From Foreclosuretruth.com (Foreclosureradar.com's blog)-There is no shadow inventory (and no politcal will to foreclose)

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607246]<strong></strong>[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257605588][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257603854][quote author="RoLar_" date=1257603271][quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393][quote author="RoLar_" date=1257575816][quote author="graphrix" date=1257526695]Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone's data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out... who wants to bet against me?



Got jobs?</blockquote>


I think it's pretty obvious I bet against you.



How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/unemployment.bmp" alt="" /></blockquote>


Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won't take it because you know you are wrong. You don't have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.



Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have <strong>you</strong> ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn't you?



Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.</blockquote>


Hey genius... keep up here... 10.1 - 9.8 = ????</blockquote>


Oh, the irony. ROFLMAO. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:</blockquote>


Geez, I really need to re-read I guess and spell check... I thought this was just a blog.. But, I guess if that's all you got, I'm fine with that</blockquote>


Actually, I completely missed the misspelled word, which merely adds to the irony. In your arrogant haste, you failed to see -- many times -- your inability to exercise basic math skills, the irony I first attempted to point out.</blockquote>


I guess I'm still not seeing it. I get what you are saying, but 10.1%-9.8%=?
 
[quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying
 
Let me clarify, I took this month's unemployment rate of 10.2% and compared it to last month's rate of 9.8%. Which means the unemployment rate of 10.2% increased from 9.8%, representing a 4% increase from last month.



And the professional services sector is up by a small tick from last month, it is not up YOY. Also, that sector is seeing the same job levels it saw in 2004. Mmmm... I think we need some serious growth for that to actually be a factor. Let me know when we get to the same levels as 2007, but don't forget to adjust for population growth. Oh yeah... the professional services sector adjusted for population growth would set it back to 1998 levels.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records.
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393]



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. </blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608642][quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393]



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. </blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records</blockquote>


That was a typo. You clearly don't understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.



Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1257608824][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608642][quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393]



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. </blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records</blockquote>


That was a typo. You clearly don't understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.



Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase</blockquote>


<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/percent.jpg" alt="" />



.101 = ??.?%
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257609007][quote author="graphrix" date=1257608824][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608642][quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393]



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. </blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records</blockquote>


That was a typo. You clearly don't understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.



Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase</blockquote>


<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/percent.jpg" alt="" />



.101 = ??.?%</blockquote>


Okay, I will go slow here since you are not getting it. We are talking about the percentage increase from last month. This month the rate is 10.2 and you subtract that from last month's rate of 9.8, which equals 0.4. Now to calculate the percentage increase you divide that 0.4 by 9.8 which equals .0408, and by rounding up that means it increased by 4.1%.



Here lets try it with some different numbers. The unemployment rate in 2005 was 4.9% and today it is 10.2%. 10.2 - 4.9 = 5.3. Does that mean that the rate increased 5.3% or even 53%, or... did it increase by 108.2%?
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1257609649][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257609007][quote author="graphrix" date=1257608824][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608642][quote author="graphrix" date=1257597393]



And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. </blockquote>


Quoting this for historical records</blockquote>


That was a typo. You clearly don't understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.



Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase</blockquote>


<img src="http://occoastalnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/percent.jpg" alt="" />



.101 = ??.?%</blockquote>


Okay, I will go slow here since you are not getting it. We are talking about the percentage increase from last month. This month the rate is 10.2 and you subtract that from last month's rate of 9.8, which equals 0.4. Now to calculate the percentage increase you divide that 0.4 by 9.8 which equals .0408, and by rounding up that means it increased by 4.1%.



Here lets try it with some different numbers. The unemployment rate in 2005 was 4.9% and today it is 10.2%. 10.2 - 4.9 = 5.3. Does that mean that the rate increased 5.3% or even 53%, or... did it increase by 108.2%?</blockquote>


YES! Again! I get that! But, AGAIN! I am not talking that! I am trying to visually explain to you now what i was saying because you are clearly not listening. I obviously understand how to find the percentage difference between two numbers, like when I corrected your market activity numbers between 2009 and 2005. I used the percentage difference to explain that there is a 20% difference.



For future reference, how would you explain in words what I posted from the google calculator so that this miscommunication is not made again.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. <strong>You are stating the percentage increase</strong>. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


RoLar,



I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, "How much will that <strong>.3% increase</strong> in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and <strong>decrease of .5%</strong>?"



Seriously, stop. I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I'm not kidding. You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading. Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math. Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.
 
What are you talking about then? Because you were trying to poke fun at my math, when it was correct, and yours is not a proper way to calculate an increase in percentage terms.
 
[quote author="Sunshine" date=1257609949][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. <strong>You are stating the percentage increase</strong>. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


RoLar,



I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, "How much will that <strong>.3% increase</strong> in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and <strong>decrease of .5%</strong>?"



Seriously, stop. I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I'm not kidding. You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading. Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math. Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.</blockquote>


OMG... I do need to go to bed because I can't get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS



I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257610125][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257609949][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. <strong>You are stating the percentage increase</strong>. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


RoLar,



I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, "How much will that <strong>.3% increase</strong> in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and <strong>decrease of .5%</strong>?"



Seriously, stop. I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I'm not kidding. You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading. Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math. Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.</blockquote>


OMG... I do need to go to bed because I can't get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS



I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.</blockquote>


Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!
 
[quote author="graphrix" date=1257610287][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257610125][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257609949][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. <strong>You are stating the percentage increase</strong>. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


RoLar,



I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, "How much will that <strong>.3% increase</strong> in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and <strong>decrease of .5%</strong>?"



