Crib Chatter
The Dish On the Chicago Housing Market
Recent Comments
- Johnc on Market Conditions: Chicago Sales up 6.7% in February 2024 as Inventory Falls Again
- Gary Lucido on Market Conditions: Chicago Sales up 6.7% in February 2024 as Inventory Falls Again
- marco on 3-Bedroom with City Views in Park Place Tower for $550K: 655 W. Irving Park in Lakeview
- Dan #2 on 3-Bedroom with City Views in Park Place Tower for $550K: 655 W. Irving Park in Lakeview
- anon (tfo) on 3-Bedroom with City Views in Park Place Tower for $550K: 655 W. Irving Park in Lakeview
- Johnc on Market Conditions: Chicago Sales up 6.7% in February 2024 as Inventory Falls Again
- anonny on 3-Bedroom with City Views in Park Place Tower for $550K: 655 W. Irving Park in Lakeview
- Madeline on Enchanting Historic 2-Bedroom Row Home in Bucktown for $849,000: 1873 N. Leavitt
- AnonIDGAF on 3-Bedroom with City Views in Park Place Tower for $550K: 655 W. Irving Park in Lakeview
- Gary Lucido on Market Conditions: Chicago Sales up 6.7% in February 2024 as Inventory Falls Again
Crib Chatter Blog Archives
Blog Archives by Month
Copyright © Crib Chatter - Powered by WordPress
ProSense theme created by Dosh Dosh and The Wrong Advices.
US: S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Index (YoY) decreases to -3.3% in Feb from -3.1%
CSINSA:
Chicagoland Case Shiller reported an index value of 113.26. A decline of 2.18% from last month, 7.6% from one year ago and a decline of 32.82% from the peak observed on September, 2006.
19 out of the 20 cities surveyed experienced declines, with Detroit being the sole exception (up 2.95% month over month). The declines were small enough to be insignificant in Tampa, Atlanta and Dallas.
Only Minneapolis, with a decline of 2.9% and San Francisco, with a decline of 2.56%, fared worse than Chicago.
CSISA:
Chicagoland Case Shiller reported an index value of 116.08. A decline of 0.68% from last month, 7.46% from one year ago and a decline of 31.51% from the peak observed on February, 2007.
12 out of the 20 cities surveyed experienced declines. The declines were small enough to be insignificant in Los Angeles, Denver, Las Vegas, New York and in the Composite 10 and Composite 20 figures.
San Diego, with a decline of .94%, San Francisco, with a decline of 1.11%, Miami, with a decline of 1.44%, Minneapolis, with a decline of 1.34%, and Seattle, with a decline of 1.71% fared worse than Chicago.
Bob, what is the difference between csisa and csinsa?
There are seasonal affects present in the NSA data which Case-Shiller tries to pull out when doing their seasonal adjustments. The NSA data is more raw, in that sense. Probably some sort of trendline smoothing but I’m not privvy to their methodology.
Now that we’re at the bottom looking up, all I see from here on out is sunshine and pretty flowers.
“19 out of the 20 cities surveyed experienced declines, with Detroit being the sole exception (up 2.95% month over month).”
Wow – Detroit is HOT HOT HOT and is coming back (I mean, the CSI says it all, right?) !!! G, HD, and Bob – why don’t you guys move there?
I can hardly wait for the June sales numbers to be released.
“Wow – Detroit is HOT HOT HOT and is coming back”
It appears it is. Especially given this is/was winter data, it is entirely possible Detroit hit a bottom in January 2011.
The composite-20 index also is right at it’s post-bubble low (139.27 in Feb-11 vs. 139.26 in Apr-09).
Today’s figures are a mixed-bag and certainly a better result than I expected.
Before today I was considering revising my estimate of the bottom for Chicagoland lower (94-95 on CSINSA index in 2013-2014), but I am going to stand by that prediction for now.
The June CS numbers will have April sales figures so if G is getting antsy for them you know they gotta be good.
Mike HG:
A little about seasonal adjustment, and the determination of its effects vs overall trends in prices (AFAIK still not re-evaluated, ie, still represents C-S judgment at this time):
http://www.standardandpoors.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobheadername3=MDT-Type&blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3DCaseShiller_SeasonalAdjustment2%2C0.pdf&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobkey=id&blobheadername1=content-type&blobwhere=1243679046081&blobheadervalue3=UTF-8
“The June CS numbers will have April sales figures so if G is getting antsy for them you know they gotta be good.”
I meant the June IAR Chicago sales volume numbers that I bet clio over. The loser will be gone from CC.
The CS will continue to grind downward until the foreclosures clear out in a few years. Yeah, there might be some upward blips if a new dough4dumps comes to be, but that will just create more dramatic price/volume drops like after the expiration of last year’s ‘free’ money. But it sure did give the bulls some false hope!
