Discuss - Trulia says Manhattan down 44.7% (avg. price psf)

truths, the 50% makes a lot of sense for a mkt that started to go down too late and is doing so very fast. it's just that i've never seen it before, hence the shock. if i were the bank i will want to know that an equity cushion will be there even if current declines continue for a while, so it's sensible. it's funny how dislocated things are. newcomers need much bigger downpayments than usual while f*d up homeowners receive help from the gov to refi 110% LTV with a super subsidized rate at the expense of savers. it sounds like a joke (a bad one).

admin, if it's any comfort, very, very few homeowners are getting any assistance at all. although some are not being evicted because the banks don't know what the f to do with the properties.

and the newcomers are still better off renting, in most markets, so the reality is that the difficult financing will most likely force them into a better buying situation in the future (unless, of course, interest rates take off before underwriting standards ease up). save, save, save.

"admin, if it's any comfort, very, very few homeowners are getting any assistance at all. although some are not being evicted because the banks don't know what the f to do with the properties.

and the newcomers are still better off renting, in most markets, so the reality is that the difficult financing will most likely force them into a better buying situation in the future (unless, of course, interest rates take off before underwriting standards ease up). save, save, save."

i'm not into the fair/unfair issue. it's about long term incentives, which are not unexpected in say a banana republic, but here? i would have expected some type of discussion about what the incentive is for the next bubble if non-recourse keeps on being there for example. in terms of regulation moving towards not allowing extraction of home equity (like France does) or not allowing crazy leverage are absolutely out of question or prosecuting those homeowners that committed fraud in their mortgages is important incentives-wise. the gov is much closer to pray for a new housing bubble to start ASAP than avoiding a new rampant bubble in the future. that is f*ing scary.

"JuiceMan: "Cognitive Dissonance"

Look it up.

In between chants."

I'm familiar with the term. How is your treatment going? That certainly explains your inconsistency. I hope you feel better, is there something I can do? Maybe a cookie or a McDonald’s apple pie?

admin, obviously they are trying to reflate this puppy, as fast as they can. the only thing slowing them down is the return to some semblance of underwriting standards, for almost all of the non-conforming loans and some of the conforming (most aspects of lending for new development). although tales of fraud are rampant there again.

in terms of leverage, i've (with the exception of the upstate home) always bought with 10% down. when housing prices are in line with rents and incomes, and employment is steady, there's historically been little risk with such loans. pmi companies were extremely diligent. nearly every single mechanism available for ensuring proper mortgage availability was ignored. we could have prevented this easily, we chose not to do so.

i guess that the point i'm trying to make (i'm thinking aloud actually) is that the system could be played to our advantage. i surely prefer that than to be taken advantage of. the tools are there for us. more than demonizing wall street maybe we ought to mimic it. isn't the gov gonna monetize debt anyway (entitlements, pensions, bail outs, ...). why not actually take advantage of that saying to the gov: "here's my debt (fixed rate of course), as much as i could get i swear. go ahead, monetize that for me please...".

behaving nice and avoiding being reckless might not be the smarter thing to do when the gov is keen in debasing the currency and redistributing losses. we might as well have better chances of survival as petit gamblers (and for sure it'll be more fun). i would go further, do we impair the chances of success of our kids by telling them to be responsible, to work as hard as you can, be a saver, avoid debt, not reckless and the like? as suppose to "get the most out of it while it last"?

btw "pmi companies were extremely diligent. " i disagree with that, and made a bundle with puts on many of them (pmi and radian).

i'm referring to days of old for the pmi companies. recently they took on some pretty poor business, as that was all that was left after the HELOC at closing eliminated the need for them.

i think fortunately or unfortunately that any thinking child is taking away from this episode their own conclusions. mine has certainly been very verbal at what she perceives to be inconsistencies and injustices. we have far too many close friends and she has far too many schoolmates who are in the financial arena, and after all her father is an attorney at a big firm, for us to be too outspoken about the paradoxes and injustices that seem to roil our society. in a broader format we discuss the downsides to wealth inequality and the like, and we answer her questions. for those children not living through this, i wonder what the history books will have to say.

in general, however, i'm still naive. i can't think that avoiding responsibility is any way to lead a richer (on other levels) life, although a greater emphasis on living in the moment could probably only be for the good. i definitely feel robbed, but i don't think i wish to join the robbers, at least not yet. "jolly good, you're a robber too."

"That certainly explains your inconsistency."

The world certainly was happier when spunky was here. He was silly, but at least entertaining.

AR, that reminds me of a conversation with a friend of mine, who literally told me "relax, regardless what do you, it's gonna be almost all about your kid's peers".

