Manhattan residential market ends year (2009) on up note

Pamela told me she fakes her orgasms, including the little shake at the end. Now I don't know who to trust anymore.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pending-home-sales-fall-16-apf-4260670970.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Seriously, those boobs feel so real. Until my Braille reading kicks in and I can read 'dow corning.'. Pamela, honey if you are reading this, it's time for a silicone 'change.'. They are starting to spread, you know what I'm talking about.

"Manhattan residential market ends year (2009) on up note"

vs.

"Median sales prices were down 10% to $810,000 from the same period last year, Mr. Miller said. Prices were down just 4.7% from the third quarter."

Can someone help me with the definition of "up". I had thought that an absence of negative signs on the price changes would be a basic pre-requisite for "up", but perhaps I was mistaken.

Also, same sources, different headline. In this case, the headline actually has some relationship to the data, which is always a bonus.
http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/17534-manhattan-apartment-prices-fall-as-new-york-loses-finance-jobs-bn

http://blogs.wsj.com/developments/2010/01/05/manhattan-real-estate-now-reasonable-whatever-that-means/

"Can someone help me with the definition of "up"."
Reminds me of: "It depends on what the meaning of the words 'is' is." :)

Basically, it's chaos and spin the numbers as usual. Then nationally:

"Pending home sales index plunges 16%"

"The tax credit was ultimately extended through the first half of 2010 and expanded to repeat buyers.

"The fact that pending home sales are comfortably above year-ago levels shows the market has gained sufficient momentum on its own," said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the lobbying group. "We expect another surge in the spring." "

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/pending-home-sales-index-plunges-16-2010-01-05

So Mr. Yun says market is doing fine on its own, yet sales plunge because tax credit was thought to end in November. Chaos. And spin.

The most important data point from Miller's report is average price per square feet which is up 18% quarter on quarter and down .6% from same quarter last year. This is a significant data point and one the bears will not like to see.

Flmao. Thtz an eazy one. Lemmings that think they got priced out at $1500 happy to do $1200psf, idiots who bgt new in 2007 being forced to close, mix of contracts (much better products trading in 4 09') and 1st time tax credit bumping studios/1bdrm which are paradoxically more Psf.

So easy, one handed while wiping with the right. Gonna use my rigt toe to flush!

OTNYC

Bears would like to see some consistency.The figures you are quoting is a snapshot from 3Q 2009

"Highlights from the 3rd Quarter Prudential Douglas Elliman Manhattan Market Overview include"

"-Price per square foot was $1,176, down 0.6% from $1,183 in the prior year quarter but up 18.1% from $996 in the prior quarter"

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/th-quarter--manhattan-residential-market-report---prepared-miller-samuel/

The third quarter saw a lot of activity as the first and second quarters were mired in non availabilty of mortgages and stalled contracts.

I'm not calling it a dead cat bounce but let's see it sustained for another quarter or two before preparing the parade?

Let's see the what the market bears as 2 year old contracts and forced closings don't taint the figures?

And please (everyone) when quoting figures and numbers provide links.

Truth... Please, call me OT. There is a typo in the Fox snippet - should say Highlights from the "4th quarter", not "3rd quarter". As for the bears wanting consistency, not sure what you mean - I think they simply want to see Manhattan real estate crash & burn, either so they can afford to live here or because they are bitter that they never will. I am not calling a bottom or reading tea leaves, but I can assure you not a single bear here saw this coming and all are disturbed by it. As for the link, her you go:

http://matrix.millersamuel.com/?p=6737

OT

Thank you for the link. I will go over it.
As for the typo, it is internet wide. Every agency reporting that article has it as 3Q Highlights.
And it's not unusual to reference a quarter previous in an article.

Bottom line is the level of reporters or writing is on the serious decline which I'm sure both bears and bulls wil agree. :)

As far as this bear (can't speak for others), I want to see consistency in the market (2 to 3 quarters)
as it's easy to manipulate a single quarter's figures.

To be truthful, I was surprised, not disturbed by the upswing period. But I became less surprised as I watched apartments I had on my saved list that closed and reading the acris details with many showing contract dates pre crash. A strong indicator that many of these closings were stuck at previous years prices.
Not all closings of course, but many. I also watched apartments go "in contract" and 4 months later not closed and either lurking in the shadow or go for rent to try again next year. There is an effort by the broker houses to skew the figures.
First two quarters were horrendous as no banks were giving mortgages except maybe Wells fargo.3rd and 4th quarters were partially a rebound effect. This spring will tell us a lot.

What gives me the most pause is the rental market. Until it stabilzes the sales market cannot. It is simple physics.

Noah of UrbanDigs makes a fair point of the lagging data and how it will move people:

http://www.urbandigs.com/2010/01/get_ready_for_the_housing_repo.html

Consider, as Noah alludes, if inventory and sales volume remain flat off the 4Q09 data for the next three quarters. Per Jonathan Miller's numbers we would be subject to trumpeting headlines that inventory is down y-o-y: -34% in 1Q10, -27% in 2Q10, -18% in 3Q10. The number of sales would be up y-o-y: 107% in 1Q10, 61% in 2Q10, 11% in 3Q10. Even with a modest movement in sales prices, imagine the psychological effect.