G: It’s amazing how somebody yesterday was arguing that when foreclosures are high that means we’ve reached the bottom. But that’s not the case. It’s what you just said, “The CS will continue to grind downward until the foreclosures clear out in a few years”.
“G: It’s amazing how somebody yesterday was arguing that when foreclosures are high that means we’ve reached the bottom. But that’s not the case.”
Sure it is. And you will realize it in hindsight. I assure you, when you look back on it, you will see the bottom price was set when foreclosures were very high.
“Sure it is. And you will realize it in hindsight. I assure you, when you look back on it, you will see the bottom price was set when foreclosures were very high.”
Of course it will. Not necessarily at the *peak* of foreclosures, either in number or percentage of sales, but sometime when they are *high*. Because, once f/c’s are meaningfully lower, there will be more non-distressed sales (as a %) and those will be at (at least marginally) higher prices than similar f/c’s were *and* rising prices tie with lower f/c b/c possible distressed sales become non-distressed sales in a rising price environment (even if only slightly and only on the margin, it makes a difference).
And, HD was misstating what you said (fallacy of mood affiliation, as roma (?) pointed us to)–you never contended that high f/c *means* we’ve hit bottom, but that the bottom will–in hindsight–have been at a time with high f/c.
“And, HD was misstating what you said (fallacy of mood affiliation, as roma (?) pointed us to)–you never contended that high f/c *means* we’ve hit bottom, but that the bottom will–in hindsight–have been at a time with high f/c.”
Correct. Just because they are high now, doesn’t mean they can’t go higher. But when the bottom is finally “in”, it will be at a time when foreclosures are high.
“Just because they are high now, doesn’t mean they can’t go higher.”
And even if now is the f/c peak, doesn’t mean now is the bottom.
“But when the bottom is finally “in”, it will be at a time when foreclosures are high.”
If HD waits for f/cs to be *low* to identify the bottom, it will be pretty easy. Because the bottom will have been *at least* several months in the past.
“And even if now is the f/c peak, doesn’t mean now is the bottom.”
Yes, there is definitely a lag. The bottom will be made on the downslope, but closer to the high end of the curve than the low.
“If HD waits for f/cs to be *low* to identify the bottom, it will be pretty easy. Because the bottom will have been *at least* several months in the past.”
He’s already said the he believes the very last foreclosed property will sell for less than the one before it. And I think it will be more like 1-2 years in the past.
It all depends on what you call a “foreclosure.”
Peak new filings? It’s about a 2 year leading indicator.
Peak new auctions? It’s about a 6-9 month leading indicator.
Peak new REO listed for sale? Getting warmer if they price it right.
Peak new REO contracts? Bingo.
Problem is, new filings are still rising (or remaining at high levels) for most of the GZ. Auctions are rising rapidly and increasing REO numbers are just starting to show up. New REO listings are currently not “high” throughout the GZ, but they will grow higher for at least a couple of years. I agree that we can talk about a bottom when they are, in fact, “high.”
This all seems pedestrian – clearly a low in prices will not be concurrent with a low in foreclosures (altho it’s certainly likely to be sometime AFTER a high in foreclosures, not at or before, although of course this depends on what point in the process we’re referring to – filings, auction sales, etc).
But I take G saying “The CS will continue to grind downward until the foreclosures clear out in a few years” to mean, prices will remain depressed until the number of foreclosure filings/sales starts decreasing significantly, not until they hit their low. Which makes good sense.
“I agree that we can talk about a bottom when they are, in fact, “high.””
I think we can talk about a bottom whenever the hell we like. HD has been persisting in changing chuk’s argument around.
Or do you agree with HD that the bottom will be when REO contracts/closings are at a low level?
“But I take G saying “The CS will continue to grind downward until the foreclosures clear out in a few years” to mean, prices will remain depressed until the number of foreclosure filings/sales starts decreasing significantly, not until they hit their low. Which makes good sense”
Yes, although I don’t think it will take quite as long as he thinks (mainly because the market will attempt to discount it ahead of time). Also, I think there will be a stabilization in price during that time where prices stop going down, but don’t go up either. But that is not HD’s argument. He thinks the bottom will be made when the last foreclosure sale closes.
To me, that statement pretty much invalidates any of his predictions.
Sabrina, Maybe you can add a “category” over in the right hand column of this site, called “Case Shiller”? Then we can get to it easily when we want to.
thanks
If the market is flooded with foreclosure sales 24 months after foreclosure filings peak…..when do you think the ‘bottom will be’? New foreclosures will be lower but the foreclosures filed during the peak period will just hitting the market.
I never said “after the last foreclosure” that’s twisting my argument.
“If the market is flooded with foreclosure sales 24 months after foreclosure filings peak…..when do you think the ‘bottom will be’? New foreclosures will be lower but the foreclosures filed during the peak period will just hitting the market.”
You are the only one using that definition of “foreclosures” in this context.
“I never said “after the last foreclosure” that’s twisting my argument.”