"in general, however, i'm still naive." i'm 100% not, and like parties too. so given that they call me for the clean up, i might as well enjoy the party next time. this might be a country of bubble blowers after all, it felt lonely on the sidelines.

perspective, admin, perspective. it wasn't lonely on the sidelines, we just weren't talking to each other. in NYC and some of the other prime bubble markets far more were on the sidelines than you'd think. and by naive, i don't mean the traditional definition of unaware. i mean the straightforward and uncomplicated one. not that i don't have my layers, but i have my limits, and my values, and i'm damned if i'm going to alter them as the result of the actions of people and companies and governments and systems i can't respect. i'm still more than getting by, and i'd rather get by with less than sell out. for those who are barely surviving it's different, but they don't have the power generally to try to join the other side.

and i disagree with your statement that my approach is like the relax it's all about your kids peers. we say plenty to our daughter, we just let her draw some of her own inferences rather than saying johnny's dad is one of the primary attorneys involved in the creation of CDS's and elizabeth's dad is a government bond trader, and mommy's ex-boyfriend used to be the head of global risk for one of the major ibs and do you know what Moody's and S&P did. i've long been on record here that i think absolutely the opposite, that hands-on parenting is critical. why the f do you think i stay home? do you have children?

i like parties too, but not the kind where you wake up the next morning wondering why you did what you did.

steve, spunky was entertaining for quite a while. then he wasn't.

the spunkster was a little annoying toward the end, but at least he was honest in his delusions.

Still waiting for you to provide those data that show Wayne and White Plains as uncorrelated to Manhattan, Juicy!

"Still waiting for you to provide those data that show Wayne and White Plains as uncorrelated to Manhattan, Juicy!"

as I am waiting for you to post (real) data that shows they are correlated. So far, your only attempt has been using faulty average price data that showed absolutely nothing. Even if the data wasn't faulty, it still wouldn't prove correlation.

Poor steve, longing for long lost posters because he can't get out of a massive hole. :(

"So far, your only attempt has been using faulty average price data that showed absolutely nothing. Even if the data wasn't faulty, it still wouldn't prove correlation."

Typical JuiceMan, as pitiful as usual. Here we have data that show figures EXACTLY in line for Manhattan with all of his sources, and they show nothing to him. As sad as LICC when he said that the city's property tax register doesn't show market equivalent rents, even though that's how the city calculates property taxes.

No use even trying anymore.

> the spunkster was a little annoying toward the end, but at least he was honest in his delusions.

Agreed... it was definitely better when bulls weren't trying to pull this "well, it didn't go to zero so I'm right" stuff. I said it months ago... you knew the game would be over when the debate was on 20 to 30%. Now its the former bulls just looking around for crumbs.

"No use even trying anymore."

That's probably a good idea steve. You are the only one on this board (or maybe the world) that would attempt to prove correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan using average price data. Just the mention of it is hysterical and everyone reading this knows it.

"Here we have data that show figures EXACTLY in line for Manhattan with all of his sources, and they show nothing to him."

More spin. The posts in this thread prove that your data is wrong and that your correlation approach is laughable. Just read the thread steve. You can continue to post that I’m wrong and your right but it doesn’t matter. It is all right here! The master of spin has run out of tops!

“Now its the former bulls just looking around for crumbs.”

nyc10022, care to weigh in on steve’s approach to correlation of Wayne, NJ and Manhattan? How about the use of average price data to prove a price relationship?

"You are the only one on this board (or maybe the world) that would attempt to prove correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan using average price data."

You are the only one in the world who would try to spin what I did a proving a correlation using average price data. I looked at mean and median and their direction - proves exactly my point. Indeed, you're the one who say's they're NOT correlated - as if what happens in Manhattan has no effect on the suburbs! - and can't prove it because it's plainly not true.

What data have you ever posted, Juicy, except Miller Samuel which, in fact, agrees completely with trulia except for 1 quarter where trulia shows a statistical blip. Everything else is right in line.

If means and medians aren't enough for you, Juicy, what do YOU plan to use to show your silly point?

"nyc10022, care to weigh in on steve’s approach to correlation of Wayne, NJ and Manhattan? How about the use of average price data to prove a price relationship? "

Actually, if I were trying to prove the correlation between two sets of numbers, thats pretty much what I would do.

Do you understand what "correlation" means?

"Actually, if I were trying to prove the correlation between two sets of numbers, thats pretty much what I would do."

Really? That's a bit surprising based on your comments from the past, like this one from a few months ago.

"This is MEAN prices, not MEDIAN. Meaning its, well, meaningless. It certainly doesn't say what happened to prices, it says what the makeup of the few sales left are....

Its the basket of goods issue.
Say apples are $10 and oranges are $1. There are 2 sales of each. Mean price is $5.50. Then prices go down to $9 and $.50 because of a decline. Then there are 2 apple sales, and one orange sale. Mean price is $6.17. Does that REALLY say that prices went up? Of course not, everything is 10% cheaper."

I agree with this post, but how in the world can you say that steve's approach makes sense, when you yourself said his measures are meaningless?

