Q1 Miller Samuel Numbers

Are you kidding? Median sales prices are UP 23%! And they're going to rise 23% this year, too.

What a foolish post.

Cute, SteveJ - actually average (not median) price that is up 23%, but we know that's a poor indicator, don't we...

This is an open call to those out there that keep talking about 25% drops in pssf to explain why the data simply doesn't bear this out. The refrain has been, "wait until the next quarter's data comes out" going on 3 quarters now, and I still don't see it. PPSF is down 2.3% year on year. How is this possible???

Not trying to talk the market up or down, am genuinely curiuous why the numbers aren't worse.

OTNYC, I hear you. I believe the ppsf is an average, not a median, so it is likely being skewed by very low volume as well as mix issues (I think the vast majority of what's being sold is lower-end now). The median price being down 21% is probably more indicative of what's happening out there, though again, the low volume needs to be taken into consideration as well. I agree that some people like to spin these numbers, which happened on the way up as well as on the way down, but I think you've got the right perspective.

> Something is happening out there that is causing the average ppsf to stay above $1250, and don't give me the high end condo spiel - that is a handful of units.

Why not? That is exactly what happened.

Median price of New Development: $1,505,000, up 19% seq.
Median price of Re-Sale: $675,000, down 8% seq.

Co-ops were 35% of Q1 sales, down from 45% in Q1 2008. This mix shift alone makes a 4% difference on ppsf.

Not only were there more condos, but they were larger by a whopping 40% vs last year, which will raise the median price and ppsf. That's on page 3.

Finally, I don't see where you get your figure that median size fell 25%. In fact, I think it rose. For both condos and coops, the average sales price change was higher than the median sales price change (28% average, 10% median for condos) (-2% average, -13% median for coops). This implies there were more sales above median than Q4. This contention is supported by the fact that 3 Beds+ were 8% of coop sales in Q1 vs 4% in Q4 and condos 10% were 3 Bed+ vs 6% in Q4.

So I conclude a mix shift toward high-end condo closings significantly skewed the population to the point where they are not comparable and you cannot look at median sales figures or ppsf figures equally.

Not cute - a stupid question.

It's right there on the front page. The data are skewed by new development whose contracts were signed months or years ago. Look at the resale co-op data: it gives you an indication of where the market is once the backlog of contracts clears.

No one but JuiceMan has ever discussed price per square foot. That just gives realtwhores one more opportunity to fudge the data, by misunderstimating apartment size.

Further, you can remove some of the mix problem by breaking down the market by bedroom size to see the seq. price changes:

Coop, Q4, Q1, %chg
383 365 -5%
645 580 -10%
1450 1125 -22%
4650 3425 -26%
10500 8980 -14%

Condo, Q4, Q1, %chg
535 525 -2%
818 766.08 -6%
1730 1665 -4%
4073 3995 -2%
7500 8451 13%

Sorry, these two lists start with Studios, then go down to 1-bed, 2-bed, 3-bed, 4bed+

How much value do these reports have to the person who just sold what they paid for their condo 3 years ago?

These reports are for "discussuion purposes only".

steve, I actually think median ppsf is a pretty good measure if you can get solid data. Average ppsf is not that great, as we can see from these reports.

crescent22, here's a good chart from J Miller about the sales mix:
http://www.millersamuel.com/charts/gallery-view.php?ViewNode=1223228761aPnBM&Record=14

Yes, the new development market has fallen much less in volume than the resale market. You have to think new development volume would have fallen a lot more if buyers had free choice.

crescent, not sure I agree with that - volume is down to Q2 2005 levels.

Here is the prudential elliman report:

http://www.prudentialelliman.com/NYCPhotos/retail_reports/mmo1q09.pdf

In it, you can clearly see upside in prices was driven by new construction condos. resale median price dropped 21% while new construction median price rose 31%. but there is mix bias here, as there is with a price/sq foot as well - I would argue on the best apartments are selling now so even if price/sq foot was flat on a market wide basis, that doesn't take into account the quality difference from 1Q08 to 1Q09. On a like for like basis, things are down more.

Nonetheless, on a ave price/sq foot basis, overall price down 2.3%. However, coop prices are down 14.2% on this basis. Condo sale price/sq foot was flat. Everyone knows coops are a better indicator of the market now (gets rid of the new construction bias and traditional 10% down flexibility on condos is gone, etc.).

down 14% is still a big drop. and that's average over the quarter. i bet exiting march it was probably down 15-20%.

Isn't the Elliman report the same as the Miller Samuel report that the OP has linked?

waverly, that's right. miller sells his stuff to elliman i think.

Special_K - Elliman report is same as Miller Samuel report referenced in the original post. You are right about the 14.2% number being a better indicator of the overall health of the market. Still, it's not 25% as we've been hearing. Trend is definitely poor, never tried to contend otherwise. I just think this is the best aggregate data at this point in time and definitely worth studying/discussing.

"My only point is, the data simply does not support the "market is down 25%" chatter."

Absolutely correct OTNYC. streeteasy has become a haven for shills of fear and desperation, completely oblivious and detached to what is actually happening. Where are all the folks that said the market was already down 30%? All of these brilliant prognosticators have yet to actually call anything right and, in my opinion, only exist for comedic relief rather than any credible analysis. It's fine to be bearish, just use real numbers.

"No one but JuiceMan has ever discussed price per square foot. That just gives realtwhores one more opportunity to fudge the data, by misunderstimating apartment size."