Sure you did. You said the last foreclosed sale will be lower than the one before it.
“If the market is flooded with foreclosure sales 24 months after foreclosure filings peak…..when do you think the ‘bottom will be’?”
12 months after filings peak.
“I think we can talk about a bottom whenever the hell we like. HD has been persisting in changing chuk’s argument around.
Or do you agree with HD that the bottom will be when REO contracts/closings are at a low level?”
Tough vacation, anon?
I think we should end this argument now because we are talking past each other even though we are much closer in agreement than we appear.
“Tough vacation, anon?”
Nope.
I take it you disagree with HD, too, but are being too nice to say it directly?
“I think we should end this argument now”
Of course you do, HD.
Ok.. on a serious note… a question. Could higher prices (for whatever reason – hey, shit happens) set off a a short wave of foreclosures on properties in which owners have not made payments and which banks had previously avoided taking possession?
“Could higher prices (for whatever reason – hey, shit happens) set off a a short wave of foreclosures on properties in which owners have not made payments and which banks had previously avoided taking possession?”
I’d count on it, if it seemed even vaguely sustainable. Fairly unlikely in Illinois, with the length of the minimum time from filing to completion, but some other states, sure. Maybe here a push to get f/c by consent and/or deeds in lieu, but that’s a significant cost for legal time.
“Or do you agree with HD that the bottom will be when REO contracts/closings are at a low level?”
If that is his argument, I don’t agree.
I also don’t agree with chuk’s belief that the market is/will price in future foreclosures very well.
ze, it’s possible but the new REO inventory would likely dampen any higher prices. Also, just like changes due to the various moratoriums on filings and auctions have already taught us, it is prudent not to rely on short-term changes in the foreclosure numbers.
For the record, anon(tfo), it’s not because I’m wrong, it’s because i’ll never be able to convince people who think that price increases will resume by default shortly after foreclosures filings have peaked because it’s ‘priced into the market’.
“I’d count on it, if it seemed even vaguely sustainable.”
Want to add–I’d count on it b/c the banks have been consistently dumb about their handling of their REO and future-REO inventory. So I’d expect a rash decision to move forward if it looked like there was any sustained pop in any market.
“it’s because i’ll never be able to convince people who think that price increases will resume by default shortly after foreclosures filings have peaked because it’s ‘priced into the market’.”
That’s one small element of what you’ve been arguing, and one small element of chuk’s point as well; I also don’t think that f/cs and future f/cs are really priced in, and *certainly* not well done, *but* I do think that the struggles of some REO properties to sell is as much about an expectation of future similar inventory at similar or lower prices as it is b/c of current pricing being too high–a relatively high % of current prospective buyers share your expectations or are simply looking to bottom feed–the lenders might be well served by a modified Dutch auction (especially with takebacks of non-soldout buildings), *if* their intent is actually to dump their inventory (which I doubt).
You’ve also expressed your incredulity at the thought that the bottom will occur when foreclosures are (relatively) high, which everyone disagrees with. You’re wrong about that.
Picture foreclosure filings as a bell curve. I think the bottom will be made when we are about 1/3’rd of the way down the right hand side of the bell.
(see +1 SD line on the below chart)
http://classes.kumc.edu/sah/resources/sensory_processing/images/bell_curve.gif
If you use foreclosure SALES as your measure, then I believe the bottom will be right in the middle of the bell, at the top of the curve.
That’s what I don’t understand about your current bottom call, chuk. Foreclosure sales are still way down on the left hand side of the curve for a lot of the GZ.
“Foreclosure sales are still way down on the left hand side of the curve for a lot of the GZ.”
Then we get back to the mismatch of what “prices” means–are we talking CS Index? CS Condos? IAR Median prices? G-calc’d Median Prices?
Because, if we are using headline CHI-CS Index, the GZ has a rather small effect.
btw, I disagree with chuk about the bottom matching (even w/in a couple of months) the peak in REO sales. And, b/c of how the stupid banks have handled the f/c filing process, don’t think his call on the relation of f/c filings is right, either, unless they radically revise their approach to filing and prosecuting the f/c’s.
“That’s what I don’t understand about your current bottom call, chuk.”
I don’t think we are at THE bottom, but I think we are “close enough”, especially if you are buying a REO. I think average prices can go down 10% from here, but I think they will rebound fairly quickly back to todays prices. I think by this time next year, you will start to see very small appreciation in the average property.
In other words, 100k place today.
Goes to 90k in the winter.
Back to 100k in April 2012.
And we don’t necessarily take off from there, but the bottom will be in.
My 2c.
chuk: you’re assuming that foreclosures are a bell curve, when they are not
http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html?Delinquency#category=Delinquency&chart=LPSForeclosureProductFeb2011.jpg
Foreclosures have since picked up now that some of the robosigning and loan modification delays are over; but they will slow down again now that the dual track (foreclosure while pursuing a loan mod) is over via the servicer settlement.
