Headlines...

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
<a href="http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/13/oc-home-prices-plummet-to-april-04-level/">Lansner has the latest DataQuick numbers out</a>...brutal:





"DataQuick says January’s median selling price for all residences was $520,000. That’s





• 13.3% below a year ago.


• The lowest overall median since April 2004.


• A drop of 19.4% from June 2007’s peak of $645,000. This seven-month collapse is bigger than the 16.4% drop seen from peak to valley in the early 1990s slump. And that drop took 55 months to complete."
 
<p><a title="Permanent Link: 2008 stars with homebuying 53% below average" rel="bookmark" href="http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/13/2008-stars-with-homebuying-53-below-average/">2008 stars with homebuying 53% below average</a></p>

<p><a href="http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/13/2008-stars-with-homebuying-53-below-average/">http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/13/2008-stars-with-homebuying-53-below-average/</a></p>

<p>This was the slowest January in DataQuick’s files that date to 1988. In fact, it’s the slowest month of all. The previous January low was in 1995, with 1,848 sales. Or look at it this way: Last month’s buying was 53% below the 20-year average activity for a January.</p>
 
<p>From DataQuick: <a href="http://www.dqnews.com/RRSCA0208.shtm">Southland home sales slowest for any month in 20 years</a></p>

<em>Southern California home sales dipped below 10,000 transactions for the first time in more than 20 years last month as most potential buyers and sellers appear to be waiting out market turbulence, a real estate information service reported.</em>





Turbulence? You mean the bone-jarring crash? Why does a data service sound like a market cheerleader? Why not call it what it is: the largest steady decline ever recorded. Turbulence implies there are ups with the downs. So far, we have had nothing but downs.
 
<em>Why does a data service sound like a market cheerleader?</em>





I've wondered about this as well, and to be honest I don't know. The best thing going for them is the extraordinary housing event we're witnessing, because that makes their data more relevant and visible. Do you really think people would care nearly as much if housing were slowly chugging along (probably as it should be) with nothing interesting to report? So, it doesn't seem necessary for them to come off sounding like cheerleaders. The data is far more interesting than anything they could spin, anyway.





A common misconception about journalists is they always have bias one way or another (for instance, it's common for sportswriters of being accused of liking teams better than others; real estate reporters are a little different though because presuming they own homes, they do in a basic sense have a vested interest in the market). Having worked in and around that field I can tell you bias is <em><strong>usually </strong></em>nonexistent, though since we're humans, you can't completely strip it away. But, journalists root for the story, not one side of it or another, because that's what makes it interesting to them and their audience.
 
<p>Amen, IR! I am personally sick of the similar technique of media associating <strong>clearly</strong> negative news with words like "market uncertainty" or "mixed signals." They sometimes do it to feign impartiality, but the only real reason is cheerleading. The market isn't uncertain- it is certain it is going down.</p>

<p>Drives me crazy.</p>

<p>SCHB</p>

<p> </p>
 
<dp>from


http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/business/5526574.html?ref=patrick.net





<a target="_top" href="http://www.chron.com/commons/persona.html?newspaperUserId=hlgjr&plckUserId=hlgjr">hlgjr</a> wrote: </p>

<p>It seems that the focus of most commentary/opinions, being focused on the greed, the stupidity, the blatent theft (for modest down payments) of working mom and dad's savings, nest egg, retirement fund, etc, misses an important point: millions of homes were built in America and Americans didn't pay for them--the unfortunate foreign investors holding the worthless "high-yeilding" paper did: this is wealth that was transferred to the U.S. from around the world--stolen, essentially. Thus the paradox: we've stolen hundreds of billions from the world to build cities of homes in America, but only a small percetage of the population--the crooks on Wall Street and their real estate development entourage--have any money to buy them. That said, it's very easy to anticipate what the price of an average house in America will do over the next few years...regardless of the futile sales pitch which those involved in the housing industry--such as bandjagree--will continue, for a while, to preach. Combine this FACT with some other coincident demographic, savings rate, and resource scarcity FACTS and there can be NO question that America will only find a bottom when there occurs what I have always referred to as IW3E: Invevitable World Wide Wage Equilibrium; that is to say, when Americans are willing to work for a wage that will allow foreign manufacturers to profitably base operations in the U.S., then Americans will understand the value of their labor; they will understand the need to actually create something of value--as opposed to employing nations of slaves to create it for them; and they will begin to live within their means. Looking at a worldwide mean income might give some idea of the INEVITABLE mean wage of the mean American: given the low level of skills and education--as compared to many Asian and European countries, I would not be surprised to see the average real wage in America fall by 50% or more in the long run (inflation adjusted); maybe more in the short run...</p>
 
>Turbulence? You mean the bone-jarring crash? Why does a data service sound like a market cheerleader? Why not call it what it is: the largest steady decline ever recorded. Turbulence implies there are ups with the downs. So far, we have had nothing but downs.





