Urban Digs Calculates Manhattan RE CAGR

he could have included studios. JMiller has data for them too...

Also, it would be much more helpful if he had broken it down, separating co-ops and condos. Yes, together they still give a pretty good picture of the market but, since co-ops comprise 80-75 percent of the market (1989-now) it would be a much more accurate picture. I've gone through Miller's data and there is a salient difference that it would have been great to see in those charts.

It would also be really interesting to see an analysis of how/whether high end condos pulled up the prices of smaller co-ops.

Or, the impact of most new development being condos, which push prices up per sf in the city, and also that most new development does not build studios.

> since co-ops comprise 80-75 percent of the market (1989-now) it would be a much more accurate
> picture.

Why would leaving out 20-25% of the data make it more accurate?

it would be more accurate for the 75 percent of the people who are only looking to purchase/sell co-ops. The data is "accurate" either way. This would just make it more useful. As is now, you are looking at the results of two very different populations.

especially because co-op prices and condo prices would react differently to the free flow of credit, since co-ops had more restrictions, board approval, higher down payments, etc... If you chart the data you will see a faster appreciation in condo prices. But why would I want that to skew the results if I'm only interested in knowing about the co-op market?

That doesn't make anything more accurate, its just a view of a specific segment.

Some people might only want to see pre-war. Fine, cool.
But thats not more accurate...

I agree. It's not more accurate. It is simply for a different segment. However, I guess a better term I should have used, instead of accurate, was "more relevant." I'd argue that breaking it down for co-ops and condos would make the results more relevant for both co-op focused purchasers (who often need to stretch their dollar further, and make up now 75 percent of the market) and for condo purchasers.

See my point? I'm not complaining about accuracy, just proposing that breaking it down could me more helpful.

more relevant only for those who want that segment.

what is relevant for you may not be relevant for others...

True. But, I don't see how you can dispute that most people would find that breakdown more helpful/relevant... Combining condos with co-ops seems akin to relying on average prices instead of median prices. The condos skew the market upward. And the vast majority of the market is not for condos. ANd I think condo owners who want to sell would like an accurate portrait of the condo market not skewed downward by co-ops.

nyc10022, no offense, I've never found fault with any of your previous posts or arguments, so I'm a little confused how you're not following my reasoning...

> Combining condos with co-ops seems akin to relying on average prices instead of median prices.

That makes no sense....

> The condos skew the market upward.

If its a median, there is no "skew".

You are confusing mean with median.

> And the vast majority of the market is not for condos.

Which would be represented in the stats!

Thats like saying because folks 20-22 are a small percentage of the population, we should remove them from our survey. That is ridiculous!

"ANd I think condo owners who want to sell would like an accurate portrait of the condo market not skewed downward by co-ops."

Who said we're talking about condo owners? Or co-op owners?

We're talking about the market for specific apartment sizes.

And market data should include a range of proper apartments.

> ANd I think condo owners who want to sell would like an accurate portrait of the condo market not
> skewed downward by co-ops.

Because its not logically sound.

> Combining condos with co-ops seems akin to relying on average prices instead of median prices.

That makes no sense....

>> Um, yeah it does. Think about it. It makes complete sense. The Market reports that JMiller prepaers >>always break down the numbers for condos and co-ops. It's simple arithmetic. If condo prices are >>$1000/sf and co-op prices are $800/sf then if you combine condos and co-ops you will get a completely >>different price in your outcome. Just do the math. It's basic.

> The condos skew the market upward.

If its a median, there is no "skew".

You are confusing mean with median.

>> I'm not. Median's can also be skewed/moved. If you have a population N of co-ops and they have a >>median of 100, and then you add a population n of condos to that data, and those condos will move the >>median (middle) away from the N population median. No offense, but it's basic HS Stats.

> And the vast majority of the market is not for condos.

Which would be represented in the stats!

>> It's in the stats, but no one knows to what extent. Which is my whole point. It's like making mashed >>potatoes with cream, and then trying to figure out how much cream is in it by looking at it after >>it's all mixed in.

Thats like saying because folks 20-22 are a small percentage of the population, we should remove them from our survey. That is ridiculous!

>> If 20-22 year olds were 75-80 percent of the housing market then, yes, I would be saying you should >>break it down for them. But they aren't, so I'm not saying that, because that wouldn't be useful for >>the vast majority of people in the market. I'm saying you should break it down so it's useful. Which >>is why pretty much every market report does this too. Are we actually having an argument about this? >>Are you just trying to have a pointless flame war? This is too simple not to understand.

"ANd I think condo owners who want to sell would like an accurate portrait of the condo market not skewed downward by co-ops."

Who said we're talking about condo owners? Or co-op owners?

>> Okay. Now I know you must be screwing with me. Because who else are we going to be talking about?

We're talking about the market for specific apartment sizes.

And market data should include a range of proper apartments.

>> Not sure what you're point is here. You seem to just be stating the obvious. No contention here.

> ANd I think condo owners who want to sell would like an accurate portrait of the condo market not
> skewed downward by co-ops.

Because its not logically sound.

>> What's not logically sound? Wanting an accurate picture of the market for housing you participate >>in?

>>Look, you don't combine stats for the National League and the American League. Why because they have different rules, and there are real differences between players. Same should be true for condos and co-ops. Maybe you don't like that sports analogy. Whatever. My math is sound, I've given good examples. If you still disagree strongly the burden is now on you to show otherwise. Don't just say it's "not logically sound."

word.

Not directly relevant to nyc condos and co-ops but other RE people know that medians can be skewed. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/laland/2008/10/why-median-pric.html

Please compare to some of the greatest stocks in the world, some of the greatest companies, General Electric, Citigroup and Coke.

Propose all you want, nycjunior1.

Why don't you just run the data yourself and post it if you think it would be more useful?

Makes no sense to calculate CAGR on median prices. The only way to do it is Case-Shiller.

Jeff did it the Case-Shiller way as well before hand

Do you have the Case figures?

">>Look, you don't combine stats for the National League and the American League. Why because they have different rules, and there are real differences between players. Same should be true for condos and co-ops. Maybe you don't like that sports analogy. Whatever. My math is sound, I've given good examples. If you still disagree strongly the burden is now on you to show otherwise. Don't just say it's "not logically sound."

And there is only one hall of fame, and only one home run king (well...), and only one world series champion.

Sure, you can get top stats by league, top stats by division, top stats by team. Some people want those, great. You can also do it by era, and what pitchers they pitched against. They now have "adjusted ERA" as a stat which even factors in ballpark. Great.

But calling the combined numbers "inaccurate" is INSANE.

You can break it down however you want, but calling the combined numbers inaccurate makes no sense at all.

I stopped calling it "inaccurate" several posts ago. Didn't you pick up on that? I agreee with you. Inaccurate was the wrong term to use.

But as further proof that people find it useful and relevant to break down between co-op and condo look at this chart http://curbed.com/archives/2008/02/14/three_cents_worth_getting_their_square_footage_together.php#comment-51060