Giulianna Ramirez Ashley Greene April Scott Mia Kirshner Elisabeth Röhm
Friday, June 10, 2011
Check In Apps vs Audience Measurement Panels
I spent a decade as an early stage investor and board member of comScore. In that capacity I learnt a lot about using representative samples to develop broad based market research on media viewing. This is the approach used by...
Census Bureau on Homeownership Rate: We've got ?Some 'Splainin' to Do?
CR Note: Economist Tom Lawler has written several articles on the different measures of homeownership and vacancy rates. Although some readers? eyes will glaze over, this information is critically important for analyzing housing and the U.S. economy. I'm still thinking about the implications!
"Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do!"
Ricky Ricardo, "I Love Lucy", 1951
From economist Tom Lawler:
My frustration with the conflicting data on US housing that comes from different reports from the Census Bureau, and the inability of Census analysts to explain the differences or even tell ?private? analysts what time-series data they should use to analyze US housing trends, has existed for at least a decade. Occasionally that long-standing ?frustration? has led me to write that it almost appears as if Census officials and analysts ?don?t care? about the conflicting data.
Whether that was or was not the case in the past, it most certainly is not the case today. In fact, some Census folks called me up yesterday to discuss some of the issues, and to let me know that (1) they are ?concerned? about the differences; (2) they understand that the differences in measures of key variables have significant implications for the outlook for housing and the outlook for construction employment, with potentially significant public policy implications; and (3) they are going to devote considerable time and effort to investigate the differences.
While this phone call was not ?on the record? and as a result I won?t discuss any details, one senior Census official agreed that Census has got ?some ?splaining to do!? I view this as a most, most welcome sign!
As a reminder of the key differences, below is a summary table of a few vacancy rate and homeowner rates from the decennial Census, the Housing Unit Coverage Study (HUCs) estimates (reflecting post-decennial-Census analysis), and the Housing Vacancy Survey (first-half averages).
1 Obviously, there has not yet been a ?Housing Unit Coverage Study? for Census 2010!!!
Ricky Ricardo, "I Love Lucy", 1951
From economist Tom Lawler:
My frustration with the conflicting data on US housing that comes from different reports from the Census Bureau, and the inability of Census analysts to explain the differences or even tell ?private? analysts what time-series data they should use to analyze US housing trends, has existed for at least a decade. Occasionally that long-standing ?frustration? has led me to write that it almost appears as if Census officials and analysts ?don?t care? about the conflicting data.
Whether that was or was not the case in the past, it most certainly is not the case today. In fact, some Census folks called me up yesterday to discuss some of the issues, and to let me know that (1) they are ?concerned? about the differences; (2) they understand that the differences in measures of key variables have significant implications for the outlook for housing and the outlook for construction employment, with potentially significant public policy implications; and (3) they are going to devote considerable time and effort to investigate the differences.
While this phone call was not ?on the record? and as a result I won?t discuss any details, one senior Census official agreed that Census has got ?some ?splaining to do!? I view this as a most, most welcome sign!
As a reminder of the key differences, below is a summary table of a few vacancy rate and homeowner rates from the decennial Census, the Housing Unit Coverage Study (HUCs) estimates (reflecting post-decennial-Census analysis), and the Housing Vacancy Survey (first-half averages).
| Select Housing Measures: Decennial Census (4/1) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2010 vs 1990 | 2010 vs 2000 | |
| Rental Vacancy Rate | 8.5% | 6.8% | 9.2% | 0.7% | 2.4% |
| Homeowner Vacancy Rate | 2.1% | 1.7% | 2.4% | 0.3% | 0.7% |
| Gross Vacancy Rate | 10.1% | 9.0% | 11.4% | 1.3% | 2.4% |
| Vacancy Rate ex Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use | 7.3% | 6.1% | 8.1% | 0.8% | 2.0% |
| Homeownership Rate | 64.2% | 66.2% | 65.1% | 0.9% | -1.1% |
| Gross Vacancy Rate, HUCS (4/1) | |||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2010 vs 1990 | 2010 vs 2000 | |
| Gross Vacancy Rate, HUCS1 | 10.5% | 9.2% | 11.4% | 0.9% | 2.1% |
| Select Housing Measures: HVS/CPS (H1) | |||||
| 1990 | 2000 | 2010 | 2010 vs 1990 | 2010 vs 2000 | |
| Rental Vacancy Rate | 7.2% | 7.9% | 10.6% | 3.4% | 2.7% |
| Homeowner Vacancy Rate | 1.7% | 1.5% | 2.6% | 0.9% | 1.1% |
| Gross Vacancy Rate | 11.4% | 11.7% | 14.5% | 3.1% | 2.8% |
| Vacancy Rate ex Seasonal/Recreational/Occasional Use | 7.5% | 7.5% | 9.9% | 2.4% | 2.4% |