Don't appreciate being called a a "realtwhore" steve, but your post is just another example of lashing out when you can't understand a point or it doesn't fit into one of your rudimentary models. I don't need to argue with you anymore about the validity of a measure that many other reputable sources use (including streeteasy, Jonathan Miller, Radar Logic) just because it doesn't support your silly claims. Whine all you want, it isn’t going away.

misunderestimating? it appears bush has won the linguistic battle

I don't think I called you a realtwhore, JuiceMan. In fact, I know I didn't.

Sorry to disappoint.

Also, very interesting that your analysis of the market diverges even from that of the erstwhile most bullish realtwhores, as quoted in another thread yesterday. All have said the same thing, as is borne out by the data - resale prices have dropped about 20%. Only new development is up, which is a function of contracts signed long ago and not indicative of today's market.

Yet you persist in dealing with past numbers to support today - new development, refinancing, etc. You call my models "rudimentary" which a) are not my models; and b) are the models used by the economists the world over; and c) all show the same thing and are all consistent with each other.

I don't think that I have to tell you how easy the ppsf data are to fudge: the apartment below my old apartment was listed at 950 square feet. If it is 800 square feet it was huge. Not too much of a stretch to have Corcoran report it at 650 square feet when they listed it at 950, is it?

I suppose that next quarter, when the new development starts getting filtered out of the data and the drops are therefore more precipitous, you will still hold this silly line of argument.

JM - I have been with you on the ppsf issue, so you are not alone on that thought. Hey, when is the baby due, btw?

special_k - are the 550 apartments you bought refelcted in this report?

"it appears bush has won the linguistic battle"

I just LOVE that word, and get a kick out of it every time I say it!

why do you guys keep insulting prostitutes?

"Not too much of a stretch to have Corcoran report it at 650 square feet when they listed it at 950, is it?"

Are you saying that they're being inconsistent with the square footage for the same apartments from report to report? That would be a highly dubious claim. Frankly, as long as their methodology is consistent, the trends are all that really matter.

JuiceMan, waverly, count me in on the median ppsf camp. As has been said before, it's not perfect, but I think it's one of the better measures out there.

JM - here's a real # for ya - # of sales down 47.6% from prior Q. Tell me, is that bullish or bearish? Here's another real # - inventory up 34.3% from last year. Bullish or bearish? Median sales price for re-sales down 20.8% from last year. Bullish or bearish? Would like to hear your thoughts on these 3 "real #s".

> You are right about the 14.2% number being a better indicator of the overall health of the market. Still, it's not 25% as we've been hearing.

The difference is obviously the time lag between closures and the current market for bid/asks.

"My only point is, the data simply does not support the "market is down 25%" chatter."

Except it does... based on how the folks on this board have generally determined what the measure is. Personally, I don't love median on closed sales, because it includes sales from quite some time ago. But, median is what people looked at and made predictions at consistently for a while on this board, and its the measure that gets used now. Folks have raised complaints - I was one of them - about the particulars, but its the measure established as the measure of the market.

So changing the rules of the game just becaus you don't like the score...

"Absolutely correct OTNYC. streeteasy has become a haven for shills of fear and desperation, completely oblivious and detached to what is actually happening. Where are all the folks that said the market was already down 30%?"

Right here... and it seems to actually be worse than that.

Here is the guy who wrote the reprot:

"[Mr. Miller] noted, however, that prices are skewed by sales of units in new developments. In many cases contracts for such units were actually inked in 2007 and just closed in the first quarter of this year—at the initial sale price. "

So, yes, it lags, but thats what folks seem to want to look at.

If you don't want the lag, well, the data on signed contracts - which folks like bjw complained about over and over again - said the decline is actually MORE significant.

Reason being... it doesn't include 12 month old contracts.

So, in short... no, its not a perfect measure, but its what people look at...

And, it has been shown to lag, so its actually worse than the measure says.

"You are right about the 14.2% number being a better indicator of the overall health of the market. Still, it's not 25% as we've been hearing."

According to Miller on website, ave price/sq foot for coops in manhattan is as follows:

1Q08 $1,128
2Q08 1,146
3Q08 1,056
4Q08 1,059
1Q09 968

So yoy, down 14%, but down 16% from peak (in 2Q08). While I don't have the data, I think the down 20-25% we've been hearing anecdotally quoted could be influenced by the drop in prices of condos (stripping out bias of new construction). It stands to reason that given the rapid run-up of condo prices, that maybe condos are down (on a like for like basis) somewhat more than coops. Though I don't have this data. OTNYC, I do agree though, that we have not seen anything definitive that says 25% down.

"special_k - are the 550 apartments you bought refelcted in this report? "

Not yet. Contracts are signed, but because of my bulk purchase I had leverage to negotiate a "bailout contingency" I'm trying to finance 99.9% of my purchase through TARP funds. At first, Geithner was resistant because I refused to disclose how I would use the funds, refused to take accountability for foolishly bidding 25% over market for all 550 apartments, and refused to give him a credible plan as to how I would repay government money. But then I explained how I am now too big for Manhattan to allow me to fail. He said the check is in the mail and I'm looking forward to closing next week.

It's not changing the rules of the game. It's acknowledging that there is a better piece of data that should be used instead of another one that is not as accurate. That's improving the analysis and refusing to do so seems kind of silly.

specialK, congrats. you are now truly a master of the universe.

The numbers are right there in the report - if you exclude new development/conversions (which is what nyc10022 whines about), median price is down 21% YOY.

Contract data, as it stands now, are suspect. Jonathan Miller has clearly said so himself, even though others have used his contract data to make certain claims.