"Do you understand what "correlation" means?"

I do, thanks for asking. However what I don’t understand is the 1) belief that there is correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan and 2) it is being proved using average prices and average price per square foot.

"You are the only one in the world who would try to spin what I did a proving a correlation using average price data. I looked at mean and median and their direction"

Ok, that's great steve. So if Toad Suck, Arkansas (real place) has the same mean and median trends as Manhattan then that would mean they are correlated markets. Brilliant!

"Really? That's a bit surprising based on your comments from the past, like this one from a few months ago."

Only if you don't understand math.

Medians and means are both averages, as is mode.

"However what I don’t understand is the 1) belief that there is correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan"

Well, if you never look at the data, you don't have much of a leg to stand on either way.

"I agree with this post, but how in the world can you say that steve's approach makes sense, when you yourself said his measures are meaningless?"

Again, this is 5th grade math.

There are different ways of calculating average, and different ones are appropriate for different factors....

"Well, if you never look at the data, you don't have much of a leg to stand on either way"

I did look at the data and I have two legs to stand on.

"Ok, that's great steve. So if Toad Suck, Arkansas (real place) has the same mean and median trends as Manhattan then that would mean they are correlated markets. Brilliant!"

Actually, juiceman, thats what correlated means!

Brilliant!

> I did look at the data and I have two legs to stand on.

The only data mentioned shows Steve is right.

I'm not talking chicken legs to stand on.

Where is your data?

"Actually, juiceman, thats what correlated means!

Brilliant!"

Really nyc10022? So if condo's in Toad Suck decrease next month by 10% you would expect a 10% decrease in condos in Manhattan? Wow, and I was giving you the benefit of the doubt.

"The only data mentioned shows Steve is right."

LMAO. You better look up correlation.

"Where is your data?"

All right here in this thread. Nothing else is needed.

"Really nyc10022? So if condo's in Toad Suck decrease next month by 10% you would expect a 10% decrease in condos in Manhattan? "

If they've historically been tied? Of course.

THAT IS WHAT CORRELATION MEANS.

Seriously, math class. Every community college has 'em.

I remember in the very first course I took which discussed correlation, at that point in time there was some AMAZINGLY HIGH correlation between rainfall in Pittsburgh and the DOW. The point of bringing that fact up was that just because 2 items have an amazingly high historical correlation, you need to look "reality" before using on as a *predictor* of the other.

PS Just making a point, not arguing against the particular premise here.

"If they've historically been tied? Of course.

THAT IS WHAT CORRELATION MEANS"

nyc10022, how would you define "historically tied"?

"Seriously, math class. Every community college has 'em."

Obviously Yale does not, but I'm sure you got a real bang for your buck majoring in American Studies and Romanian Art.

Trulia's data is a joke. Stats from crap are crap.

""Really nyc10022? So if condo's in Toad Suck decrease next month by 10% you would expect a 10% decrease in condos in Manhattan? "
If they've historically been tied? Of course.
THAT IS WHAT CORRELATION MEANS.
Seriously, math class. Every community college has 'em."

Jesus, it'll never end. You're wrong nyc10022 - you would have to prove causation, not just correlation in order to realistically expect the decrease. Regardless, this is a pretty silly and theoretical argument. What are we even trying to get at at this point? That Trulia data are good?

"So if Toad Suck, Arkansas (real place) has the same mean and median trends as Manhattan then that would mean they are correlated markets. Brilliant!"

Yes it would. It would not prove causation, which is not the same thing as correlation. Instead of dentistry, Juicy, you should have studied economics. The next step in the correlation would be to determine its significance - is it a chance happening, or are they truly interdependent values. The entire argument of the NAR several years ago that there would not be a national downturn in real estate is because there had never been one. It was also the hypothesis used by the ratings agencies when rating CDO's. The assumption was that all real estate markets are local, and not dependent on each other.

While historically that had been true, it was not this time. The true correlation was between the price and availability of credit and housing prices, not the state of the local economies as had been the assumption.

I can see by your ignorance of the subject that you've still have the NAR's hook, line, and sinker stuck in your mouth. Time to extricate. What happens in Vegas - real-estate-wise - did NOT stay in Vegas.

For a reason.

I forgot: Juicy 419, Steve -10 million.

Even though, yet again, I'm right, and even though, again, Juicy is unable to back his claims up even through something as simple as wictionary.

bjw, it is a stupid argument, no doubt about it. That said, these two knuckleheads opine on this board daily like they know something and someone has to do a service to streeteasy and show how very, very little they know about anything.