But they will pick up again after that. My position again is that the bottom will be when we return to normal and historical foreclosure levels. The excess will have been cleared, most of what remains will be non-distressed, and then prices can start rising again. But the ‘bottom’ will not be anywhere near the point when foreclosures are still high. The foreclosures are excess invenotry that the banks fire sale and until that excess is all cleared up the bottom cannot be in.
“don’t think his call on the relation of f/c filings is right, either, unless they radically revise their approach to filing and prosecuting the f/c’s.”
I’m not implying that they will get their shit together and things will actually happen fast. But I believe the market will price it in before the banks actually do their thing.
“chuk: you’re assuming that foreclosures are a bell curve, when they are not”
You are looking at the wrong chart. You need to aggregate all of those loan types and you will end up with something closer to a bell curve.
For example:
http://cr4re.com/charts/charts.html?Delinquency#category=Delinquency&chart=MBAQ4Delinquency.jpg
“The foreclosures are excess invenotry that the banks fire sale and until that excess is all cleared up the bottom cannot be in.”
What you fail to understand is that EVERYONE knows that. And that is factored into the pricing. People will pay less for a house TODAY knowing that there are tons of properties in the pipeline. Those properties don’t need to actually be on the market for them to have an effect on pricing.
Is the pricing mechanism perfect? No. But it is not oblivious.
“I’m not implying that they will get their shit together and things will actually happen fast. But I believe the market will price it in before the banks actually do their thing.”
Oh, I get where you’re coming from. And agree with the premise, and believe it will be easy to verify in hindsight. Don’t think we’re as far along in it as you do, at least in Illinois.
When you say “average property”, do you mean mean, median, some variation thereon, or (what I call) “typical”–something someone you know might buy as a rental or to live in?
“My position again is that the bottom will be when we return to normal and historical foreclosure levels.”
Too complicated! The bottom will be in when prices start to go up 🙂
“When you say “average property”, do you mean mean, median, some variation thereon, or (what I call) “typical”–something someone you know might buy as a rental or to live in?”
I think bad locations will continue to go down long after the bottom is in. But they will be offset by better locations that will rise in price from the bottom. So, “on average”, you will show slight increases.
ex. Good location goes from 200k to 220k
Bad location goes from 100k to 95k
even after the “bottom” is in.
“You are looking at the wrong chart. You need to aggregate all of those loan types and you will end up with something closer to a bell curve.
For example:”
You need that chart for Illinois (and, really, Chicago) only. I wouldn’t doubt that, for example, Las Vegas f/c filings have peaked–something like 30% of Clark County mortgages had a NoD filed in 2008, -09, or -10. And their 90-day delinquency rate has been trending down since Feb-10 (21.01%). We’re not there yet.
“You need that chart for Illinois (and, really, Chicago) only. ”
Yes, Chicago may not be that far along. But when they are, it will be a bell curve. My other point is that I don’t think the % changes from here to “the bottom” will be significant, even if the amount of time is.
I maintain that average SELLING prices won’t decline much more than 10% from here, even if it takes longer than expected to bottom.
When you look at the CoreLogic home price data it suggests that all the price decreases in the last year are pretty much restricted to the distressed properties. I personally find that hard to believe but that’s what their data says: http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/chicago-real-estate-getting-real/2011/04/a-closer-look-at-the-decline-in-chicago-home-prices.html
chuk – you say 10%, I say a 25%. That’s our positions articulated. we both agree prices will decline we differ only on the degree.
Again, forget where we are on the curve right now. My point is the bottom will occur when we are at about the 1 SD mark on my bell curve. Not at the bottom of the bell.
In hindsight, it will all be very obvious.
“chuk – you say 10%, I say a 25%. That’s our positions articulated. we both agree prices will decline we differ only on the degree.”
I think we also disagree on what happens after that. I believe that last 10% decline will quickly be recovered. In other words, I believe that if you buy today, you will be OK in 2-3 years.
In your scenario, I can not see anyone being OK in 2-3 years from now if they take a 25% drawdown from here.
“In other words, I believe that if you buy today, you will be OK in 2-3 years.”
But that doesn’t mean you can buy at today’s LISTING prices. Many are out of whack and need to come down 25%.
But if there is a place that is listed today for 600k and sells for 500k, I think you are looking at a max 10% decline from there. But, that is almost 25% below the LISTING price.
Many of the arguments here on CC are based on the unrealistic listing prices. And of course prices have to fall a lot from there. But if you look back at the properties listed here that have closed, you will see the selling prices have been much more reasonable.
Hehe, this has actually already been wrong once.
“Too complicated! The bottom will be in when prices start to go up”
Chuk – The big question is will HD’s monthly housing payment be lower if he waits to buy? We all think prices have some room to fall, but what do you think about rates from here? HD believes rates will more or less stay the same.
“Chuk – The big question is will HD’s monthly housing payment be lower if he waits to buy?”