| Homeownership Rate | 63.9% | 67.2% | 67.0% | 3.1% | -0.2% |
1 Obviously, there has not yet been a ?Housing Unit Coverage Study? for Census 2010!!!
Eva Green Lauren Conrad Arielle Kebbel Jessica Paré Leelee Sobieski
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Could It Happen Here?
10-year JGB first broke under 3% 16 years ago, on June 23, 1995, according to Japan’s Ministry of Finance.� It first happened here in November 2008, so we’re 2 1/2 years from that event. Below is a chart�covering the ensuing period for each subsequent to the first break under 3%.� I’m unclear as to what, [...]
Bridget Moynahan Noureen DeWulf Nicollette Sheridan Amber Heard Veronica Kay
A Couple Of Good Events Next Week
It has gotten to the point that there is an event (or multiple events) every day in NYC for the tech startup crowd. This week is particularly crazy with Internet Week. But I want to highlight a couple good ones...
Ashley Tisdale Rachel Blanchard Sienna Guillory Tricia Vessey Aki Ross
Weekend Favs June Four
Weekend Favs June Four
This content from: Duct Tape Marketing
Cinthia Moura Monica Potter Brittany Snow Lauren German Cindy Crawford
Viral Video: D9 Acting CEO Jane Lynch on the "R-Word"
"Glee" star Jane Lynch opened the ninth D: All Things Digital in a terrific bit of stand-up, posing as the acting CEO of News Corp. and making all kinds of comical proclamations.
But one thing she thinks should not be made fun of are loaded "R-words" that denigrate those with intellectual disabilities, as you will see in this riveting PSA.
But one thing she thinks should not be made fun of are loaded "R-words" that denigrate those with intellectual disabilities, as you will see in this riveting PSA.
Aaliyah Katherine Heigl Lorri Bagley Leslie Bega Maria Sharapova
Lawler: Existing Home Active Listings show Big Declines in Wide Range of Metro Areas
The following is from economist Tom Lawler:
Over the weekend I ?downloaded? historical data on active listings of SF homes and condos for 54 metro areas back to April 2006 from housingtracker.net (it was a pain). The historical data are monthly averages of weekly listings, and in May the 54 metro areas combined had 1,111,996 listings.
CR Note: the following graph combines two graphs from Lawler.
Below is a chart for all 54 metro areas [and] of the NAR?s estimate of the inventory of existing homes for sale over the same period (May 2011 data are not yet available).
Click on graph for larger image in graph gallery.
May listings for the 54 metro areas were down 6.8% from last May; down 10.2% from May 2009; and down 26.1% from May 2008!
Obviously, the trend in listings for the 54 metro areas is materially different from the NAR?s inventory estimates over this period. Here is a table showing April 2011 listings compared to listings in April for the previous 5 years.
There are numerous possible reasons for these differences. First, of course, the 54 metro areas in housingtracker.net?s report are probably not as a group representative of the US market as a whole. There is a heavy representation of ?bubble? markets in housingtracker.net?s list where listings soared in 2006/07 but have since fallen sharply (not true, btw, for all troubled markets, with Vegas and Reno being obvious exceptions). Second, HT?s listings may include some new homes listed for sale, which I think NAR tries to exclude.
Another big reason, however, is related to the NAR?s methodology for estimated existing home inventories. The NAR collects sales and ?months? supply? data from around 160 boards/MLS across the country, almost all of which are located in or adjacent to metropolitan statistical areas. The NAR assumes that the % changes in sales from these Boards/MLS reflect total sales across the country, and they apply these changes to ?benchmark? estimates of total existing home sales derived from an analysis of decennial Census/AHS data (the last benchmarking was based on 2000/01 data, but that same methodology can?t be done with the Census 2010 data). For inventories the NAR uses the ?months? supply? data from these Boards/MLS to derive a months? supply estimate for the nation as a whole, and ?solves? for the inventory level. (Though multiplication!)