That's the bull case, as prior period comparables favor a momentum argument that agitates the sideline buyer to take action; thereby pushing up values.

The bears, and I still count myself among them, view the macro factors as yet unresolved and that the Manhattan RE market is nearing another tipping point. The credit engine that fueled our boom is gone; the inevitable increase in mortgage interest rates will disproportionately affect jumbo loans; the pool of buyers for the sweet spot ($1-$3 million apartments) and their deployable capital has been diminished; there is more pent up supply (sellers that took a flier on last years maelstrom plus new-dev inventory) than pent up demand by qualified buyers; government assistance reamains unsympathetic to buyers of million-dollar homes, whether they are in distress or at the point of purchase; etc.

I don't want to see Manhattan real estate crash & burn. The secondary and tertiary effects are unanticipated and likely negate any benefits of a cheap buy. I just don't see the kind of stability that encourages making such a major purchase decision.

My bias is that 3Q10 becomes the next pivot point for our market.

angler7 - interesting that the bull case is based on optics and the bear case fundamentals...

Ok something doesn't jive from the report;

It goes on to breakdown each segment;

Coop Market is a 6.4% increase avg psft
Condo Market is a 7.8% increase avg psft
Luxury Market is a 12.7% increase avg psft (median sales price $3,780,000)
Loft market is a 2.8% increase avg psft

I don't understand how samuels comes up with an 18% overall increase.

Is it me, or is this being glossed over...

"Prices were down just 4.7% from the third quarter. "

So, after allt he talk of "stabilization", we lost ANOTHER 5%?

After all that talk about how the worst was over, bla bla, things are picking up, we just went down another 5% in a quarter....

"Can someone help me with the definition of "up". I had thought that an absence of negative signs on the price changes would be a basic pre-requisite for "up", but perhaps I was mistaken."

lol.

Along those same lines, truthskr10, note the ppsf is $1176 for the 2473 overall apartments. However, the coops were 1264 apartments at $921 ppsf and the condos were 1209 apartments at $1187 ppsf.

If each apartment served as a separate datapoint, you'd get $1051 ppsf average.

You can say that perhaps it's supposed to be averaged over sq ft sold, not apartments. In that case, you'd have ($975,049 * 1264) / $921 ppsf = 1.34M sq ft of coop sales and ($1,631,872 * 1209) / $1187 ppsf = 1.66M sq ft of condo sales. Averaging the ppsf based on sq ft sold, you get $1068 ppsf overall.

Either way, the numbers stink. I've brought this issue up with Jonathan Miller before, and he either plead or feigned ignorance.

sidelinesitter - I agree to an extent. Some bears on this board have been just as guilty of over-reliance on the optics, and there are some fundamentals in the economy that point to improvement. What I can't rationalize is the aggressive pricing in our market in light of the headwinds yet to pass. Many take it as an article of faith that a 1,000sft box in an average building should command $1.2 million; pricing that reflects a bygone credit environment. The anchoring to that paradigm seems insensitive to our market's history.

I'd be thrilled if anyone can explain the 18% overall increase when the highest increased segment was the 12.7% luxury market.

OT? Anyone?

inonada
So now Samuel numbers are pretty much rubbish all around.

OT
"The most important data point from Miller's report is" unfortunately it doesn't add up for anyone's arguement.

To everyone in the market to buy;
Ignore these nonsensical reports.
Keep tabs on your neighborhood and apt size of your interests, do your own comps.

Perhaps JM simply fudges top-line the numbers to match the desires of his Prudential Douglas Elliman taskmasters. The headlines show these numbers, and the details (and truth) are lost in the annals of time. Or else, perhaps JM cannot do simple math.

For example, look at this 2007 Q2 report and note the ppsf at $1139 and has the same discrepancy that you are pointing at:

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMO2Q07.pdf

Then, note this exchange pointing out that $1139 is impossible, and that the number should be $1099, as the JM's own data from http://www.millersamuel.com/data confirms:

http://matrix.millersamuel.com/?p=1225

I sent a separate email to JM directly regarding the issue but received no response. Draw your own conclusions, but I've decided that the SE comps threads so meticulously maintained by west81st and others are the best source for price info.