That’s a tough one. Honestly, I am torn based on the stupidity of the government. Clearly, inflation is here, which would imply higher rates. However, the gov may insist on trying to buck the trend. Who knows, they may offer every American a 3% 40 year mortgage in an effort to boost house prices.
The only thing I know is, the dumber the idea, the more likely it is the government will pursue it. So that is a huge wildcard.
I would say we are around the “capitulation” point now:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/21/25244035_b3505cdb54.jpg
Gary,
While it (obviously) not the same thing, the tiered C-S for Chicago shows drops of ~20%/10%/5% for low/mid/high, respectively, over the last year.
See, however, comments above, replacing IL/Chicago/GZ/etc with ‘high’ as necessary
“While it (obviously) not the same thing, the tiered C-S for Chicago shows drops of ~20%/10%/5% for low/mid/high, respectively, over the last year.”
I know I discussed with someone (dz?) but do you know which side of the pair they use for determining low/mid/high? What happens when the prop transitions from high to low?
Roma,
I always found it interesting how low the “high” threshold is for Case Shiller – $272K?!?!?! Does that mean that the index is heavily skewed towards the lower price points? Could be validation for people like Clio.
“Does that mean that the index is heavily skewed towards the lower price points?”
The breaks are set based on 1/3 of sales volume, while the index weights for values, so, if anything, the composite overweights *high* value homes.
In checking that, I confirmed that the tier placement is based on the tier when the *first* sale was made. So the tier breakpoints applicable to paired sales would be impossible to discern from the index info.
“I know I discussed with someone (dz?) but do you know which side of the pair they use for determining low/mid/high? What happens when the prop transitions from high to low?”
I’m still confused by the methodology. I *think* we agreed it clearly said the tier was based on the price of the first sale but it was quite unclear to me at least how the tiers get set, especially given requirement that you end up with same number of properties in each tier.
“Does that mean that the index is heavily skewed towards the lower price points? Could be validation for people like Clio.”
It’s still weighted by sale price, so that more expensive places have higher weight. If you have MLS data on distribution of sales prices, you’d get some idea of relative weights.
“In checking that, I confirmed that the tier placement is based on the tier when the *first* sale was made. So the tier breakpoints applicable to paired sales would be impossible to discern from the index info.”
Ok, went back and read the methodology doc again. I *think* they figure for each period what the tiers are for that period so that sales split into thirds (I think I’m wrong about sales pairs splitting into thirds, it’s the sales in each month that split in thirds). They say they then do some smoothing of the tier cutoffs. Then for each sales pair, they assign to a tier based on the first sale price.
“(I think I’m wrong about sales pairs splitting into thirds, it’s the sales in each month that split in thirds).”
That’s the confusing part.
“That’s the confusing part.”
You’re right. I see now the other part of the description that suggests the sales pairs are split in thirds.
“You’re right. I see now the other part of the description that suggests the sales pairs are split in thirds.”
It definitely suggests that. So, 9 sales in March, get split into 3 groups of 3 based on their high/mid/low ranking when purchased?
What I don’t get is that it’s *possible* that they’d all come from one group, even if broadly distributed now. How is that dealt with?
Yet another flat period for top tier SA for Chicago:
2010 11 118.73
2010 12 118.6
2011 1 118.55
2011 2 118.43
Where is the story here? No meaningful change in 4 periods. By definition, this data touches September 2010. It is hard to argue homes in any reasonable north side neighborhood have changed much in 6 months (over 279k is hardly high end, even with a 20 year look back). Yet that is 90% of what is discussed and probably 95% of what nervous nellie would be buyers here are looking at.
Of course, if you are looking to buy a house in Marquette Park, perhaps maybe you might worry about price declines. I’d wager you have more to worry about that just that though.
“It is hard to argue homes in any reasonable north side neighborhood have changed much in 6 months”
This, by the way, in spite of all the foreclosures. Does this regular way sales prices are increasing?
Personally, I don’t think the vast majority of people here are looking at or really care about 175k homes (the median, remember?). The performance of this segment is driven by other much broader social issues in the city of Chicago — declining city services, migration of jobs outside cook county, increasing crime, etc.
I’d define myself over the last year and before today as slightly bearish. I didn’t see gloom and doom, but I didn’t see any meaningful increase in prices or decrease in inventory over the next 18 months.
After listening to Shiller (see him on video here: http://wallstreetpit.com/72150-robert-shiller-expects-further-decline-in-the-housing-market ), I’m a bit more bearish.
I understand all real estate is local. Yet when the CS Index for Chicago drops consistently, it creates doubt.
Leveraged investments treat you sweet on the way up, but bite hard on the way down. Tough, but fair as the math is what helps you make money it also hurts you exponentially too.
At any rate, Shiller is concerned at believes there is real reason to think we might see further declines.
“What I don’t get is that it’s *possible* that they’d all come from one group, even if broadly distributed now. How is that dealt with?”