And you definitely have to look at volume in conjunction with pricing to get a clear picture of the market (even though, again, nyc10022 refuses to acknowledge this). Volume is way down; there's no doubt about that.

As for "changing the rules of the game," frankly that's not what's going on here, but the ultimate goal is to look at the best metrics and the best quality data. If that changes over time, I don't see any compelling reasons to stick with the old. Consistency just for consistency's sake is a bit silly.

"Are you saying that they're being inconsistent with the square footage for the same apartments from report to report?"

I'm saying that it's self-reported, and there's no way to prove what is being reported. Therefore, it's just one more variable subject to error.

"That would be a highly dubious claim."

Why, when we're absolutely certain that at least in some cases the claims of square footage are exaggerated, and real-estate companies themselves admit there is no real methodology used? Count hallway spaces, count from the center of walls or from the inside of the apartment, count balconies, count closets, etc.?

"Frankly, as long as their methodology is consistent, the trends are all that really matter."

I agree. But there is no proof that their methodology IS consistent.

I don't know Steve, that's a hard thing to prove. I think the burden of proof is on proving that their methodology has been inconsistent, and significantly so.

"I suppose that next quarter, when the new development starts getting filtered out of the data and the drops are therefore more precipitous, you will still hold this silly line of argument."

steve, over the next quarter you and others will continue to blow hot air and throw around numbers that don't exist. Then the real data will come out and regardless what it says you go on and on and on about how it proves all of the complete garbage that you have been spewing the previous three months. You are nothing but a politician steve, no matter what the data says or what you said two weeks ago, you are always right. It is both comical and sad.

"All have said the same thing, as is borne out by the data - resale prices have dropped about 20%."

Further proving my point that you have become an exaggerating shill, MEDIAN prices are down 20%. You have argued for hours on this site on how worthless median measurements are yet it makes it into your post like it is the best and most reliable number in the world. How do you sleep at night?

"It's not changing the rules of the game. It's acknowledging that there is a better piece of data that should be used instead of another one that is not as accurate. That's improving the analysis and refusing to do so seems kind of silly."

Absolutely waverly, baby is due soon but don't want to say exactly when. I'll let everyone know, thanks for asking.

“Would like to hear your thoughts on these 3 "real #s".

Bsexposer, my thoughts? Those numbers are really shitty and things don’t look good. Those numbers are also ones that can’t be argued (or spun) which are numbers I like.

"I suppose that next quarter, when the new development starts getting filtered out of the data and the drops are therefore more precipitous, you will still hold this silly line of argument."

steve, over the next quarter you and others will continue to blow hot air and throw around numbers that don't exist. Then the real data will come out and regardless what it says you go on and on and on about how it proves all of the complete garbage that you have been spewing the previous three months. You are nothing but a politician steve, no matter what the data says or what you said two weeks ago, you are always right. It is both comical and sad.

"All have said the same thing, as is borne out by the data - resale prices have dropped about 20%."

Further proving my point that you have become an exaggerating shill, MEDIAN prices are down 20%. You have argued for hours on this site on how worthless median measurements are yet it makes it into your post like it is the best and most reliable number in the world. How do you sleep at night?

"It's not changing the rules of the game. It's acknowledging that there is a better piece of data that should be used instead of another one that is not as accurate. That's improving the analysis and refusing to do so seems kind of silly."

Absolutely waverly, baby is due soon but don't want to say exactly when. I'll let everyone know, thanks for asking.

“Would like to hear your thoughts on these 3 "real #s".

Bsexposer, my thoughts? Those numbers are really shitty and things don’t look good. Those numbers are also ones that can’t be argued (or spun) which are numbers I like.

"I suppose that next quarter, when the new development starts getting filtered out of the data and the drops are therefore more precipitous, you will still hold this silly line of argument."

steve, over the next quarter you and others will continue to blow hot air and throw around numbers that don't exist. Then the real data will come out and regardless what it says you go on and on and on about how it proves all of the complete garbage that you have been spewing the previous three months. You are nothing but a politician steve, no matter what the data says or what you said two weeks ago, you are always right. It is both comical and sad.

"All have said the same thing, as is borne out by the data - resale prices have dropped about 20%."

Further proving my point that you have become an exaggerating shill, MEDIAN prices are down 20%. You have argued for hours on this site on how worthless median measurements are yet it makes it into your post like it is the best and most reliable number in the world. How do you sleep at night?

"It's not changing the rules of the game. It's acknowledging that there is a better piece of data that should be used instead of another one that is not as accurate. That's improving the analysis and refusing to do so seems kind of silly."

Absolutely waverly, baby is due soon but don't want to say exactly when. I'll let everyone know, thanks for asking.

“Would like to hear your thoughts on these 3 "real #s".

Bsexposer, my thoughts? Those numbers are really shitty and things don’t look good. Those numbers are also ones that can’t be argued (or spun) which are numbers I like.

"aboutready: why do you guys keep insulting prostitutes?"

HA!

"It's not changing the rules of the game. It's acknowledging that there is a better piece of data that should be used instead of another one that is not as accurate. That's improving the analysis and refusing to do so seems kind of silly."

Again, waiting until you don't like the score to complain that the rules are "silly" is the amusing part of this.

bjw railed against my contract data.... and said he was waiting for these. folks wanted to see the quarter medians.

So, now they're here.

Don't try and change the rules now that you don't like the result.

special_k - very nice!!!!

Thanks for helping us all out!

"Contract data, as it stands now, are suspect. Jonathan Miller has clearly said so himself, even though others have used his contract data to make certain claims."