I’ve had a quick look at some home value index data on zillow.com which covers a 10 year time frame. The way the data is shown you can take 9 data points over the last 10 years (more if you can guess well) for a given market. I’ve done that for Wayne, NJ and the UES (in honor of nyc10022 and his liberal arts education). Here are the index values since 2000 (in thousands):

Wayne,NJ UES

285 669
315 979
354 950
446 1070
494 1385
540 955
509 953
462 942
409 957

The correlation between these two data sets = .52. This pretty much tells us nothing, since it means there may or may not be correlation. For giggles, I decided to run a correlation between Dallas, TX and the UES. Here is the data set for Dallas:

206
98
96
105
109
114
122
121
111

The correlation between Dallas, TX and the UES is -.63, which tells us it could have a stronger relationship with the UES than Wayne, NJ does.

Finally, to lend credence to this stupid exercise I compared the UES and Yorkville, with the idea that that these two markets should have a high correlation. The data set for Yorkville is:

638
679
675
732
1223
930
1075
840
868

The correlation between Yorkville and the UES is .69, which tells us what we would expect, that it has a stronger relationship with the UES than Dallas, TX does.

What does all of this tell us?

1) That steve and nyc10022 have no idea how to calculate correlation as both have said using means and medians at a point in time proves that these two markets are correlated
2) They consistently ask for data for problems that can be answered using five seconds of logic and a toothpick
3) There is a better chance of Manhattan prices being correlated to my cat’s bowel movements than with Wayne, NJ
4) Trulia data sucks (as does Zillow’s) and even if there were correlation between these markets, steve and nyc10022 don’t have the data to prove it.
5) This entire thread is about steve taking large leaps without any data or logic so take his comments with a grain of salt.
6) Steve will refute, spin, distract, from this post in every way possible but there is nothing he can say except that he is wrong (again)

JuiceMan 420
Stevejhx -53

nyc10022, where is your data to refute what I am saying here?

crickets baby. crickets.

I guess steve and nyc10022 are still looking for data.

No JuiceMan, not looking for data, I do have a life and was busy this weekend.

You're funny: "steve and nyc10022 have no idea how to calculate correlation as both have said using means and medians at a point in time proves that these two markets are correlated"

And you use Zillow. To wit: "The Zillow Home Value Index is the MEDIAN Zestimate valuation for a given geographic area on a given day."

Note: they use the MEDIAN, and it's an ESTIMATE, not an appraisal. That is, Zillow makes its data up.

Laughable. Truly laughable.

So, JuiceMan, for more of your GIGGLES - because the last giggle was that you used a mean based on a guesstimate and made fun of me for using a mean based on real data - I did a slightly different correlation using your numbers.

Your basic assumption was that Wayne New Jersey and the UES should be correlated year by year. That is, linearly: 2000 to 2000, 2001 to 2001, etc. However, it has more than been documented that prices started to fall outside of Manhattan - including the Jersey, Westchester, and Long Island suburbs - about 2 years before they did in Manhattan. If you accept that assumption - feel free to dispute it, but the data support it - and shift the UES data 2 years, you get this data sequence:

354 669
446 979
494 950
540 1070
509 1385
462 955
409 953

The correlation with a 2-year lag is .75.

Extremely correlated.

Any comments?

JuiceMan - 200,000
Steve - won.

And if the lag is ONE year, the correlation is .77.

There you have it. EXTREMELY CLOSELY CORRELATED, with a 1- to 2-year lag.

"Jesus, it'll never end."

Yes, especially when another idiot gets on board and continues to argue.

"You're wrong nyc10022 - you would have to prove causation, not just correlation in order to realistically expect the decrease."

Incorrect! Back to math class for you, too!

Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.... but I guess that never stopped you before, either.

> Regardless, this is a pretty silly and theoretical argument.

Made even sillier by bjw!

> crickets baby. crickets.

Juice, you should get laid or something. Even factory workers get a day off.

So, JuiceMan must be looking for more data.

Or a different way to do corrlations.

“Note: they use the MEDIAN, and it's an ESTIMATE, not an appraisal. That is, Zillow makes its data up.”
Making up is a spin, but is the data ideal? No, not even close. Feel free to post something else that shows a 10 year trend. That was the best I could do in the 10 minutes I dedicated to this incredibly strategic exercise.

“If you accept that assumption - feel free to dispute it, but the data support it - and shift the UES data 2 years, you get this data sequence:”

Sure steve, why don’t you just shift all of the data any way you want so that it shows a higher correlation. That is completely acceptable in any statistics class. Good job. Also, by using this “two year lag” approach you have basically disproved your initial post that “showed” correlation between Manhattan and Wayne through one year of mean and median data. I know you get confused steve, and as I expected, you just proved the point for me. Your initial post was a joke.

One last thing is we had all better watch Wayne, NJ closely because based on your logic, whatever Wayne does over the next couple months will be the blueprint of Manhattan 24 months from now. We’ll all be rich steve! We can predict the future!!!!! If this isn’t what you are saying then there is no way these two markets can be correlated right?

“Juice, you should get laid or something. Even factory workers get a day off.”

