Home Price Index Down 15.8% in May

And this gem for LICC, who denies it: "The gauges from Commerce and the Realtors group can be influenced by changes in the regional composition or types of homes sold. Purchases in areas with more expensive homes relative to cheaper properties will bias the figures up. In contrast, the S&P/Case-Shiller index, and another by the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, track the same houses over time and more accurately reflect price trends, economists said."

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a1ikgtmfigTw&refer=home

I was listening to a JP Morgan economist interviewed on Bloomberg this morning about the Case-Shiller numbers. He basically said that the NY area won't see such a big downturn as other parts of the country because during the past 5 years when real estate values have gone up, the Case-Shiller numbers for NY never got as extreme as in Florida, California and other parts of the country. This contradicts steve and is consistent with the data that has been out there, and shows how steve misapplies Case-Shiller and provides misleading, out-of-context information all the time to support his bitter desire for a NYC real estate crash. Of course, maybe the JP Morgan economist doesn't know anything and they should fire him and hire steve.

"He basically said that the NY area won't see such a big downturn as other parts of the country because during the past 5 years when real estate values have gone up, the Case-Shiller numbers for NY never got as extreme as in Florida, California and other parts of the country."

That, in fact, is true for the Case-Shiller New York Metropolitan Area, which does not include Manhattan. It does, however, include most of northern New Jersey, parts of Pennsylvania, upstate New York and Connecticut all the way to Hartford. Basically, anywhere whence people can commute into New York.

"This contradicts steve and is consistent with the data that has been out there, and shows how steve misapplies Case-Shiller and provides misleading, out-of-context information all the time to support his bitter desire for a NYC real estate crash."

Absolutely, positively, 100% untrue. Case-Shiller does NOT include Manhattan because it only includes single-family homes, which are 0.9% of Manhattan property. C-S fell 9% in the NY metropolitan area.

In May 2007 C-S for NY was 210.51. In May 2008 it was 193.58. In May 2002 it was 129.89

Using my favorite price-history website:

12/10/07 1M $825,000
08/29/02 1M $385,000

So from 2002 to 2007 this property increased in price 114%. C-S for NY increased 62%. So Manhattan increased in that time period at approximately twice the rate as the New York Metropolitan Area as a whole.

In May 2002 the Miami C-S index was 129.83. At its peak in May 2006 it was 278.68 for an increase of - 114%! Exactly the same as Manhattan! It has now fallen to 193.19, and it is still falling.

Exactly the same as Manhattan!

Dude - you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. You don't post a number, you quote anonymous sources from mystery TV programs who make claims about the New York Metropolitan Area and you extrapolate them to Manhattan while living in Long Island City, without ever looking at the actual behavior of prices in Manhattan with respect to the New York Metropolitan Area.

You are lost.

"Dude - you know absolutely nothing about what you're talking about. You don't post a number, you quote anonymous sources from mystery TV programs who make claims about the New York Metropolitan Area and you extrapolate them to Manhattan while living in Long Island City, without ever looking at the actual behavior of prices in Manhattan with respect to the New York Metropolitan Area."

Not just that, he's done it on multiple posts.... he posted this same "evidence" on at least one other thread.

Clearly the guy has nothing to add to any discussion but quotes from late night infomercials and insults he learned in his 3rd grade summer school class today. Yet he's the first to try and insult others..

In case anyone has not noticed, the NY Case Shiller Index just showed it's first month over month price INCREASE. It is now down 7.9% vs. 8.4% last month.

"In case anyone has not noticed, the NY Case Shiller Index just showed it's first month over month price INCREASE. It is now down 7.9% vs. 8.4% last month."

alpine292, is that 7.9% decrease YoY or from last month? If it's a 7.9% decrease from last month, it's still a month over month decrease, not an increase.

The only thing decreasing is the ACCELERATION (steepness of drop, or slope/angle of curve) rate of price decreases. Prices are still decreasing, albeit at a rate that appears to be slightly decelerating.

In the fall of 1972 President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection.

Yes, it is a 7.9% decrease from this time last year... YoY. And comapred to last month, prices are up 0.5%.

Thanks for the clarification alpine.

Alpine, could you please walk through your numbers? I just looked at the Case-Shiller data series for New York metro (available in Excel online), and I am showing May 2008 down 7.9% YoY, with April 2008 down 8.0% Y0Y. In any case, the month-to-month change from April to May 2008 was a *negative* 0.5%, not the increase you suggested. I might be wrong here but just wanted to clarify.