Yes, and Jonathan Miller just said the numbers YOU love are suspect.

Funny, absolutely no recognition from you of that point.

Not surprised about the hypocrisy...

As for "changing the rules of the game," frankly that's not what's going on here, but the ultimate goal is to look at the best metrics and the best quality data. If that changes over time, I don't see any compelling reasons to stick with the old. Consistency just for consistency's sake is a bit silly."

Using different measures to evaluate changes over time is about as bad logic as it gets.

But, hey, not surprised about this hypocrisy.

And, of course, we are, what, A WEEK after you railed that THIS was the right measure?

Suddenly you are ok with changing it, RIGHT EXACTLY when it comes out and shows a major market drop.

Not only am I not surprised, I think I predicted this hypocrisy.

"over the next quarter you and others will continue to blow hot air and throw around numbers that don't exist."

What numbers would that be? These:?

"The report showed that average condo and co-op apartment prices were down 11 percent from the first quarter of last year, to $1.5 million. Co-op prices were off 27 percent, to $975,000, and condominium prices down by 4 percent. but were up from the last quarter, as buyers continued to close on new condominiums for which contracts were signed many months ago."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/realestate/02real.html?ref=realestate

Or these:

"The Elliman report showed that average and median sales prices for all co-ops and condos were up a bit from a year ago, but Mr. Miller said the figures were distorted by closings of expensive new condominiums (even though few contracts for new condominiums are currently being signed).

"He said a more significant figure was the sale price of existing co-op and condominium apartments, which was down 20.9 percent, to $732,000, since the first quarter of last year."

"Then the real data will come out and regardless what it says you go on and on and on about how it proves all of the complete garbage that you have been spewing the previous three months."

Them there's the real data, JuiceMan.

"You are nothing but a politician steve."

That's one thing that I was never good at, JM: politics.

"no matter what the data says or what you said two weeks ago, you are always right."

I stand by what I copied up there. What is "both comical and sad" about that? What is "comical and sad" is that you deny what's there, and you claim that I'm making it up when, in fact, all I'm doing is pressing CTRL-C and CTRL-V.

"All have said the same thing, as is borne out by the data - resale prices have dropped about 20%."

Further proving my point that you have become an exaggerating shill, MEDIAN prices are down 20%.

That's what I said.

"You have argued for hours on this site on how worthless median measurements are yet it makes it into your post like it is the best and most reliable number in the world."

I'm glad you agree that median prices are not a good measurement. Maybe you'll also now agree that per-square foot prices are subject to error/fudging merely by changing the reported square footage, and therefore that's even less reliable than median price?

Because it's true.

And there are posts aplenty regarding resales of the same apartments down double-digits, so that's not what this thread is about.

"How do you sleep at night?"

Quite well. It's one of the things I do best.

"Those numbers are also ones that can’t be argued (or spun) which are numbers I like."

You must mean the ones I just posted, right?

Really nyc10022, where was that said? And if you think they're suspect, why are you citing them at all?

"And, of course, we are, what, A WEEK after you railed that THIS was the right measure?
Suddenly you are ok with changing it, RIGHT EXACTLY when it comes out and shows a major market drop.
Not only am I not surprised, I think I predicted this hypocrisy."

You're really full of it here, it's impressive. Again, I have NO PROBLEM with using the median price. You think it "doesn't say what I want it to say" but I actually don't want it to say anything but the truth. And it's there: resale prices are down 21% YOY.

Now, if contract data ever become reliable, I think we should start looking at those. This is exactly what Miller said as well. It's not hypocrisy; it's intelligent analysis. Get over yourself.

> Really nyc10022, where was that said?

On the thread where you SCREAMED about the contract numbers.

Wow, why am I not surprised that you "forgot" just a week or so later!

> Again, I have NO PROBLEM with using the median price

Yes, I know... you made that VERY clear when you jumped up and down about how the contract numbers weren't valid! (which also started about the same time you dnied the market was down 20%)

Seriously, do you even know what's coming out of your mouth these days?

Lets not lets those in denial cloud reality here. As much as they don't want anyone to know...

Contracts are down in the 20 percents. Medians are down in the 20 percents. The guy who writes the reports said things are down in the 20 percents. Even brokers are saying things are selling in the 20 percents.

Yet folks are flopping up and down so you won't clearly notice....

Uh, we're down over 20%.

Can I get an "I told you so"?

;-)

Ding ding ding.. .Special_K has the post of the day on SE. :)

NYC RE is starting to accelerate to the downside.... yes accelerate JuiceMan (boy or girl?)... the acceleration will increase as the unemployment gas pedal is pushed harder.. .the funny thing is NYC RE is like a Carerra GT.... you ain't seen nothing until you pass 3,000 rpm... I believe we've just passed 2K rpm in the 1st quarter.... get your 6-point harness on and hope you peed before betting in...

"getting in"

Yo all, f'n false rally in equity... gonna get someone hurt....

my prediction, market will bounce around all spring and summer.... will rally with fall/x-mas shopping season "hope" and will nosedive as Unemployment spikes and consumers cut back further into the holiday season.... capitulation in 1st quarter 2010... then I will re-assess...

Love my FASB... "clarity... we don't need no stinkin, Clarity."

nyc10022, I was asking where Miller said median pricing is suspect.

Contract data is suspect - I can post the link again, so you can ignore it again.

"(which also started about the same time you dnied the market was down 20%)"

Huge fallacy there - the numbers happen to match, but that doesn't meant the data you were using were good.

"Lets not lets those in denial cloud reality here. As much as they don't want anyone to know..."