Probably the best response on this thread, however it doesn’t answer the question I asked you.

"Yes, especially when another idiot gets on board and continues to argue."
"Incorrect! Back to math class for you, too!
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about.... but I guess that never stopped you before, either."

Right, when you've got nothing you can argue against, go for the insults! Classy, as always. Funny though, because even Steve says "[i]t would not prove causation, which is not the same thing as correlation." You just don't get it and spew 3rd grade taunts about math class. That's top notch irony for you.

"That is completely acceptable in any statistics class. "

Actually, Juice, it is. Read about stepwise regression and stochastics. Correlation is more complex than what you learned how to do in Excel, and there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON WHY a calendar year needs to be the time frame used. Just as moving averages are used to smooth out statistical anomalies caused by choosing specific start and stop dates.

Think of it this way, JuiceMan: run a day-by-day correlation between the weather in Chicago and New York. Then correlate the weather between Chicago on Day 0 and New York on Day 1, that is, one day after Chicago. I think you'll see that, as weather patterns tend to move from west to east in the northern hemisphere, there is a much stronger correlation between the weather like that than there is by using the weather on the same day.

You really, truly don't know what you're talking about.

To wit: "Your initial post was a joke."

It wasn't my initial post, it was nyc's. And I said that it was a statistical anomaly that caused that result. Stepwise regression would eliminate that data point, as it should. Is the figure true? Yes, from the data. Is it indicative of the actual state of the real estate market? No.

You're a dentist, JuiceMan, I'm an economist by training and did my (A+) senior thesis on regression analyses. It's been a long time, but I still remember how to do it.

You never learned.

“It wasn't my initial post, it was nyc's. And I said that it was a statistical anomaly that caused that result.”

Steve, this is the post I’m talking about. It is right here for everyone to see. You tried to show correlation between the three markets based on YOY (same year) means and medians. It is right here steve, this is what you said.

JuiceMan: "Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is related to what happens here. I think there is no such evidence."

Stevejhx: "Actually, JuiceMan, Manhattan is worse:

White Plains, NY
Average Listing Price $610,405 -3.3% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $500,000 -0.1% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $265 -14% y-o-y
Number of Sales 19 -71.2% y-o-y

New York, NY
Average Listing Price $2,010,718 -0.5% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $992,000 -19.4% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $1,132 -44.7% y-o-y
Number of Sales 588 -38.7% y-o-y

Wayne, NJ
Average Listing Price $531,620 +1.1% w-o-w
Median Sales Price $380,000 -18.2% y-o-y
Average price/sqft $218 -20.4% y-o-y
Number of Sales 101 +1% y-o-y

trulia.com

NOW WILL YOU SHUT UP PLEASE?! “

This is your post steve not mine. Now you are discussing the need for “stepwise regression and stochastics” to figure out the problem, which, as I said, means your initial post above was a complete joke.

“You're a dentist, JuiceMan, I'm an economist by training and did my (A+) senior thesis on regression analyses. It's been a long time, but I still remember how to do it.”

All the more reason why you should be embarrassed that I prove you wrong on just about everything. I don’t need an “A+ on a senior thesis on regression analyses” to show that your analysis is preposterous, just a little common sense.

“You never learned.”

You assume to know me steve, but you do not.

Juicy, the pathology gets ever more apparent, and sad. You can never admit that you're wrong even when you are, and you are becoming more and more like LICC every day.

To wit:

1) "You have basically disproved your initial post."

It wasn't "my" initial post, but you can't even acknowledge that.

2) "That data is WAY wrong."

It's not wrong. It's anomalous, but not wrong.

3) "your only attempt has been using faulty average price data that showed absolutely nothing."

And you used Zillow's data, which aren't even data, they're guesstimates.

4) "You are the only one on this board (or maybe the world) that would attempt to prove correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan using average price data."

Which is exactly what you did.

5) "Even if the data wasn't faulty, it still wouldn't prove correlation."

And I answered you: "You are the only one in the world who would try to spin what I did a proving a correlation using average price data. I looked at mean and median and their direction"

Which is exactly what I did.

6) JuiceMan: "What I don’t understand is the 1) belief that there is correlation between Wayne, NJ and Manhattan.

I did not mention correlation - you brought the subject up. I simply answered what you said: "Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is related to what happens here"

And I did.

So all your accusations above are based on a faulty interpretation of what I did, and/or attempted to do.

7) "and 2) it is being proved using average prices and average price per square foot."

How else would you do it? Apparently just like that, because that's what you did: "I’ve had a quick look at some home value index data on zillow.com which covers a 10 year time frame."

8) "why don’t you just shift all of the data any way you want so that it shows a higher correlation. That is completely acceptable in any statistics class."

And I proved it is, in fact, acceptable, and why it is acceptable.

