Elliman data shows Manhattan is still falling...

wow, its been almost half an hour... and no response from any of the bulls.

What, the rationalization machine busted?

I don't know who was saying prices were up in recent contracts, especially since no one really has access to that data. Wasn't the argument that volume was noticeably up precisely because pricing was more favorable? urbandigs confirmed this several times as well, and it's also stated in this report: "Though the report did not say how many total contracts the company signed in June, it says the month's transactions increased by 47 percent from May, and Manhattan saw more transactions in June 2009 than in June 2008."

hey nyc10022, you forgot to include these 2 paragraphs:

The Elliman report also showed some positive signs. The median sales price increased to $805,000 in June from $705,000 a month earlier, though that's still lower than the $835,700 median sales price quoted in the second-quarter report.

Meanwhile, discounts from last asking price decreased to 5.6 percent from 11 percent from May, the report shows, while the discount from original asking price decreased to 13.7 percent from 26 percent.

why aren't they showing the total number of contracts and price/sq?

and alpie you forgot this:

The internal Elliman report also found that in June the majority of homes -- 91 percent -- sold by Elliman's Manhattan agents traded below their asking prices and for less than $1 million.

Meanwhile, 7 percent sold at the asking price and 2 percent were above it, according to the report.

And 67 percent of the signed contracts recorded amounts of less than $1 million. Twenty-two percent were less than $500,000, 45 percent were between $500,000 and $1 million, and 24 percent sold for between $1 million and $2 million. The remaining 9 percent of sales went for 2 million and above.

admin, this is just their internal monthly report, not the one using miller samuel data.

Thanks, nyc10022.

Very nice to get some insight into "contract" prices versus "sales" prices.

That certainly suggests that "sales" prices in the coming quarter will be down substantially.

That said, it does look like people are buying the Big Dip. Not sure if that will continue, though. I rather think it will fizzle out as new construction continues to pour onto the market and unemployment continues to climb. I'm hearing that employment is not likely to turn up until April of next year.

bjw, i think UD was opining that some price recovery (cyclical, as part of process) occurred during June.

"admin, this is just their internal monthly report, not the one using miller samuel data."

i know, but they are such basic metrics that make me think they are missing for a reason. internal info is sometimes released intentionally in finance so why not in RE?

aboutready, do you know how that was measured? Median ppsf? Something else? Really, the more interesting bits here are the lowered discrepancy between ask and sale price (can be interpreted as sellers being more "realistic" or buyers feeling a bit more confident - likely a mix of both), the volume increase, and that all this activity is happening on the lower end.

"Though the report did not say how many total contracts the company signed in June, it says the month's transactions increased by 47 percent from May, and Manhattan saw more transactions in June 2009 than in June 2008."

wow, i missed that! really impressive pick up. anybody knows the % of contract signed that actually close? (cancellation rate?), that might be getting better too as things seem to come back to normal.

> I don't know who was saying prices were up in recent contracts, especially since no one really has
> access to that data.

SteveF and alpo, of course...

"Thanks, nyc10022.

Very nice to get some insight into "contract" prices versus "sales" prices.

That certainly suggests that "sales" prices in the coming quarter will be down substantially."

Yup.... just like the contract data that came out showing the 20% down a few quarters back (which got poo-pooed then as well)... and turned out to be nearly spot on.

"Yup.... just like the contract data that came out showing the 20% down a few quarters back (which got poo-pooed then as well)... and turned out to be nearly spot on."