Complete bs - where are we "clouding" reality. You're the one jumping up and down, posting that "the market is down x%" in every thread you can, even when the data are bad. Give it up.

"nyc10022, I was asking where Miller said median pricing is suspect."

In the Crain's article.

"Huge fallacy there - the numbers happen to match, but that doesn't meant the data you were using were good."

Yes, I was... uh, lucky. Thats it.

"You're the one jumping up and down, posting that "the market is down x%" in every thread you can, even when the data are bad. Give it up."

Thanks for proving the point, I was sure you would. Market is down over 20% by multiple measures, and you are STILL talking about bad data.

"In the Crain's article."

You mean this one? http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090402/FREE/904019953
He says no such thing. Poor effort, Eddie.

"Market is down over 20% by multiple measures, and you are STILL talking about bad data."

Because you still insist on using it. We all know the story you want to paint, but let's just stick to using the best data available. At least you're now agreeing that median price is good enough.

If you like operating six months in the past, go ahead use all the median data you want.

crescent22, these are closings from January-March. If you're thinking of new development closings (which lag), the data exclude those.

Hey JuiceMan, so what is wrong with the data I copied?

"And there are posts aplenty regarding resales of the same apartments down double-digits."

I do like alliteration, don't I?! :)

"He says no such thing. Poor effort, Eddie."

Uh, eh, uh, oh, eh.

"He noted, however, that prices are skewed by sales of units in new developments. In many cases contracts for such units were actually inked in 2007 and just closed in the first quarter of this year—at the initial sale price."

Moron, find something better to do... seriously.

LOL.

This is a new low for even the hypocrite hall monitor.

> crescent22, these are closings from January-March

based on prices negotiated June - December except new condos. When people say "the market", they mean contemporary negotiations

""He noted, however, that prices are skewed by sales of units in new developments. In many cases contracts for such units were actually inked in 2007 and just closed in the first quarter of this year—at the initial sale price.""

No kidding, which is why he includes the median price for RESALES. At this point, you're really just lying and have a stick jammed way up your patootie. The fact that you resort to the same tired insults, yeah, that really helps your case.

Please explain this to a newbie:

If the contracts were inked in 2007 but closed in 1Q2009 for the initial sale price, doesn't that basically imply that there ARE units closing at 2007 prices, for arguments' sake, even if it is only some? I will definitely agree that this would cause "prices" (as a general category) to be a lagging indicator, but how does this negate the possibility that contracts inked throughout 2007-2008 will continue to close (as silly as it may seem to some), propping average sales prices up?

"No kidding, which is why he includes the median price for RESALES."

Which was NOT the measure you championed!

Change your story again, sure.

"At this point, you're really just lying and have a stick jammed way up your patootie. The fact that you resort to the same tired insults, yeah, that really helps your case."

Hey, loser, you just claimed "he never said it" and then I showed you you were wrong, and then you change the story AGAIN.

And now all you got is "uh, well, you insulted me".

Sorry, putz, you were wrong before, wrong now, and, well always wrong. You can complain about insults all you want, but you just got your ass handed it to you.

> No kidding

Right, right after you said "He says no such thing".

Wow, you are a completely schmuck. You are adamant that he didn't say it... then snarky about how you knew he said it.

What an ass!

"At this point, you're really just lying and have a stick jammed way up your patootie. The fact that you resort to the same tired insults, yeah, that really helps your case."

Self referential statement of the day!

School bjw, and he resorts to insults.... and then he complains that all YOU do is insult!

What a hypocrite schmuck.

Thanks for brightening up my day, tourist!

crescent22, I agree, would be great to have good real-time data. We just don't. The best we can do is with the IYCDMMWC threads, but it's a bit dicey to extract macro conclusions from those, at least with any real percentage attached. I think it's safe to say pricing has come down considerably though - don't see how you can argue otherwise.

"If the contracts were inked in 2007 but closed in 1Q2009 for the initial sale price, doesn't that basically imply that there ARE units closing at 2007 prices, for arguments' sake, even if it is only some? I will definitely agree that this would cause "prices" (as a general category) to be a lagging indicator, but how does this negate the possibility that contracts inked throughout 2007-2008 will continue to close (as silly as it may seem to some), propping average sales prices up?"

Yes, and this is why the medians lag a significant amount... and can often be VERY outdated (like when many closings were before the crash started).

But bjw whined when NEW contract data was analyzed... he whined that he prefers quality outdated data.

"Hey JuiceMan, so what is wrong with the data I copied?"

Where do I start? Should we talk about the fact that you don't think medians are a credible measurement but every post and opinion you have offered up over the last (insert timeframe here) has been based on median measurements? I know you are shocked when I say that you continue to talk out both sides of your mouth. I think the word shill fits well.

"I'm glad you agree that median prices are not a good measurement."

Never said it was. Now a dishonest shill as well steve? Shame, shame.

"Maybe you'll also now agree that per-square foot prices are subject to error/fudging merely by changing the reported square footage, and therefore that's even less reliable than median price?"

No, I don't agree.

"Which was NOT the measure you championed!
Change your story again, sure."

I'll call you on your bs again - where did I say that? It's median price, which is EXACTLY the measure I "championed" and the one you denied incessantly. And I've always said new dev lags, so looking at resales is obviously more current. You're just lying here, self-servingly, again.

"Hey, loser, you just claimed "he never said it" and then I showed you you were wrong, and then you change the story AGAIN."

No - he never said median price was a "suspect" measure. He most clearly said contract data are though, which you "champion."