9) This is my favorite one: "One last thing is we had all better watch Wayne, NJ closely because based on your logic, whatever Wayne does over the next couple months will be the blueprint of Manhattan 24 months from now. We’ll all be rich steve! We can predict the future!!!!!"

Just because something was correlated in the past does not mean it will be in the future. Extrapolation is a logical fallacy. (They don't teach deductive logic in dental school either, it would seem.) "If this isn’t what you are saying then there is no way these two markets can be correlated right?"

No, because as I said, correlation is not cause and effect; it's interdependence. Your very comment demonstrates that you don't know what you're talking about.

"You assume to know me steve, but you do not."

I made no such assumption.

"All the more reason why you should be embarrassed that I prove you wrong on just about everything."

Hmm.

LMAO! This is the dumbest thread ever!

c'mon steve, let’s move on. I'll even reset the score.

Dentists 0
Economists 0

STILL can't admit any of what you said was wrong?!

I was wrong about assuming you would welcome an olive branch, but other than that, no. How about you?

"Right, when you've got nothing you can argue against, go for the insults!"

Don't lie... you're still wrong, and you're still a putz for complaining about the argument, then joining in! And being wrong on top of it!

> Funny though, because even Steve says "[i]t would not prove causation,
> which is not the same thing as correlation."

Yes, they are two separate things... but, if you took a math class, you'd know you were still WRONG. You don't need causation to expect correlation to continue. Steve is right... AND YOU ARE WRONG.

ROTFL. Seriously, you're just wrong... AGAIN.

Add in that you complain about the argument, then join in...

You're not only a hypocrite hall monitor, you're an idiot, too!

> You just don't get it and spew 3rd grade taunts about math class.
> That's top notch irony for you."

No more ironic than the putz who didn't take the math class and then tried to argue it!

Seriously, go learn what you're talking about, then come back here!

Once again, you know diddly, and you are STILL ARGUING.

"I was wrong about assuming you would welcome an olive branch, but other than that, no."

What olive branch is that, if you spew nonsense & then don't admit it, declare victory & move on?

"What olive branch is that, if you spew nonsense & then don't admit it, declare victory & move on?"

steve, you still haven't admitted that your initial post on this subject was moronic. Until you admit that, the healing won't begin. I was willing to call it a tie, in case you didn't know, that's not victory. Have you ever played sports?

If you want to keep going, these are a couple my favorites:

"I did not mention correlation - you brought the subject up. I simply answered what you said: "Show me where you have evidence that what happens in the housing market in White Plains or Wayne is related to what happens here"

And I did.

So all your accusations above are based on a faulty interpretation of what I did, and/or attempted to do."

Splitting hairs a bit aren’t we stevie? If you weren’t talking about correlation, than why didn’t you just say that to begin with? That is a really poor backpedal steve, no one is going to believe that.

"Just because something was correlated in the past does not mean it will be in the future. Extrapolation is a logical fallacy. (They don't teach deductive logic in dental school either, it would seem.) "

You would first thave to prove that it is correlated to begin with, which you haven't and can't.

"I made no such assumption."

You assumed my profession, my educational background, and my ability to see through your BS, so that's a lot of assuming.

"Yes, they are two separate things... but, if you took a math class, you'd know you were still WRONG. You don't need causation to expect correlation to continue. Steve is right... AND YOU ARE WRONG.
ROTFL. Seriously, you're just wrong... AGAIN.
Add in that you complain about the argument, then join in...
You're not only a hypocrite hall monitor, you're an idiot, too!"

The only funny thing is that you're a tremendous a-hole and wrong about this STILL. You actually do need causation to reasonably make the kind of prediction you're talking about. It's not about taking a math class; it's about taking at least one decent stats class. I certainly have; starting to guess you haven't. But if you feel your unoriginal insults can cover that, go nuts.

"you still haven't admitted that your initial post on this subject was moronic"

I didn't make the initial post, and for good reason. As I've already said that the data from 2Q08 are anomalous and do not represent the state of the overall real estate market. Just looking at the graph will demonstrate that. How many times do I have to say it? Likely it was caused by 15CPW & the Plaza.

"If you weren’t talking about correlation, than why didn’t you just say that to begin with?"

I wasn't talking about ladybugs, either, JuiceMan, but I didn't think to mention that, either. If I were to mention everything I wasn't talking about, it would take up a lot of time. It's not "splitting hairs": it's the truth.

"You would first thave to prove that it is correlated to begin with, which you haven't and can't."

Yes, to prove that something was correlated in the past you would have to prove that it was correlated in the past. If .77 and .75 is not correlation, I don't know what is. Yes there is a one- and two-year lag doing it like that, but as demonstrated, that is a perfectly reasonable statistical assumption: the more you know about a population and build into your model, the more accurate it becomes. In politics it's called, "Scientific polling."

"You assumed my profession"

No, you stated it on a thread about 18 months ago.