Quite a different story, those contract data were from a more suspect source and as I've said many many times, unless you're getting a really good sample size from one of the major brokerages (which appears to be the case here, though it's a bit unclear), contract data are just not that good.

admin, i just don't think elliman runs the numbers that way internally. may be a manpower thing. would be nice to have monthly numbers and not have to wait for quarterly.

what is more surprising to me is how high inventory still is given that it is summer and that many contracts were signed. SE does put out a number showing how many contracts don't make it to closed sales, but i believe that is quarterly, and would be lagging anyway. it looks as though what we would intuitively conclude, that those able to purchase within conforming loan limits, are relatively active. many of those may be first time home buyers, and may not have my lovely memories of previous market conditions (as recent as 2003, but really really lovely in 1995). i could see how a new buyer might be tempted if they've spent 2006 on looking for something to buy.

bjw, to say that the writing in this piece is less than lucid would be generous.

aboutready, great points. The inventory thing is always tough to peg - I'm not sure I've seen THAT much new stuff come to market recently to offset a (likely temporary) boost in signed contracts, but we'll see where things end up.

I've posted this before, but it's a really insightful piece on contract data by Jonathan Miller: http://matrix.millersamuel.com/?p=3043

"hey nyc10022, you forgot to include these 2 paragraphs:

The Elliman report also showed some positive signs. The median sales price increased to $805,000 in June from $705,000 a month earlier, though that's still lower than the $835,700 median sales price quoted in the second-quarter report.
Meanwhile, discounts from last asking price decreased to 5.6 percent from 11 percent from May, the report shows, while the discount from original asking price decreased to 13.7 percent from 26 percent."

Wait, so let me get this right, the median numbers rising (from $705,000 to $835,700) really doesn't have any positive significance, right? since it could have been that in June, larger units were sold at a lower price, compared to May, not comparable units (?)

The rate of free fall is "decreasing", but the prices are still falling (only to a lesser degree), right?

"Quite a different story, those contract data were from a more suspect source and as I've said many many times, unless you're getting a really good sample size from one of the major brokerages (which appears to be the case here, though it's a bit unclear), contract data are just not that good."

Not surprising, you're changing the story.... the source of the data was one of the appraisal firms. And you don't actually complain about the data quality.

You complained that contract data itself wasn't valid.

And pretending elliman is more valid data is a funny one.

"Wait, so let me get this right, the median numbers rising (from $705,000 to $835,700) really doesn't have any positive significance, right?"

No, because thats just not what happened. It didn't go up to 835k, 835k was the OLD number.

835k was for the entire PAST quarter. If these are right, its 835k last quarter, and the quarter after will right now likely fall somewhere in between 700 and 800k (entire range representing a decrease) if these contracts hold.

BTW, wasn't the median $1.2 at peak? That would point at way more than 20% declines...

"Not surprising, you're changing the story.... the source of the data was one of the appraisal firms. And you don't actually complain about the data quality."

No-name appraisal firm does not = major brokerage. Read Miller's piece - he explicitly says that getting the major brokerages' data in bulk would be the only reliable way to get use out of them. I've NEVER said contract data themselves weren't valid; I've said that the contract data that are out there are of highly questionable quality, and again, it's something Miller says very clearly as well.

"BTW, wasn't the median $1.2 at peak? That would point at way more than 20% declines..."

I don't think that's far off, BUT when you have 91% of sales under $1m, there's quite a heavy skew going on right now in favor of the lower-end, so that needs to be taken into consideration.

"ve NEVER said contract data themselves weren't valid; I've said that the contract data that are out there are of highly questionable "

sure... whatever works for you. Of course, this is what used to work for you:

"I have always believed contract data to be bad because it is inherently not as good as sales data, supplemented by the fact that there's not as a good a historical record on contract pricing. Sales data represent actual prices paid for actual apartments traded. Not maybes, renegotiated, or canceled deals. Done deals. You can't beat that. "

..

"my point is that contracts are an interesting measure to look at, but they're not all that reliable if you're trying to really gauge the market."

You're arguing something else now - whether contract data are actually BETTER than sales data. That's not the point at all here - the point is that the contract data we have are unreliable (the point behind the first quote you pulled). Now, if you have good quality of both, they're BOTH useful, but for slightly different things. Closed sales data are the de facto prices that apartments realistically trade at - you really can't argue otherwise. Reliable contract data give you a very good pulse of where sellers and buyers are agreeing, which is great, but it also takes the whole lending thing out of the equation (and given all that's happened in the past year or so, it should be obvious that that's pretty huge). That's exactly the crux behind that last quote you pulled.