The thing that makes most sense to me is to ignore the part that says “resulting in a repeat sales pairs data set divided into thirds” which is probably why I keep refusing to read it.
Where on Chuk’s chart would you all say we are for Stocks, Bonds, and Gold?
Somewhere between “Thrill” and “Euphoria”. Closer to “Thrill”.
I keep reading these bearish news articles and postings and yet I still can’t find a nice condo worth buying in near north or the loop. And when i do, I get outbid.
steven, it’s a two-tiered market, there are areas of Chicagoland with massive price drops, but most CC readers wouldn’t want to live in most of these areas.
Chuk – The big question is will HD’s monthly housing payment be lower if he waits to buy?
I have said before a renter has no shortage of skin in the game. How many renters quantify their expected risk in $ or % 🙂
Don’t forget that in the two tiered market, sales volume in the upper market is just slightly above their multi-generational lows; and sales volume continue to be far below their historical averages. And just how long do you think this can continue for without continued price declines? Will the upper tier of the two tier market forever continue with historically low sales volume – and the properties that do sell fetch historically high prices?
“#Dan on April 26th, 2011 at 3:26 pm
steven, it’s a two-tiered market, there are areas of Chicagoland with massive price drops, but most CC readers wouldn’t want to live in most of these areas.”
YES.
“Chuk – The big question is will HD’s monthly housing payment be lower if he waits to buy?”
I know you believe the answer is “yes”, otherwise you wouldn’t be waiting.
Looks like this has already been covered, but to reiterate:
No, because the index is value-weighted (in addition to interval-weighted)
And the tiers cutoffs refer to first sale of a matched pair
“I always found it interesting how low the “high” threshold is for Case Shiller – $272K?!?!?! Does that mean that the index is heavily skewed towards the lower price points? Could be validation for people like Clio.”
The bottom line is that you can be a loser-analyst or a winner-doer. The loser-analyst will analyze the hell out of data and come to conclusions that do not necessarily reflect what is actually happening out there. The winner-doer will see what is ACTUALLY happening out there, buy the right property, renovate or whatever and either enjoy it for themselves or flip.
Or you could just be a lying sack of maggot infested shit.
“Or you could just be a lying sack of maggot infested shit.”
Huh?
“Or you could just be a lying sack of maggot infested shit.”
Whatever I did to piss you off, I apologize.
now that was a class act
“now that was a class act”
Thanks. I feel better now.
yw
Clio, I ran a simple whitespace algorithm over you and cooper yesterday. Basically it removes all writing and measures types and distances between puncuations and compares it to a control for which i used editorials from the NYT, trubune, wash post. Someone like dan comes close in similarity to the control but with a very low confidence because few markers show up. With you and cooper it came up over 98 percent for both similarity and confidence.
“Clio, I ran a simple whitespace algorithm over you and cooper yesterday. Basically it removes all writing and measures types and distances between puncuations and compares it to a control for which i used editorials from the NYT, trubune, wash post. Someone like dan comes close in similarity to the control but with a very low confidence because few markers show up. With you and cooper it came up over 98 percent for both similarity and confidence.”
….as I said, there are loser-analyst types (see above) and winner-doer types out there… which one do you want to be?
wait ze – I don’t understand what that means. Spell it out in simple terms.
us loser analysts ya need to watch out for… As for your returns since 1990, i put that on excel and u r lying there too. Oh and investors dont say shit like ‘i call all people that come to see my offerings and we usually get a deal done 20-30 percent of the time’ you are now talking from large populations, why, cause YOU ARE A BROKER!!!!
ze – Please show us the goods (data, excel spreadsheets, whitespace algorithm w/results). Otherwise, is this just a pissing contest?
ze – Huh?
I don’t lie. What are you talking about 1990?
In terms of my own properties, when they are for sale and someone makes an offer that is a “low ball” offer, I have had a lot of success converting them into deals – that is because I offer 100% owner financing at 4-6% (depending on the property). Someone who is interested in a particular property would be a fool not to take a deal like that – that is why I am so successful at it.
sparky.. My code will never be seen by anyone ever. Code is personal. As for excel that’s simple. Let’s open this can of worms and settle it once and for all. I had to make assumptions, people here have been listening to it longer than me so any help would be appreciated. First place i could be off is assumption of clios current holdings. Bob or someone else let’s throw it up for me.
You know the majority on here are late 30’s to early 40’s/ Probably more attorneys than any other profession. But yet we are all stupid kids in our 20’s.. again and again with that comment … you don’t just have a different opinion, you seek to discredit everyone else but yourself. Why Clio? Why is that so important to YOU!