Except for one month (October 2006) the C-S NY Index has been down every month from its peak in August 2006. Here are the numbers:

Month-----------Index--% chg--% rate of change

June 2006-------215.83
July 2006-------215.25 -0.27%
August 2006-----214.34 -0.42% +36.53%
September 2006--214.08 -0.12% -249.58%
October 2006----214.28 +0.09% +230.12%
November 2006---214.23 -0.02% +499.91%
December 2006---213.79 -0.21% +88.66%
January 2007----212.78 -0.47% +56.64%
February 2007---212.52 -0.12% -287.99%
March 2007------212.39 -0.06% -99.88%
April 2007------211.61 -0.37% +83.39%
May 2007--------210.51 -0.52% +29.46%
June 2007-------209.49 -0.49% -7.32%
July 2007-------208.36 -0.54% +10.22%
August 2007-----207.15 -0.58% +7.15%
September 2007--206.35 -0.39% -50.67%
October 2007----205.54 -0.39% +1.62%
November 2007---204.58 -0.47% +16.02%
December 2007---202.47 -1.04% +54.97%
January 2008----200.78 -0.84% -23.81%
February 2008---198.45 -1.17% 28.31%
March 2008------196.53 -0.98% -20.18%
April 2008------194.78 -0.90% -8.74%
May 2008--------193.88 -0.46% -93.55%

Mean------------207.92 -0.005 +0.137
Median----------210.51 -0.004 +0.102
STDV------------6.877 +0.003 +1.529

This, of course, does not include Manhattan, which increased at nearly twice the rate as the metropolitan area as a whole.

> Yes, it is a 7.9% decrease from this time last year... YoY. And comapred to
> last month, prices are up 0.5%.

Looks pretty consistently down to me.... or did June numbers somehow make it out already?

"This, of course, does not include Manhattan, which increased at nearly twice the rate as the metropolitan area as a whole"

What do you base this on since there is no C-S like index for Manhattan?

I base it on this:

http://350bleecker.com/policy/sales.html

Same apartments over time. Granted, it's not a large sample, but having lived in the building I think it's representative.

steve makes conclusions about all of Manhattan real estate based on one building, ignores the Miller Samuel reports which are broad based and contradict his conclusion, and expects people to take him seriously.

> ignores the Miller Samuel reports which are broad based

But compare apples to oranges. And, which if used to show market movement, are basically wrong.

If every apartment in Manhattan was suddenly worth 10% less in the market, the Miller Samuel numbers would still show an increase because of the composition shift factor. You can't compare two different baskets and claim prices went up or down.

"If every apartment in Manhattan was suddenly worth 10% less in the market, the Miller Samuel numbers would still show an increase because of the composition shift factor." - That is completely false. Do you understand how the numbers work?

Anyway, the Miller Samuel reports show aggregate numbers and breakdowns by region and apartment size. Get your head out of steve's butt Eddie.

Yet another example of your "intelligent, factual posts"... without any intelligence or facts.

I'm not exactly sure how region and number of bedrooms is supposed to account for a higher % of sales being at traditionally higher PSF properties. In 8th grade, you'll get to learn about the "basket of goods" concept and you might understand this.

"steve makes conclusions about all of Manhattan real estate based on one building, ignores the Miller Samuel reports which are broad based and contradict his conclusion, and expects people to take him seriously."

Haven't we been through this already, LICC? Miller Samuel gives median prices which are affected by the sample. Following the history of one unit over time is far more accurate a reflection of property price increases. Unfortunately, there are no good data like this for Manhattan since the only ones who do the calcs - C-S and OFHEO - don't include Manhattan, the former because it only includes single-family homes, the latter because it only includes conforming mortgages.

That said, Miller Samuel DOES NOT contradict what I post. Specifically:

"The 2007 average sales price was $1,351,621, up 4.3% over the prior year record of $1,295,445 and up 238.3% from the average sales price in 1996"

The MEDIAN sale price in 2002 was $450,000; it was $860,000 in 2007. That is an increase of 91% for all of Manhattan. My calculation was 114% using the Case-Shiller method. I'll meet you halfway at 100%.

The MEAN sale price in 2002 was $795,079; in 2007 it was $1,351,621, or a 70% increase, meaning that more expensive apartments were sold than inexpensive ones.

You're an idiot. There, I said it. You're an idiot.

Do you understand how the numbers work?

> Haven't we been through this already, LICC?
Like thats going to stop him from posting....

> Do you understand how the numbers work?
Rhetorical question for the genius, I assume...

> You're an idiot. There, I said it. You're an idiot.
You think thats the first time he's been told that?