"my educational background."

Don't know anything about it, but it seems not to have included statistics.

"and my ability to see through your BS"

Yes - that's novel.

Sorry bjw, but you do NOT need causation for correlation. The number of male and female births among whites and blacks is 100% correlated: slightly over 50% female, slightly under 50% male. However, neither one causes the other.

Steve, of course you don't need causation for correlation. But you do need causation to accurately predict an outcome.

"But you do need causation to accurately predict an outcome."

No you don't. Look at the childbirth scenario above. You can very easily predict that those ratios will stay the same, even though one does not cause the other.

You need a regression analysis to determine how dependent dependent variables are on independent variables. Regression requires a large amount of knowledge of the population and the sample. Which is why my assumption of a one- to two-year lag in the correlation between Wayne and the UES is correct: we KNOW from the statistical sample that that is true, so we build it into the model. It still does not mean that there is causation - there isn't - just that there is correlation. Some other factor or factors cause this correlation, but the correlation does exist.

Steve, you may feel pretty confident about your prediction, but from a statistical perspective, you can't quite do that. To make a prediction for a single event, you need a certain degree of statistical confidence, and while correlation may exist, it does not guarantee a future event. Read this for a better explanation than I can give: http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/02/03/should-mayor-daley-decree-that-all-chicago-bears-fans-be-happy-tomorrow/

Yes I know that bjw, which is why I said to JuiceMan that the correlation between Wayne and the UES does NOT mean that a prediction can be made. For the prediction you need a regression analysis - the confidence level is simply the degree to which variables are correlated x% of the time. If there is a correlation, then, you can say with 95% (for instance) confidence that if a = n then b = n1. That is not a statement of dependence or independence, however.

The ratio of male to female births CAN be predicted based on the correlation, but the correlation is due to the fact that they are dependent variables of a separate independent variable, the determination of which requires regression.

Yes, Steve, that's the rub. You need that 95% confidence to make any reasonable prediction. While I appreciate your births example, you're also talking about a variable with a binary value. Home prices are a bit more complicated than that. nyc should take stock of these things before he insults people and jumps down their throats. Really not too much to ask, I don't think.

"I wasn't talking about ladybugs, either, JuiceMan, but I didn't think to mention that, either. If I were to mention everything I wasn't talking about, it would take up a lot of time. It's not "splitting hairs": it's the truth."

Ok fine steve. You weren't talking about correlation. Then, based on your same year YOY mean and median post, explain what relationship you were trying to convey regarding Manhattan, White Plains, and Wayne, NJ? Do they have the same color trees? LMAO. Not “splitting hairs”? LMAO.

"I didn't make the initial post, and for good reason."

I'm talking about the post above where you compared same year YOY means and medians and stated the data proved there was a "relationship" between those markets. You are avoiding that post because it is clear it is moronic. Call it correlation, call it relationship, call it whatever you want (I would say you were implying causation otherwise why post it, but you will spin that as well), the fact is you are severely backpedaling from that post because you used 1 year, same year, YOY mean and median to imply a "relationship" between those markets. You can't backpedal away from that steve, that is what you said.

"If .77 and .75 is not correlation, I don't know what is."

So now you are saying that correlation has been proved using Zillow data set that you yourself have said it is "made up". Which one is it steve? Is the Zillow data good, or is it bad? If bad = you haven't proved correlation. If good = then you have reversed your own opinion of Zillow's data. Sticky situation you find yourself in once again steve.

"Yes there is a one- and two-year lag doing it like that, but as demonstrated, that is a perfectly reasonable statistical assumption: the more you know about a population and build into your model, the more accurate it becomes."

I actually agree with this statement which is even more of a reason why your same year YOY comparison of means and medians is moronic. That said, just because you found some numbers that may or may not correlate, you have already correctly said that this won't help predict the future. I agree with that statement as well. So why would we spend a second thinking about Wayne, NJ? We wouldn’t, because it is meaningless. If you want to think about it, enjoy yourself, we’ll all be laughing at you from the sidelines.

“Don't know anything about it, but it seems not to have included statistics.”

That would be a bad assumption, but I don’t need statistics to have this conversation with you, just some common sense.

"Then, based on your same year YOY mean and median post, explain what relationship you were trying to convey regarding Manhattan, White Plains, and Wayne, NJ?"

I said they were headed in the same direction, and that Manhattan's was worse. That's it.

"You are avoiding that post because it is clear it is moronic."

I've not avoided it. I said what it was - anomalous, and not representative of the overall trend in the market. You want me to say that it is "moronic" - I have no evidence for that.

"Call it correlation, call it relationship, call it whatever you want"

I did.

"(I would say you were implying causation otherwise why post it, but you will spin that as well)"

Then your reading comprehension skills are dulled. The prices of homes in Wayne New Jersey do not CAUSE the prices of homes in Manhattan to do anything. Such a statement is absurd. That they are both affected by another or other factors, however - such as unemployment, price and availability of credit - is undeniable.