I think anyone reading your posts can see who the "ass" is here.

"NYC RE is starting to accelerate to the downside.... yes accelerate JuiceMan (boy or girl?)"

Thanks for the newsflash w67th, in your attempt to be hysterical was that the best you could come up with? You crack me up sometimes but lately you have missed more than Giambi after BALCO. Come on big boy, dig deep.

Whoa now i'm lost.I said they would prop up average sales prices...but median sales prices would presumably be lower if the market is falling, no? Assuming, at least, that new contracts outnumber old contracts inked at 2007 sales prices...

"It's median price, which is EXACTLY the measure I "championed" and the one you denied incessantly."

Which is EXACTLY the measure Miller just noted the problem with.

Do you really think talking in circles makes you any less of a hypocrite!?!?

Seriously now... do you not get that you are a putz?

"No - he never said median price was a "suspect" measure. He most clearly said contract data are though, which you "champion.""

Except now FOUR TIMES we've just pointed him out saying median prices were a problem because of lag.

And you DARE say anyone else is lying?

Wow, you're not just a loser and a hypocrite, you are a liar, too....

go back to Boston, tourist.

"lately you have missed more than Giambi after BALCO"

Awwww...picking on poor Jase. Good man, did a dumb thing. Said he was sorry....not for anything in particular, but he did apologize. I like Jase, but yeah, the end-game of prolonged steroid use is not too pretty.

hahaha special K - I could eat you for breakfast - I'm laughing so hard

Interesting perspective from the Crain's article on SHADOW INVENTORY. That's a lot!

As a result, inventory in Manhattan hit its highest level in the decade since Mr. Miller began tracking that statistic, soaring to 10,445 units, up 34% from the year-ago period. What’s more, he notes that those figures do not include the units that developers do not actively market to sellers, known as their shadow inventory. Mr. Miller estimates that there are 5,000 to 7,000 units that fall into that murky category.

BTW, it is interesting to consider SHADOW SHADOW INVENTORY as well. That is inventory that is already half built and that is coming on stream over the next year or two. From what I've heard (and seen) that dwarfs the simple SHADOW INVENTORY.

All in all A LOT OF INVENTORY out there at the same time that sales are plummeting.

"Which is EXACTLY the measure Miller just noted the problem with."

Read carefully - he does not say the metric is inherently problematic. He's saying you have to be careful when interpreting it - huge difference from data that are just suspect (ie: contract data). And he helps circumvent the issue you're talking about by reporting a separate figure for resales only. It's right there!

"Wow, you're not just a loser and a hypocrite, you are a liar, too...."
"go back to Boston, tourist."

This board is for discussion and debate, so it's obviously going to lead to some disagreements, and that's fine. It's not, however, intended for you to show the rest of the world how much of a d-bag you can be. Give it a rest.

Juiceman... either I'm funny or not, doesn't bother me... the point I've made from my very first post against Malraux/ exit2/LICComment/Techie/shrimwrappedinbacon etc... was NYC RE will tank. The current de-leveraging and de-coupling of financial institutions, macro-economic conditions, and global economic instability can have only one outcome to NYC RE. Given that the market is getting back to fundamentals of cash flow and risk, and rents accelerating down 20-50% in the next year (do you disagree?) there is ABSOF__KINGLUTELY NO NO NO NO reason to buy NYCRE. Matter of fact if it was equities, I'd say unload 50% of RE RIGHT NOW... .but damn it's hard to sell half a bathroom, no?

and the band played on...

"Hey JuiceMan, so what is wrong with the data I copied?"

Where do I start? Should we talk about the fact that you don't think medians are a credible measurement but every post and opinion you have offered up over the last (insert timeframe here) has been based on median measurements?"

First of all, it is recognized by all (but you) that the Case-Shiller method is the best way to measure property price changes. There are dozens of threads about that topic. This thread is about the inventory numbers that were released this week. Albeit imperfect, they show what they show, and you are denying that what they show is true.

"I know you are shocked when I say that you continue to talk out both sides of your mouth. I think the word shill fits well."

I'm glad you think that, but it's untrue. You seem to think that "shill" means a person who can discuss multiple ways of viewing a market. I've discussed many. Median or average prices are not the best way to look at real estate, but they are a way, and that's what this thread is about.

By the way, although "shill" only has 5 letters, you should look it up before you use it in a sentence. The definition is "an accomplice of a hawker, gambler, or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice others."

I don't hawk, gamble, or swindle. I don't even drink. Sorry I don't have the vices you ascribe to me.

And "dishonest shill" is redundant.

"Maybe you'll also now agree that per-square foot prices are subject to error/fudging merely by changing the reported square footage, and therefore that's even less reliable than median price?"

"No, I don't agree."

Why not? Have you NEVER seen a real estate company lie about square footage? Have you determined a single way to calculate it? Although median price is very imperfect, median price per square foot is even more imperfect because it is subject to distortions in square footage. I've already cited the example of an 800-square foot apartment being advertised as 950 square feet; that same apartment was measured for reappraisal purposes as 690 square feet. The apartment I sold in Miami Beach was originally measured at 1310 square feet, and that was subsequently reduced to 1190 square feet by a different appraiser. I could go on and on. It is an imperfect measure, unless you can show me a consistent methodology always applied to all properties by law, and prove it.

"I don't even drink."

Really? I thought you spoke about being drunk on this site many times. I'm sure I can dig up a few posts.

"First of all, it is recognized by all (but you) that the Case-Shiller method is the best way to measure property price changes."

