not accept that you will have to read the article and Malkiel's comment...
to fully understand.
The issue, them and me.
Well, Merry Christmas to you, too.
---------
JGBHimself
Dec 11 12:24 AM
No, Malkiel, it does not. Not for CS, nor for ASUs repeat AZ report. And there is.
Zecco/Block'o has asked a very interesting question. If, as we know that it is often true in the sand states, the foreclosed property was trashed & the copper gutted, is it put into the same data point as a ready to re-sell home? Bcuz, if it is, the numbers are not only not comparable to that homes prior sale, they are not comparable to any home within an "appraiser distance".
While SA readers have pointed out to me, not including Detroit's problems as being as serious as a "sand state" may not be accurate. While conceding that point, it is also true that the bad ARM and subprime securitized RE loans that WERE made in Nev, Cal, Fla & AZ during the dead zone, were NOT similarly made in Detroit. What is also true is that a trashed home - in Detroit or a sand state - simply cannot be assumed for statistical reasons to be identical to one that is not.
We have asked, tried to find out, whether trashed homes are excluded from the CS and/or ASU repeat sales reports. That is still not known. They might be, but are probably not.
Another problem with CS and ASU is "timing" - when WAS that last sale? Was it before the run up, at the peak, at the putative bottom as a foreclosure? Two years ago, when we asked Yun whether NAR included foreclosures - REO sales & prices, he responded by saying that they had been previously too insignificant to be included. He was correct, before; he was dead zone wrong at the time. So, he changed the NAR report. What you probably do not know is when he did that, and how that effects your reading of the NAR monthly numbers for sales & prices.
What CS and ASU have not done, or told anyone that they have, is adjust their reports to reflect the extreme variance between pre-run-up, peak and pit, and between REO-foreclosures and normal (Ha!, is that not a laugh?) RE sales. Nor, are they taking into account the problem that R-U-Rich is raising - where is it shown to U.S. the costs of trashed home?
Even if we compare "assessed" taxable values (2 to 4 years old), with the last sales values (whenever), with the amount bid/received @ a foreclosure sales (multi-bid VS no-bid), with recorded short sales prices (what does that have to do with market VS power), with REO listings prices (are they all out there or most held back for a better price, later), with ALL current RE closed sales prices...(not pending on a hope n a prayer, but recorded), we still do NOT know if the home was trashed, or fixed up prior to sale, or will be fixed up after.
To NOT know that aboot (Canadian English) the CS or ASU repeat sales numbers, means that there is more that we do NOT know, than we do. Or, that they are telling U.S.
Now, how is THAT, for another Seeking Alpha conspiracy theory!!!
{and, no, that is not a question}
=========Zecco/Block'o has asked a very interesting question. If, as we know that it is often true in the sand states, the foreclosed property was trashed & the copper gutted, is it put into the same data point as a ready to re-sell home? Bcuz, if it is, the numbers are not only not comparable to that homes prior sale, they are not comparable to any home within an "appraiser distance".
While SA readers have pointed out to me, not including Detroit's problems as being as serious as a "sand state" may not be accurate. While conceding that point, it is also true that the bad ARM and subprime securitized RE loans that WERE made in Nev, Cal, Fla & AZ during the dead zone, were NOT similarly made in Detroit. What is also true is that a trashed home - in Detroit or a sand state - simply cannot be assumed for statistical reasons to be identical to one that is not.
We have asked, tried to find out, whether trashed homes are excluded from the CS and/or ASU repeat sales reports. That is still not known. They might be, but are probably not.
Another problem with CS and ASU is "timing" - when WAS that last sale? Was it before the run up, at the peak, at the putative bottom as a foreclosure? Two years ago, when we asked Yun whether NAR included foreclosures - REO sales & prices, he responded by saying that they had been previously too insignificant to be included. He was correct, before; he was dead zone wrong at the time. So, he changed the NAR report. What you probably do not know is when he did that, and how that effects your reading of the NAR monthly numbers for sales & prices.
What CS and ASU have not done, or told anyone that they have, is adjust their reports to reflect the extreme variance between pre-run-up, peak and pit, and between REO-foreclosures and normal (Ha!, is that not a laugh?) RE sales. Nor, are they taking into account the problem that R-U-Rich is raising - where is it shown to U.S. the costs of trashed home?
Even if we compare "assessed" taxable values (2 to 4 years old), with the last sales values (whenever), with the amount bid/received @ a foreclosure sales (multi-bid VS no-bid), with recorded short sales prices (what does that have to do with market VS power), with REO listings prices (are they all out there or most held back for a better price, later), with ALL current RE closed sales prices...(not pending on a hope n a prayer, but recorded), we still do NOT know if the home was trashed, or fixed up prior to sale, or will be fixed up after.
To NOT know that aboot (Canadian English) the CS or ASU repeat sales numbers, means that there is more that we do NOT know, than we do. Or, that they are telling U.S.
Now, how is THAT, for another Seeking Alpha conspiracy theory!!!
{and, no, that is not a question}
Zen and the Art of Case-Shiller
http://seekingalpha.com/article/241169-zen-and-the-art-of-case-shiller?source=dashboard_macro-view#comment_update_link
=========
No comments:
Post a Comment