If you have to use a weather metaphor to describe what is happening to real estate, wind shear would be a far more accurate description than turbulence.
 
<p>Oh my gosh! This is rich. MBIA is blaming the short sellers. I wish I was on the congressional committee so I could ask, "So, what exactly have the short sellers said that is not true?"</p>

<p>The sad part is Congress will do what Congress does and they will use the taxpayers productivity to bail out the wealthy class in the name of avoidance of financial meltdown, or national security or whatever other Orwellian term they can come up with. And they will justify it with adding some type of "regulation" of the monolines. And the socialists will all cheer that it is for the good of the people.</p>

<p>And I guess Paulson is getting the taxpayers ready to insure all the crappy mortgages, or in other words, use the taxpayers to bail out the banks.</p>
 
<a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23165815/"><strong>New data reveal breadth of housing slump</strong></a>


WASHINGTON - Sales of existing homes fell in 45 states during the October-December quarter, with metropolitan areas showing growing weakness, a real estate trade group said Thursday.





The fourth-quarter data from the National Association of Realtors underscore the breadth of the housing market’s slump." ...





I'm very interested to see what happens once the loan limits are "temporarily" increased. Yun keeps sticking to the argument that people want to buy, they just can't get jumbo loans, and that it's the mortgage market's fault. Assuming sales doesn't return to normal, he's going to officially be proven wrong again on the last argument he's desperately clinging to.
 
<p><a href="http://calculatedrisk.blogspot.com/2008/02/nar-housing-sales-bust-is-everywhere.html">NAR: Housing Sales Bust is Everywhere</a> </p>

<p>The National Association of Realtors <a href="http://www.realtor.org/Research.nsf/files/STATES.pdf/$FILE/STATES.pdf">reports</a> that year-over-year sales declined in Q4 in 46 states (including D.C.). Sales increased in 1 state (South Dakota from 36K to 39K) and sales in North Dakota were unchanged.





Note: Data isn't available for Indiana, New Hampshire, and Idaho.





Seven states saw sales declines greater than 30%: Nevada (44.2%), Wyoming, New Mexico, Oregon, Arizona, Utah and Maryland.





Another seven saw sales declines greater than 20%: California, Florida, Georgia, Lousiana, Connecticut, Illinois, and Virginia.





This shows the breadth of the housing sales bust. The bust isn't confined to the "bubble" states, the bust is everywhere.</p>
 
<p>Oh give me a home</p>

<p>Where the buffalo roam</p>

<p>And the deer and realtors play</p>

<p>Where seldom is heard</p>

<p>A discouraging word</p>

<p>And the sky's are not cloudy all day...</p>

<p>Go South Dakota!</p>
 
From Lansner's blog:





<a href="http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/2008/02/15/foreclosures-38-of-oc-home-trades/">Foreclosures 38% of O.C. home trades</a>. You can see it's way worse than in the early 90s...





<img width="300" height="243" src="http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/files/2008/02/blog-fcshare.png" alt="" />
 
<p>Predatory Lenders' Partner in Crime</p>

<p>How the Bush Administration Stopped the States From Stepping In to Help Consumers</p>

<p>By Eliot Spitzer, governor of New York</p>

<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html">http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/13/AR2008021302783.html</a></p>
 
<p>I'll Buy Your House If You Buy Mine</p>

<p>http://finance.yahoo.com/real-estate/article/104429/I'll-Buy-Your-House-If-You-Buy-Mine;_ylt=AsHAFAnvz.N2HtO2PawrnVe7YWsA</p>
 
<p>A primer on the sub-prime mess:</p>

<p><a href="http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&pli=1">http://docs.google.com/TeamPresent?docid=ddp4zq7n_0cdjsr4fn&pli=1</a></p>
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top