You love putting words in my mouth don't you steve? Where did I say this? I have said over and over and over again that the Case-Shiller method is great, but very difficult to replicate if you don't have the data (which by the way, we don't). This is what I'm talking about steve, your constant twists of the truth are such a desperate act. Why do you do it? Do you like swindling folks?

"I've discussed many. Median or average prices are not the best way to look at real estate, but they are a way, and that's what this thread is about."

Until median prices go up and then it will no longer be an acceptable measurement right steve? I think you may need an extra mouth so you can talk out of more sides of it.

If Sociology is defined as taking everything we intuitively know and writing books proving it, then a lot of this thread is sociological. Seems that Miller's analysis has been parsed more than the Talmud...or a speech by Barnanke. IF one agrees that co-op sales as an indicator are less likely to be skewed (because there are no legacy 'new development' contracts), then clearly the market is down very, very sharply by any measure -- units sold, price, whatever. Miller makes the point that larger units have held up better, and that his data on condos reflect larger apartment sales. That, and legacy contracts for new developments are responsible for appearance of better pricing. No mystery here, is there? So why so much heat on the board?

"I'm sure I can dig up a few posts."

You can, from long ago. Not in many, many months. Good riddance!

"Until median prices go up and then it will no longer be an acceptable measurement right steve?"

No. They are what they are. Why, though, do you STILL refuse to discuss what the article actually says:

"The report showed that average condo and co-op apartment prices were down 11 percent from the first quarter of last year, to $1.5 million. Co-op prices were off 27 percent, to $975,000, and condominium prices down by 4 percent. but were up from the last quarter, as buyers continued to close on new condominiums for which contracts were signed many months ago."

"The Elliman report showed that average and median sales prices for all co-ops and condos were up a bit from a year ago, but Mr. Miller said the figures were distorted by closings of expensive new condominiums (even though few contracts for new condominiums are currently being signed).

"He said a more significant figure was the sale price of existing co-op and condominium apartments, which was down 20.9 percent, to $732,000, since the first quarter of last year."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/realestate/02real.html?ref=realestate

Until median prices go down and then it will no longer be an acceptable measurement right JuiceMan?

Well, Steve. Reality is catching up to your forecast...Which reminds me of the stock market. In early March I started trading FAS, HIG, BAC, and WFC, in anticipation of FASB, and it worked great. The problem is that on last Wednesday at the close I got out of all of those trades to take profits, and I jumped into FAZ, SRS, DXD and SDS in anticipation of a pullback. The reality out there is very bleak, especially for commercial real estate, yet SRS got killed at REIT's went up with everything else.
Do you see a pullback this week as reality sets in?

mh23, I can't predict what the market will do from one day to another - only medium- to long-term, and even then it can be tough. But I did jump into financials in anticipation of FASB, uptick, but the real reason was that BAC was valued at less than the cumulative value of all of its minority holdings. Meaning the stock market had discounted the value of its branch network (one of the 3 in the country, national in breadth), Merrill, Countrywide, and credit card operations.

= Oversold.

I don't day-trade. Usually I keep my holdings for 6 to 18 months, before I rebalance, which I look at every few months. Unfortunately, recently it hasn't been such fun to look at!

I wouldn't touch property in NYC, however, not for a long time. Maybe Detroit, where you can buy a 3-bedroom house for $60,000, and actually make money renting it out, but not here, until you CAN make money renting it out.

mh23 - it's not just FASB. The financials may not seem that bad this quarter, they may even be calling their performance a rousing success. Fundamentally not true, but the market doesn't care about fundamnetals, just numbers as they can be spun.

The real gooser can be found in PCE, which is up. I couldn't figure out how, for the life of me, when savings are up and income is down. Then I read that income tax refunds are running at 18% above last year, and the IRS clearly has been hiring because they're processing those babies as fast as they can. Shortly, however, unemployment benefits will run out for many, and sheer unemployment numbers will eclipse the current stimulus efforts. Also, IRA money has been doing its yearly thing.

I thought this bear market rally should have been over by now, and earnings may be weak, but they may take a bit longer to tank the momentum.

I hear you. I should have just continued with the momentum rather than trying to be cute and outsmart the thin. On all of my bulish moves I waited for the market to give me direction and then I jumped in. Like C, I bought it at 1.65 and sold at the open on Wednesday for 2.95, now, if Monday is a big move up in the morning, I will probably buy back in. I may just have to take my lumps in FAZ and SRS, but I just can't believe we can go above a 23% move up without a pullback. I still have plenty of long positions (AA, MSFT, DD, DOW, MHP, CAG, KFT, GE, NWL, GDX) that I am not trading, but the market was so oversold that I had to get involved with the financials.
I will see what happens on Monday, and then maybe go long a WFC. I just can't deal with BAC any more. I bought in at 27, rode it down to around 9 and sold. Then I bought back in at 4, but dumped at around 6.25, missing out on the move above 7.
As for Manhattan real estate, Steve is right.

mh23 + aboutready

there was talk on zerohedge earlier this week that many of the financial firms were buoyed by the AIG bailout. Also agree that BAC was trading crazy low, but that was b/c everyone figured it was a 50/50 on a nationalization wiping everything out.

Figures JuiceMan wouldn't address the ISSUES.

What's that quote? I've seen it in a couple of movies.

When you have the facts on your side, argue the facts.
When you have the law on your side, argue the law.
When you have neither on your side, bang your fist on the table and argue at the top of your lungs.

mh23, you may have made the right call. It seems as though the Moyers interview with William Black may have caused a bit of a stir. No greater buzzkill for momentum than regulators (Elizabeth Warren, namely, and the Keebler elf, to a lesser extent) talking about CEO culpability (and in Warren's case, a WHOLE lot more) for banks.