"the fact is you are severely backpedaling from that post because you used 1 year, same year, YOY mean and median to imply a "relationship" between those markets."

No. Not at all. I was looking at two different things - one is overall direction, the other is correlation. Why can you not grasp that, JuiceMan?

"So now you are saying that correlation has been proved using Zillow data set that you yourself have said it is "made up""

I used the data you provided and said showed no correlation. Zillow says that those data are guesstimates. All I used them for was to prove there IS a correlation if you look at them properly. I did not comment on Zillow's data except to quote from their website.

"Sticky situation you find yourself in once again steve."

No. You said the data were good, so I used them. I think they're not good, but that they also don't show what you used them to show. How could I prove you were wrong regarding Zillow's data without using them?

I couldn't.

"So why would we spend a second thinking about Wayne, NJ?"

Because YOU keep on bringing it up in the context of metropolitan NY data.

"it is meaningless"

No it's not. The data are moving in the same direction at a similar speed at different points in time. That is a worthwhile thing to know.

It is not "moronic" to compare data yoy and then to compare them again staggered, if you are looking for different things. YOY data show directionality - a vector. The correlation show the degree to which two vectors are related. Why is that so hard to understand?

"but I don’t need statistics to have this conversation with you"

Apparently you do.

bjw, I can't comment on what nyc said b/c I didn't read it.

So your position is that your statements had no conclusion, meaning, point, hint, educational value, inclination, direction, insinuation, bias, lean, assumption, directive, and all of your posts were done with the highest degree of neutrality so as not to imply anything.

Sure steve, we all believe that! Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it?

You truly cannot read, can you, JuiceMan. Here is what I said:

1) trulia data showed that for 1 quarter Manhattan and the UES were moving in the same direction in terms of direction of means and medians.

2) trulia data for 2Q2008 are anomalous and should not be used to make any statement on the Manhattan real estate market.

3) zillow data are guesstimates.

4) Your correlation analysis on zillow data was not done properly, and did not prove what you sought to prove.

Do I think that there is a correlation between prices in Manhattan and Wayne NJ? Yes, with a 2-year lag despite the quality of the data from zillow. The quality of the input, in logic, does not necessarily affect the accuracy of the conclusion.

Do I think that Wayne New Jersey prices are predictive of Manhattan prices? No.

Do I think that there are independent variables that affect Wayne prices that also affect Manhattan prices? Yes.

What is so hard to understand about that?

"Do I think that Wayne New Jersey prices are predictive of Manhattan prices? No."

That's all I need steve, thanks for finally saying it.

"That's all I need steve, thanks for finally saying it."

I've always said it, JuiceMan. You're nuts. When did I ever say that Wayne prices are predictive of Manhattan prices? Never anywhere.

But that's not what you're claiming. You're CLAIMING that they are UNRELATED, and/or UNCORRELATED, which is not true. They are correlated, and they are related. They move pretty much in tandem, as would be expected, with a time lag. But Wayne prices do not predict Manhattan prices, or vice versa.

So yet again you claim I say something I don't, then when I say that I'm not saying it you say that you were right all along, when what you're now saying bears no resemblance to what you have been saying.

"So yet again you claim I say something I don't, then when I say that I'm not saying it you say that you were right all along, when what you're now saying bears no resemblance to what you have been saying."

I bet you can't say that 10 times fast

""But you do need causation to accurately predict an outcome."

No you don't. Look at the childbirth scenario above. You can very easily predict that those ratios will stay the same, even though one does not cause the other."

I LOVE IT! BJW is STILL wrong, STILL arguing, STILL calling names... and HE WAS THE GUY COMPLAINING THAT THIS WAS BEING ARGUED!

"The only funny thing is that you're a tremendous a-hole and wrong about this STILL."

What a complete hypocrite! (and still a liar).

Dude is screaming at the top of his lungs and still ABSOLUTELY WRONG!

Oh my god, bjw, you are such a joke and you don't even know it!

"It's not about taking a math class; it's about taking at least one decent stats class. I certainly have; starting to guess you haven't. But if you feel your unoriginal insults can cover that, go nuts."

I love it! Dude is STILL WRONG!

Oh my god, bjw is the hypocrite of the century!

nyc10022, keep reading, maybe you'll understand why you were mistaken (not holding my breath).

"Dude is screaming at the top of his lungs"

I didn't know you could hear me - very very creepy. Seriously though, you're the only person writing in all caps here. But maybe you're projecting (nah, couldn't be).

We need to find a topic that steve, nyc10022, bjw, and JuiceMan agree on. That would be good stuff.

JuiceMan, you're talking about the Holy Grail of Streeteasy. A man can dream...

I think there are plenty of topics we agree on, but the wouldn't relate to real estate.