Most analysts believe ? as does the NAR, by the way ? that the NAR?s methodology has overstated existing home sales for the past four years or so, with the overstatement emerging no later than 2007 and growing over subsequent years. Given the NAR?s methodology of using sales and months? supply to generate inventories, an overstatement in sales would also produce an overstatement in inventories, and a rise in the degree to which sales are overstated would result in an increasing overstatement of inventories as well. (In discussions of the NAR?s ?overstatement? of existing home sales, some analysts incorrectly concluded that one implication was that the months? supply numbers were understated. That is not correct.) Thus, inventories over the last 4-5 years have probably declined by more than that suggested in the NAR report.
There may be other differences as well. E.g., Boards/MLS do not all report active listings on a consistent basis.
But flipping back to the housingtracker.net numbers, it seems pretty clear that inventories in a large number of metro areas have declined significantly over the last several years, and have declined significantly more than a look at the NAR data might suggest.
To be sure, declining listings across most of the country is not necessarily ?bullish? for housing, as home sales have also declined ? that is, there has been declining demand as well as declining supply. Still, the declining supply is welcome news.
A table showing May 2011 listings compared to listings in the May of the previous 3 years is shown [below].
Over the weekend I ?downloaded? historical data on active listings of SF homes and condos for 54 metro areas back to April 2006 from housingtracker.net (it was a pain). The historical data are monthly averages of weekly listings, and in May the 54 metro areas combined had 1,111,996 listings.
CR Note: the following graph combines two graphs from Lawler.
Below is a chart for all 54 metro areas [and] of the NAR?s estimate of the inventory of existing homes for sale over the same period (May 2011 data are not yet available).
Click on graph for larger image in graph gallery.May listings for the 54 metro areas were down 6.8% from last May; down 10.2% from May 2009; and down 26.1% from May 2008!
Obviously, the trend in listings for the 54 metro areas is materially different from the NAR?s inventory estimates over this period. Here is a table showing April 2011 listings compared to listings in April for the previous 5 years.
| % Change in Residential Listings/Existing Home Inventory, April 2011 from: | ||
|---|---|---|
| NAR | HT 54 metro areas | |
| Apr-10 | -3.9% | -8.3% |
| Apr-09 | -1.7% | -12.6% |
| Apr-08 | -14.9% | -26.0% |
| Apr-07 | -8.3% | -20.9% |
| Apr-06 | 13.3% | -1.7% |
There are numerous possible reasons for these differences. First, of course, the 54 metro areas in housingtracker.net?s report are probably not as a group representative of the US market as a whole. There is a heavy representation of ?bubble? markets in housingtracker.net?s list where listings soared in 2006/07 but have since fallen sharply (not true, btw, for all troubled markets, with Vegas and Reno being obvious exceptions). Second, HT?s listings may include some new homes listed for sale, which I think NAR tries to exclude.
Another big reason, however, is related to the NAR?s methodology for estimated existing home inventories. The NAR collects sales and ?months? supply? data from around 160 boards/MLS across the country, almost all of which are located in or adjacent to metropolitan statistical areas. The NAR assumes that the % changes in sales from these Boards/MLS reflect total sales across the country, and they apply these changes to ?benchmark? estimates of total existing home sales derived from an analysis of decennial Census/AHS data (the last benchmarking was based on 2000/01 data, but that same methodology can?t be done with the Census 2010 data). For inventories the NAR uses the ?months? supply? data from these Boards/MLS to derive a months? supply estimate for the nation as a whole, and ?solves? for the inventory level. (Though multiplication!)
Most analysts believe ? as does the NAR, by the way ? that the NAR?s methodology has overstated existing home sales for the past four years or so, with the overstatement emerging no later than 2007 and growing over subsequent years. Given the NAR?s methodology of using sales and months? supply to generate inventories, an overstatement in sales would also produce an overstatement in inventories, and a rise in the degree to which sales are overstated would result in an increasing overstatement of inventories as well. (In discussions of the NAR?s ?overstatement? of existing home sales, some analysts incorrectly concluded that one implication was that the months? supply numbers were understated. That is not correct.) Thus, inventories over the last 4-5 years have probably declined by more than that suggested in the NAR report.