NAR TROLL!
ze, I’ll make it easy for you:
In boston in the mid 90s, I was buying 5 unit brownstones in the south end for 500-650k, putting in about 250k (50k/unit) and selling each condo for an average of 300k – that put my 120-150k per unit. I did 27 units between 95-2000 – you can do the math. I then took that money and rolled it into real estate in chicago. Real estate is a passion – not my real job –
Clio.. come on.. now I get to add under your assets your outstanding loans.. how many more millions?
in 5 years 27 units and a residency?
These numbers still ain’t getting you close to what you have suggested.. I was MUCH more generous to you.
Any time you do a multi variable analysis it’s easy to eventually get to a result you want but not without it feeling funny or clean. You come up very funny. The cooper thing just topped it off. Oh and listening to you just say one inaccurate and stupid thing time and time again.
You’re just not Harvard/ Stanford/ U of C material, Joel.
And which is it.. In 2000 you invested in Chicago? Or wasn’t it about 2 days ago you told us that it was in 2000 that you moved to Atherton. Beautiful neighborhood, but hard place to invest in Chicago from.
ze – I was only in atherton from 2000-2002 and bought only one house there (i sold it immediately before I moved so I don’t count it in my portfolio) – I am originally from chicago and american invesco partners/principals are very very good friends – so I invested in a lot of their buildings.
“Clio.. come on.. now I get to add under your assets your outstanding loans.. how many more millions?”
Huh? I don’t understand what this means… I currently have less than 2 million in mortgages.
“…and american invesco partners/principals are very very good friends – so I invested in a lot of their buildings.”
HAHAHA…..and, game over. Ze 1, Clio 0.
Oh John it just goes on and on. I’m wrong all the time, I expect it, occupational hazard, but if I walked into a conference room saying my panties are all in a bunch, and I’m in a panic, because there is an all cash bidding war on everything from 25k to 650k and the next 2 months data showed down moves, my ass would have been finished! Credibility of 0… AND RIGHTFULLY SO!
John999 what is so funny? – my American Invesco properties make over 6% return and have gone up in value 20-40% since I bought them.
ze – what is it about reality that you don’t believe?
Clio. I’m going to explain, and then go watch a movie. One, you are full of shit. I just know.
Two, what bothers me is that you are a NAR whore and have no consideration for anyones well being. Even if you are you, your advice is still horrendous. I agree with some of your NAR shit. I am incapable of renting, it is not a decision for me. I love coming home to MY home, I love breaking walls and playing with my places. Same page!
Also, I agree at this point it is just beginning to get difficult to understand a capable renter holding out from buying. To me the risk surface is simply the wrong way. So kinda same page there.
As an investment, I hate it! Different page there!
What gets me is that you don’t care how badly hurt some people got the past few years, and how serious this decision is. You don’t respect peoples differences in risk tolerances and ability to handle a possible loss. And you are unbelievably intellectually dishonest.
You just want them to buy cause NOW is THE TIME!
Yeah for you to get 6%.
I see people married to their opinion all the time, nothin new for me, even seen em take em to their graves, you look very different in how you’re married to yours. Their is a reason. Now movie time…
@ zecarioca:
My opinion only
I would characterize the Clio persona as abusive with his ad hominem attacks and I believe his bullish look on RE is of self-interest…with little true regard to his fellow man.
But what are you going to do about it? Unless Bri bans Clio, it just becomes part of the unfortunate SnR that is part of the web.
and if Clio brings more activity to Bri’s site, then its also not in her self-interest to ban Clio.
——————-
Let it go. There are better things in life: Marius o Capirinhas o mais mejor Popozudas…
chichow – that’s mean.
whoa, what kind of translation engine produced this interesting but undecipherable (to me) concoction? and i like to think my portunol is pretty fair…
“Marius o Capirinhas o mais mejor Popozudas…”
Chichow.. couldn’t agree more.. it’s over… mas o melhor e isso
http://omedi.net/2011/03/alessandra-ambrosio-na-capa-da-gq-brasil/
btw… mixed blood.. Dan will have no interest 🙂
“In boston in the mid 90s, I was buying 5 unit brownstones in the south end for 500-650k, putting in about 250k (50k/unit) and selling each condo for an average of 300k – that put my 120-150k per unit. I did 27 units between 95-2000 – you can do the math. I then took that money and rolled it into real estate in chicago. Real estate is a passion – not my real job -”
Weren’t the rental buildings in poor condition? So, then they had to be legally converted to condos, then rehabbed, then sold. 27 units condos converted this way, sounds like a full time job. However: doing 5-6 deals (27 units) over 5-6 years (1995-2000), that’s 1 deal per year, I guess it could be done on the side.
Based on the 534 Mass Ave comp, also it appears maybe this submarket did offer those profits, and that would make the necessity of construction loans/lenders less important. Hmm….
I also agree generally with clio’s comments about “analysis paralysis”, however now we see that for every person that did well shooting from the hip, many others who jumped in, lost everything!
ok, mas nem um pouco popozuda…
ze: she doesn’t look african or amerindian to me, she’s European. Since you’re living down there, and being an outsider full-blooded Khazar, you should learn how they think! review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casta#Castas
trabalho … talvez mais tarde
@Clio
You frequently use terms like WTF and call out others that disagree with you as idiots (and worse). The past postings are there to see if people want to review and make their own decisions.