"the guy makes a point specifically about the measure you like... a couple weeks after you ATE UP his last set of comments"

If you go back and read the threads, I've agreed completely with that point time and again. You're just trying to talk in circles to avoid discussing that he explicitly publishes a median price on resales only.

"Dude, you got caught in a lie, and now you are resorting to insults.
Can't say I'm surprised.
You've always been a hypocrite and a tool, so adding whiny b*tch to it does not surprise me at all!"

Really? You type these words and then write this: "When you have neither on your side, bang your fist on the table and argue at the top of your lungs."? Who writes in all caps more than you? Who resorts to insults more than you? Yeesh, and you have the gall to call anyone else a hypocrite?

Dude, you can try and explain it all you want.... but you are a tool and a hypocrite.

Still yelling and jumping up and down.

I'm sorry Miller noted the EXACT problem you tried to deny, but you got schooled.

Now stop trolling.

Darn, thought I would actually see a legit argument in there. Instead of, you know, insults and hypocrisy.

Methinks nyc & bjw have an online feud going.

Where's spunky?

> Darn, thought I would actually see a legit argument in there. Instead of, you know, insults and hypocrisy.

ROFTL. Still jumping up and down whining, I see.

You lost the argument painfully, and moved on to insults. Why would I need to restate the position, when you got schooled?

Seriously troll, take it back to Boston.

steve, I'd say so. It's tough to sit back and have someone be so directly vulgar and insulting and not speak up, as much as I realize he's never going to be civil, or even logical when it comes to this particular discussion. It's also amazing to see someone complain so vociferously about insults and hypocrisy, while being the only one really resorting to those tools. Apologies to the rest of you for having to read through this malarkey.

I still have all my positions. Now we see the negative news coming out, and the smart money is getting ready to short this rally. My only concern is some nonsense coming out during earnings, but this rally was all based on nonsense, and all we need is a little more fear and there will be some major selling into tomorrow as people desperately try to salvage profits.

I've had my problems w/ nyc, as well, who insists on interpreting statements based on his own misunderstanding of what people say.

"It's tough to sit back and have someone be so directly vulgar and insulting and not speak up"

Yes, the hall monitor is here to save us all! He keeps the board safe and clean for those in denial!

Yes, you become the cop here when it suits you, then one of the biggest trolls!

Of course, only when it suits you!

"as much as I realize he's never going to be civil, or even logical when it comes to this particular discussion."

ROTFL. This coming from the guy talking COMPLETELY IN CIRCLES to cover up that he lied and contradicted himself... then resorted to insults when his BS got pointed out.

You *dare* talk about logic?

Oh my lord.

"It's also amazing to see someone complain so vociferously about insults"

Amazing, COMPLAINTS ABOUT INSULTS from the guy who started name calling like "douchbag".

Oh my lord, this would be so funny if it weren't so sad!

Second, don't lie. I don't sit here complaining about insults, thats your bag. I just pointed out that YOU started them here WHILE COMPLAINING ABOUT THEM.

I only point them out because your hypocrisy is so funny!

> Apologies to the rest of you for having to read through this malarkey.

While he continues to write it! The hypocrisy never really ends!

Move on, troll!

steve, I certainly noticed that one as well. Frankly, you were correct about the Dow (and very clear that's it's impossible to predict short-term anyway), so not sure what his issue was. Regardless, I can't think of any regular poster here he hasn't tried to browbeat.

Actually, about 10 people backed up my note that Steve called it wrong. I didn't say it, but at least two other people called him a plain out liar on that thread.

He called 6500 and the down went UP to 9k, then he denied he called 6500 (trying to say he was picking "direction" which was not only nonsensical but wrong... basically a huge backtrack) and then he called 11k... and only then did the dow decline. This was after Steve called down, then changed to up based on the TARP signing. Basically, Steve is on record picking up, down, up, down... and then only "remembering" the ones that pointed right (even though he actually DISAVOWED some of those, like 6500 and his China call). His record on stocks is very, very bad.

So, cut to know... why doesn't it surprise me in the LEAST that bjw would get the facts wrong here so he could try and put me down...

I'm sorry bjw you got caught lying... but don't try and call this "intrepretation".

You are a troll.

At least Steve is funny.

Steve, you brought it up and bjw the troll bit it... so lets just show how dumb he is to have actually been suckered by you.

Here is what folks said about his claimed prediction - all different folks, none of them me..

"quit lying about your predictions steve. We can easily go back and look up what you really said so lying is a stupid thing to do here."

"Anyway, Steven, I think you may want to re-read your positions before you keep saying you were right, and frankly, there's nothing wrong with being wrong, just trying to say otherwise. "

"steve is so full of crap. In September, when I said that the dow was likely to go to 6500 he immediately came on the board and started babbling about how unlikely that was; he insulted nouriel roubini and said he didn't know what he was talking about (wrong again Steve)...In October when the market blew up and he got depressed about all the money he lost he started rattling about the market falling to depths as low as 5000...then the december rally came and he backed off again"

"Steve, you are trying to have it both ways. Please stop it. It's annoying"

So, you can pretend its ME, but Steve was called out for lying on this one....

And, bjw, if you want to align yourself with that... well, hey, I'm not surprised.

"Frankly, you were correct about the Dow "

BJW, is there anything you are NOT wrong about here?

Come on, bjw, lie and change your story again!

Keep trolling!