbers....</blockquote>


Have you seen a 10 year chart of the NASDAQ lately?
 
I dunno why, but for some reason I felt this article belonged in this thread...



<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1853002,CST-NWS-brown29.article">Pimps provide more value than real estate agents</a>.



<em>In arriving at their conclusion that a pimp provides more value than a real estate agent, the authors analyzed two completely unrelated studies.



The first, using data compiled by former University of Chicago sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, found that prostitutes working solo in Chicago's West Pullman and Roseland neighborhoods earn $325 a week while performing an average of 7.8 tricks, while prostitutes with a pimp working the same area earn $410 a week while doing only 6.2 tricks.



In addition, a prostitute who works with a pimp is "less likely to be beaten up by a customer or forced into giving freebies to gang members," the book states.



Even after paying a 25 percent commission, the authors conclude, prostitutes with a pimp "come out ahead on just about every front."



They contrast this with a study out of Madison, Wis., that concluded that houses sold by owners over the Internet fetched about the same price as those sold by real estate agents.



Why even compare pimps to real estate agents?



"A Realtor and a pimp perform the same primary service: marketing your product to potential customers," Levitt and Dubner explain.



Brushing off the fact that real estate agents actually do the sales work for the property owner, the authors conclude that "once you consider the value you get for each of these two agents, it seems clear that a pimp's services are considerably more valuable than a Realtor's."</em>
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1256944913]I dunno why, but for some reason I felt this article belonged in this thread...



<a href="http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/1853002,CST-NWS-brown29.article">Pimps provide more value than real estate agents</a>.



<em>In arriving at their conclusion that a pimp provides more value than a real estate agent, the authors analyzed two completely unrelated studies.



The first, using data compiled by former University of Chicago sociologist Sudhir Venkatesh, found that prostitutes working solo in Chicago's West Pullman and Roseland neighborhoods earn $325 a week while performing an average of 7.8 tricks, while prostitutes with a pimp working the same area earn $410 a week while doing only 6.2 tricks.



In addition, a prostitute who works with a pimp is "less likely to be beaten up by a customer or forced into giving freebies to gang members," the book states.



Even after paying a 25 percent commission, the authors conclude, prostitutes with a pimp "come out ahead on just about every front."



They contrast this with a study out of Madison, Wis., that concluded that houses sold by owners over the Internet fetched about the same price as those sold by real estate agents.



Why even compare pimps to real estate agents?



"A Realtor and a pimp perform the same primary service: marketing your product to potential customers," Levitt and Dubner explain.



Brushing off the fact that real estate agents actually do the sales work for the property owner, the authors conclude that "once you consider the value you get for each of these two agents, it seems clear that a pimp's services are considerably more valuable than a Realtor's."</em></blockquote>


And again... the child comes out to play.
 
[quote author="USCTrojanCPA" date=1256950376] That article is specifically picking on listing agents, but it was an entertaining read. <em><span style="color: green;"><span style="font-size: 16px;">Reality is that most realtors are worthless and a waste of space</span></span></em> but there are some very good ones out there that do provide value for their clients. I have been accused of pimping out the services of my mom and dad, but hey they are great at what they do so why not?</blockquote>
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1256890730]Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.</blockquote>


Please post sources for your numbers. From first hand data, over the past 2 months I'm seeing about a 20% decrease from 2005 sales volume. Not to mention, if todays sales numbers were the same as the 2002-2005 levels, you would expect prices to follow a similar pattern. I'm not arguing for substantial price increases, as always, I've been saying stability and slight price increases for the low AND MID-level price ranges. Yes, I think the recovery has moved onto medium priced housing. It's hard to check your "superior" math, when you don't provide support.
 
[quote author="no_vaseline" date=1256940595][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256899069][quote author="graphrix" date=1256890730]Volume is there? WTF are you people smoking over there at NAR? Please, I wanna know so I don't become so... (must be nice)... naive. Sales volume is still 30%-40% <strong>BELOW HISTORICAL AVERAGES</strong>. Duh volume is up, it is up from record low volume not seen since the 80s. The problem is... it is still below average, meaning it is not up, it is still below <strong>NORMAL</strong>. Woo hoo sales are up from the last three most dismal years of home sales probably since the depression when adjusted for housing stock/population growth. People who say and/or believe sales are up are really bad at math and probably buy lottery tickets.</blockquote>


I've been referencing 2003, 2004 and 2005 numbers....</blockquote>


Have you seen a 10 year chart of the NASDAQ lately?</blockquote>
Hey! Don't confuse folks with the facts. And remember, 95% of the population can only refer to the last six months and have no memory beyond that.
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1256961434]Question for RobLar. Do you own a home?</blockquote>


I don't see how that's relevant. I've been here long enough to realize you don't share personal information because when push comes to shove, the forum gets childish and make personal attacks; hence your question.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256964167][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1256961434]Question for RobLar. Do you own a home?</blockquote>


I don't see how that's relevant. I've been here long enough to realize you don't share personal information because when push comes to shove, the forum gets childish and make personal attacks; hence your question.</blockquote>


I have nearly 2000 posts and I own a home. Go find me and prove that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is threatening your security.
 
[quote author="Nude" date=1256964373][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256964167][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1256961434]Question for RobLar. Do you own a home?</blockquote>


I don't see how that's relevant. I've been here long enough to realize you don't share personal information because when push comes to shove, the forum gets childish and make personal attacks; hence your question.</blockquote>


I have nearly 2000 posts and I own a home. Go find me and prove that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is threatening your security.</blockquote>


Are we starting up my fan club again? Try to stay on topic... or at least provide useful content...
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256964167][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1256961434]Question for RobLar. Do you own a home?</blockquote>


I don't see how that's relevant. I've been here long enough to realize you don't share personal information because when push comes to shove, the forum gets childish and make personal attacks; hence your question.</blockquote>
Yeah, come on RoLar....I'm one of the least private people on the forum and have shared a lot about myself because maybe someone can benefit from my life experiences. Sure I may get poked fun at a little bit, but if you can laugh at yourself every now and again then it means you are too serious for your own good. Wow, someone is gonna attack me on the internet...like I really give a crap. I do what I do and try to keep the good karma flowing.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256964554][quote author="Nude" date=1256964373][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1256964167][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1256961434]Question for RobLar. Do you own a home?</blockquote>


I don't see how that's relevant. I've been here long enough to realize you don't share personal information because when push comes to shove, the forum gets childish and make personal attacks; hence your question.</blockquote>


I have nearly 2000 posts and I own a home. Go find me and prove that a simple "yes" or "no" answer is threatening your security.</blockquote>


Are we starting up my fan club again? Try to stay on topic... or at least provide useful content...</blockquote>


No, I am challenging you to either answer a simple "yes or no" question or prove that answering such a question puts you at risk somehow. Either you own a home or you don't. Either you answer the question or you don't. But don't make up reasons to duck a simple question and imply that the members here are going to attack you based on your answer <strong>without backing up that accusation with some proof.</strong>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top