No, I'm arguing the same thing.. that you changed your story.

Pretty black and white.

"I have always believed contract data to be bad"

It should be clear that that refers to the actual quality of the contract data that have typically been available, but pull things out of context if it makes your story better.

except for the fact that its the opposite of what you wrote in the full sentence.

"I have always believed contract data to be bad because it is inherently not as good as sales data"

Unless you want to change the meaning of words....

Talk about taking it out of context... your denial only works if *you* take the quote out of context.

Did you know that full sentences can be taken out of context too? Come on man, you keep trying to pull this stuff, I don't think you're fooling anyone. It should be clear - and you have yet to refute anything I wrote in the longer post above, so I'm assuming you finally agree?

> I don't think you're fooling anyone. It should be clear

I don't have to fool anyone, and it *is* abolutely clear.

Doesn't get much plainer than you saying contract data is inherently bad....

> and you have yet to refute anything I wrote in the longer post above

Actually, the first half was refuted already... and the second half isn't me "finally agreeing", its you changing your story. That would be you "finally agreeing", after slagging contract data for so long.

> Did you know that full sentences can be taken out of context too?

Which is also why the rest of the paragraph is there.

You can talk about context all you want, but context can't undo the claim that contract data is inherently bad. Context can't fix that....

You can mince words all you want, but I think I've done a pretty thorough job of explaining exactly what was meant, even if you still don't understand it. Perhaps I didn't phrase it to your liking, but the fact remains: the quality of the contract data you referred to was poor, which is why I never liked it.

"Actually, the first half was refuted already... and the second half isn't me "finally agreeing", its you changing your story."

Instead of speaking in nothings, explain yourself, because you've actually written nothing of any consequence since that post.

"You can mince words all you want, but I think I've done a pretty thorough job of explaining exactly what was meant, even if you still don't understand it."

Yes, its called changing the story.

We get it.

"because you've actually written nothing of any consequence since that post."

Funny, because you've been the other half of the argument.
Pot, kettle...

You're just making up for the prior mistakes you made.

Ok buddy, just another drawn-out argument with you that'll come to nothing because you're fixated on this imagined notion that I've "changed my story" instead of actually trying to contribute to a meaningful discussion. Good luck with that.

"Perhaps I didn't phrase it to your liking,"

bjw, you're the king (or queen) of criticizing people for saying things in a way you don't like. Watch the stones!

And now, coming out of left field, stevejhx.

I think we are seeing the "anecdotal evidence" proliferated by people who wanted prices and sales rates to stabilize being shown to be what it usually is.

> And now, coming out of left field, stevejhx.

Yes, so left field.... bjw over multiple posts claiming that he's the credible one.... and then folks reminding him he's not in response.

SO out of left field! Steve, you're so crazy to have come up with that all by yourself! Everyone knows bjw is the credible one!

"I think we are seeing the "anecdotal evidence" proliferated by people who wanted prices and sales rates to stabilize being shown to be what it usually is."

Well, the "buy now or be priced out forever" folks pointed at the medians for the longest time and yelled if you tried anything else, and it starts tanking, and suddenly they become so interested in all the other measures.

Not very surprising.

nyc10022, where in steve's post do you read anything about credibility? Yeah, didn't think so. Steve's a little annoyed that I got on him about his LIC obsession, but otherwise he's ok by me. Look, I'm not the only one who's commented on your cred, but it obviously makes no difference to you.

"Well, the "buy now or be priced out forever" folks pointed at the medians for the longest time and yelled if you tried anything else, and it starts tanking, and suddenly they become so interested in all the other measures."

Who might that be?

"Steve's a little annoyed that I got on him about his LIC obsession"

Actually, I don't even think about it. What I said was FUN, FUN, FUN!

"Two flags. No six flags. No - THE NEWTOWN CREEK!"

Ha-ha-ha!