Seriously, stop. I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I'm not kidding. You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading. Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math. Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.</blockquote>


OMG... I do need to go to bed because I can't get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS



I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.</blockquote>


Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!</blockquote>


Yes, and like I've stated four different times now. I understand what you guys are saying, that's not what I meant, there was a miscommunication. So that there are no more miscommunications on this topic, how would you explain (in words) the equation on the google calculator image that I posted.



(9.8%) + (.3%) = 10.1% or .101
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257610399][quote author="graphrix" date=1257610287][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257610125][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257609949][quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257608187][quote author="Sunshine" date=1257607919]= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase. Seriously, write down the problem on paper.</blockquote>


Okay... again.. I get what you're saying but that wasn't what I was saying... I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. <strong>You are stating the percentage increase</strong>. Let's try it this way.



10.1 - 9.8 =

9.8% + 3% = 12.8%



9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

or

.098 + .03 = .101



If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1



I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying</blockquote>


RoLar,



I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, "How much will that <strong>.3% increase</strong> in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and <strong>decrease of .5%</strong>?"



Seriously, stop. I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I'm not kidding. You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading. Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math. Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.</blockquote>


OMG... I do need to go to bed because I can't get anything through to you guys. Not trying to sound like a smart ass but read carefully. And, yes, this requires CAPS



I AM NOT TALKING ABOUT THE PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE, NOR WAS I EVER. PLEASE READ MY PREVIOUS COMMENT.</blockquote>


Read the bold parts Sunshine highlights for you, because... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID!</blockquote>


Yes, and like I've stated four different times now. I understand what you guys are saying, that's not what I meant, there was a miscommunication. So that there are no more miscommunications on this topic, how would you explain (in words) the equation on the google calculator image that I posted.



(9.8%) + (.3%) = 10.1% or .101</blockquote>


In order to add or subcontract percentages, the numbers must be some portion of the same whole. Accordingly, the Google calculator is correct. Let's say there are 10 apples total, and you and I each have 5. We both have 50% of the whole, and 50% + 50% = 100%.



The unemployment percentages that you posted are not part of the same whole. The month-over-month percentages would never equal 100%. Each month represents a portion to the whole, on a standalone basis. Therefore, you cannot add and subtract the percentages from month to month. You have to first calculate the non-percentage difference (.3 using the numbers in your post) and then determine the percentage change, month-over-month (3%).
 
There is a reason why calculating it in terms of percentages are more important than calculating them in terms of basis points. Even if the unemployment rate drops from 10.2% to 9.8%, that doesn't mean that less people are unemployed because the labor force will have increased due to population growth, and the amount unemployed can actually go up as the labor force goes up.



Employment improved slightly in 93 and home sales and prices increased slightly/looked stable. But... as employment and GDP improved greatly from 94-96 home sales decreased and so did prices. So even if employment "stabilizes/stagnates" and GDP improves, it doesn't bode well for home sales and prices. OC is at 2002 job levels, and with all that housing stock that has been added since then and continues to added, then we need double digit employment growth numbers for the next 5-7 years to keep up and make up for that supply. It's all about supply and demand, and demand comes from jobs. This is why any slight improvement to the unemployment rate is a weak statistic. This uptick in housing is a short term bump (dead cat bounce), when there is a longer term drag in employment which is the real problem for housing.
 
This from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/first-american-corelogic-economist.html">Calculated Risk</a>:











<em>"The reason REOs have declined is that flow of distressed properties into REO has been artificially restricted due to local, state and GSE foreclosure moratoria, loan modifications and servicer backlogs. This has led to a drop in the supply of REO properties, while at the same time sales (including REO sales) increased due to the artificially low rates and first-time homebuyer tax credits, which further depleted the supply of REOs. This dynamic has led to the rapid improvement in home prices over the last six to eight months.



However, the mortgage distress is high and rising as is evident by the 90+ day category, which means the pending supply is building up due to high levels of negative equity and rising unemployment. So we have a situation where at the back end (ie REOs) it appears as if it?s getting better, but it?s really a mirage as we know that the pending supply pipeline default (ie 90+ day DQs) is looming larger."</em>













Whether you call it shadow inventory, pending supply, or a train speeding down the tracks, it's a comin'.
 
[quote author="awgee" date=1257721402]This from <a href="http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/first-american-corelogic-economist.html">Calculated Risk</a>:











<em>"The reason REOs have declined is that flow of distressed properties into REO has been artificially restricted due to local, state and GSE foreclosure moratoria, loan modifications and servicer backlogs. This has led to a drop in the supply of REO properties, while at the same time sales (including REO sales) increased due to the artificially low rates and first-time homebuyer tax credits, which further depleted the supply of REOs. This dynamic has led to the rapid improvement in home prices over the last six to eight months.



However, the mortgage distress is high and rising as is evident by the 90+ day category, which means the pending supply is building up due to high levels of negative equity and rising unemployment. So we have a situation where at the back end (ie REOs) it appears as if it?s getting better, but it?s really a mirage as we know that the pending supply pipeline default (ie 90+ day DQs) is looming larger."</em>











Whether you call it shadow inventory, pending supply, or a train speeding down the tracks, it's a comin'.</blockquote>


*Nevermind, I don't want a list.



And, I would just like to add, it would be nice right now if south orange county currently had more REOs listed.
 
[quote author="RoLar_USC" date=1257726545]

*Nevermind, I don't want a list. </blockquote>


<img src="http://studentradio.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/chicken_baby_large.jpg" alt="" />
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top