There may be other differences as well. E.g., Boards/MLS do not all report active listings on a consistent basis.
But flipping back to the housingtracker.net numbers, it seems pretty clear that inventories in a large number of metro areas have declined significantly over the last several years, and have declined significantly more than a look at the NAR data might suggest.
To be sure, declining listings across most of the country is not necessarily ?bullish? for housing, as home sales have also declined ? that is, there has been declining demand as well as declining supply. Still, the declining supply is welcome news.
A table showing May 2011 listings compared to listings in the May of the previous 3 years is shown [below].
| Active Listings, May 2011 Compared to May of Previous 3 Years, Various Metro Areas | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | 2010 | 2009 | 2008 | ||
| Albuquerque | -4.9% | -9.5% | -20.8% | Minneapolis | -10.9% | -11.5% | -28.8% |
| Atlanta | -9.9% | -21.3% | -41.6% | Nashville | -9.0% | -7.3% | -10.0% |
| Austin | -16.8% | -4.2% | -11.2% | New Orleans | -10.1% | -6.1% | -14.4% |
| Baltimore | -2.7% | -4.9% | -14.0% | New York | 6.6% | 6.6% | 1.7% |
| Boise City | -30.6% | -39.9% | -47.7% | Newark | 7.9% | 5.2% | -3.4% |
| Boston | 1.7% | 4.4% | -20.4% | Oklahoma City | 5.8% | 4.6% | 0.4% |
| Cape Coral | -33.1% | -40.2% | -46.6% | Omaha | -2.3% | 9.5% | -9.3% |
| Chicago | -11.5% | -13.9% | -27.9% | Orange County | 0.0% | 10.2% | -8.7% |
| Cincinnati | -5.6% | 11.7% | 2.5% | Orlando | -23.1% | -48.3% | -57.7% |
| Cleveland | -3.1% | 1.6% | -21.8% | Philadelphia | 4.5% | 6.5% | 5.2% |
| Columbus | 10.6% | 14.3% | -10.8% | Phoenix | -21.0% | -31.7% | -45.8% |
| Dallas | -3.2% | -2.6% | -18.1% | Portland | -14.4% | -17.7% | -32.2% |
| Denver | -8.2% | -8.3% | -25.7% | Raleigh | -5.5% | 0.1% | -3.2% |
| Detroit | -18.9% | -38.4% | -56.1% | Reno | 8.7% | 3.5% | 2.2% |
| Edison | 9.4% | 10.2% | 1.1% | Riverside | 2.6% | -4.1% | -39.0% |
| Honolulu | -5.9% | -20.5% | -27.9% | Sacramento | -2.6% | 8.4% | -22.5% |
| Houston | -5.7% | 6.2% | -16.0% | Salt Lake City | -15.0% | -20.3% | -20.3% |
| Indianapolis | -8.4% | -4.1% | -19.4% | San Antonio | -0.8% | -1.4% | -7.6% |
| Jacksonville | -17.4% | -18.0% | -32.0% | San Diego | 2.9% | 30.8% | -15.4% |
| Kansas City | -3.0% | -2.4% | -22.4% | San Francisco | -3.7% | -3.3% | -29.1% |
| Las Vegas | 4.6% | -2.8% | -2.4% | San Jose | -6.7% | -9.8% | -28.2% |
| Long Island | 1.2% | -1.7% | -4.0% | Seattle | -15.0% | 12.1% | -5.1% |
| Los Angeles | 2.7% | 6.1% | -23.1% | St. Louis | -7.4% | 2.9% | -13.4% |
| Louisville | -4.0% | -4.1% | -11.0% | Tampa | -9.5% | -25.5% | -37.9% |
| Memphis | -6.7% | -12.9% | -32.7% | Tucson | -7.4% | -3.3% | -20.1% |
| Miami | -25.3% | -45.9% | -56.8% | Va. Beach | -6.0% | 4.3% | -1.1% |
| Milwaukee | -8.2% | -3.1% | -10.1% | DC | -4.4% | -11.5% | -30.7% |
| Source: Housingtracker.net | |||||||
Gabrielle Union Alessandra Ambrosio Amanda Detmer Emma Stone Raquel Alessi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)