One wonders if in a year from now, the "corrected" value of $1051 will be used rather than $1176 to show a YoY increase in the headline numbers.

so some bulls think JM is talking the mkt down so he can scoop up properties on the cheap in his new venture. some bears think he is fudging the #s to make the mkt look better than it is because he is paid by brokerage firms.

i say, well done Mr. Miller

truthskr10 - averaging

The outsized pricing of luxury, loft and high priced condo properties pushes the average prices up while average square footage across all property types may have remained relatively stable. Consider that a 1,000sft space can command anywhere between $800K and $3-million. Within a property segment you might have smaller relative movement, but the impact of the higher priced properties can show more volatile movement on the total average ppsf.

printer
That is secondary. This shows that the numbers or accounting is just downright wrong.

angler7
But no segment is over 12.7%. Did you scrutinize the report? Your point would be made on the average going to a higher number or closer to the 12.7% but 12.7% no matter what would have to be the cap.
The totals of all segments is being shown as 18%. That would be impossible.

inonada - Interesting observation. I keep a spreadsheet to track JM's vital stats and at 2Q07 I have the $1,099 figure which I got off the database. There definitely have been times when data has been adjusted after the reports have gone public. My guess is that it likely is easier for JM to make corrections or revise methodologies in the data generator than to reissue a report that is no longer of interest to the media.

Printer: do the math. It's impossible to arrive at the number that's printed, and numbers from his own website's data engine do not match what was published in the 2007 Q2 report. This 2007 Q2 discrepancy has been there ever since the data engine had the data, as the aforementioned exchange points out.

I have no idea why the report has such a rudimentary mistake. One possibility is "fudging". Another possibility is "bad math". A third possibility is that I'm stupid and don't understand something. I don't think it's that last one, and I am open to other possibilities. Any other possibilities?

LOL

Has anyone looked at the report in the last 10 mins? They changed it!

Looks like an error was changes the current psf to $1051 from 1176!!

inonada

Looks like you did get a response. ;)

Let's see how long before they make the next correction.

Total # of sales shows 2473

segment sales show
Coop Market is 1264
Condo Market is 1209
Luxury Market is 247
Loft market is 182

totals 2902!

AND F U Miller, if you want anymore corrections your gonna have to pay me for the work.
What a disgrace.

http://www.millersamuel.com/reports/pdf-reports/MMO4Q09.pdf

"Loft" and "Luxury" are subsets of Co-op and Condo.

I.e., if there were Loft and Non-Loft categories, they'd total 2473.

If there were Luxury and Non-Luxury categories, they'd total 2473.

Just as Co-op and Condo total 2473.

That is awesome. JM, are you reading this thread, or was the issue discovered elsewhere first? Perhaps the mistake this time was so large and obvious that the bug fix in the software was easy to find; the 2007 Q2 discrepancy was much more subtle.

BTW, truthskr10, the "luxury" and "loft" markets are subsets of the coop and condo markets, so that is not a discrepancy.

NWT and Inonada

Yes I was about to recant, glad I hit refresh to see your post(s). You are correct.
Should be clearer and noted as subcategories.

Jmiller
Sorry for the outburst but damn it man, get your house in order. If you want to be the be all end all in stats, make sure you proof read your reports.

Now for the real conspiracy theory and how JM is at the center of The Real Estate Industrial Complex that he used to jokingly talk about. JM first fudges the numbers up so as to make the folks at PDE happy & the talking heads on TV and in the papers say one thing. Then, he fudges the numbers down so as to drive down RE values for his vulture fund, and he shows comps from this data to the poor banks that must sell to him. Then, he rubs his hands and craws "muhahahahhahhah".

Or perhaps he had an honest mistake.

Jm. Is a douche. Trying to tell me he was bearish. One thing to be bearish in your head and another to use your mouth to sell re. Fuck if he actually went negative 1 yr prior with lots of fanfare, all the brokerages in NYC re would have gotten L yun 2.0.

Like I said if you don't think the entire re mkt is not jacked to increase prices, id love some of what you are smoking. And yet try as they migt prices continues down.

Nice job inonada. Can you do my taxes?

Thanks, truthskr10 & I are a regular Woodward and Bernstein here.

On taxes, why that is my second-favorite area to waste inordinate amounts of time. You know about the special Roth IRA conversion thing that's going on this year?

Hate taxes. Bring back that short Texan with the 1 page tax filing. Better yet let's go to consumption tax and be done with it. I wouldn't give a ratz azz about this re bubble except my taxes went to help a auto worker in Honda and lemmings on re.

Is it up to 1000 pages yet?

"inonada
So now Samuel numbers are pretty much rubbish all around."

Of course.

They've obviously not perfect, but the bulls all agreed those were the numbers to use when things were good, and defended them, and they got accepted as the standard here, referenced over and over again.

Now suddenly they don't care about them.

Of course.

HA HA HA
HO HO HO
HA HA HA

I could only laugh...Manhattan RE is bottomed??
HO HO HO HO

Holy crap - MS's data was off. I take back everything I have posted today. I still think Manhattan is the best place in the world to live and am confident I am not the only one, but if the money's not there, it's not there. Wow - what a black eye for JM.

"Now suddenly they don't care about them."

Who doesn't care about them? The imperfections have always been acknowledged, but these are as good as we're going to get right now, so definitely should be used. Not sure who you're talking about.

I just caught this... new dev is down even more. 14% down in just one quarter!

http://streeteasy.com/nyc/talk/discussion/17553-another-fun-number-corcoran-says-new-dev-prices-down-14-this-quarter