@Roma
It wasn’t from a translation engine. I spent some time in Brasil.
Marius is a famous churrascaria very close to the beach in Rio.
Capirinhas are a drink down there. I personally like Caipirinha com Maracujá
and popozuda is a slang term that well…that you can look up
“sparky.. My code will never be seen by anyone ever. Code is personal. As for excel that’s simple. Let’s open this can of worms and settle it once and for all. I had to make assumptions, people here have been listening to it longer than me so any help would be appreciated. First place i could be off is assumption of clios current holdings. Bob or someone else let’s throw it up for me.”
It’s funny you’re on tangents, Ze. I have been before (many times haha). Sparky only shows up every now and again and Joe Z & him threw an absolute fit when I associated him with sparky, despite the similarities in speech and other ones. Maybe not the same person but definitely know each other and likely work together/other similarities from what I gleamed from other blogs.
In any case Ze calling out NAR/IAR trolls is a fruitless endeavor on these anonymous forums. It’s not really worth the effort and those who want to believe still will.
We used to have “Steve Heitman” and now he’s gone. Now we have “clio” who is much less entertaining but still yet another anonymous pro-RE cheerleader.
Just because we’re of the opposite opinion with the clios doesn’t denigrate those “anon-e-mice” as Joe Z likes to call us. Yeah we’re of the other opinion, but that doesn’t mean that they’re more or less real. Although if Jay-Zee is pitching rentals these days he might be an unexpected and unwelcomed ally. LOL.
There’s only 5k unique visitors per month here and it’s likely this site has a minimal (if any) impact on the Chicagoland RE market, despite our inflated opinions of our own analyses.
Lets continue to use this blog as a forum and a play by play of the bust and laugh at those who think they are going to change it mid-stream via blogging. I see the humor we all should too.
Bob.. Thank you. I will be proud if one day it is u taking me to the showers.
Dan,
Brasil was not colonized by the spaniards. Racism intrigues me, so always happy to discuss. The model would be morena claro here. Adriana lima would be morena negra. My wife, morena claro, but since hee dad was powerful she is legally white. My nephews best friend is called chocolate, the head of the biggest samba school legally changed his name to the n word, and despite clear and extreme racism it is denied by everyone and truly doesn’t exist, since it is truly a class system and people have no problem with blacks so long as they are rich, which of course they rarely ever are. But when they are, they are preferable to lower econ white people… All make sense? PBS is running a series at this moment on Racism in Latin America, u would like.
btw Dan.. my bad.. Adriana Lima morena escuro… then comes negro.
oh wait… Adriana Lima is super famous and rich so if she had a kid, her color, the kid would be white… See how it all makes sense.
Oh and during my construction project here i was informed that under no circumstance can i remove the servants bathroom because if anyone, during a party, saw the servants using the common area bathroom, the guests would not use it.
Now more importantly. El classico is today knockout game of Barca vs Real Madrid!!!
@Bob – I’m really touched and appreciative all of the careful attention that you routinely show me on CC. I look forward to the day that we can finally sit down and have a beer in your neck of the woods. Again, when are the cheap beer nights at SPIN? XXXOOO
Nice try Joe. Although I’m sure you have a lot of free time on your hands lately…
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&chart_type=line&graph_id=0&category_id=&recession_bars=On&width=525&height=315&bgcolor=%23cccc99&graph_bgcolor=%23FFFFFF&txtcolor=%23000000&ts=8&preserve_ratio=false&fo=ge&log_scales=Left,&assad=1&id=HSN1F&transformation=lin&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=2000-01-01&coed=2011-03-01&line_color=%23660000&link_values=&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&line_style=Solid&lw=2&vintage_date=2011-04-25&revision_date=2011-04-25&mma=0&nd=&ost=&oet=&fml=a
oh, and bring Joe, you seem to be infatuated with him too.
Off your meds again, JZ? Multiple personality disorder is a serious mental condition, you should stay on them.
LOL you’re so funny! Big hugz
Ze: “racism” is a word used by pesudo-scientists and marxists and deniers etc. The term human biodiversity is best. After all, leftists love to tell us how important biodiversity is with other species and how it needs to be protected, but suggest that it exists with our species and they go hysterical! I know that Brazil was colonized by Portugal, not Spain, but I doubt they were much different in how they approached the diversity subject. Creole is a French version of criollo.
They fixed the link for the condo data.
For February 2011 the Chicagoland Condo NSA data shows a decline in the index of 3.1% from January levels, to an index level of 107.4. This represents a year over year decline of 13.8% from the prior year.
Chicago condos had the biggest decline of all five cities in the index in both month over month and year over year levels and had the lowest condo values vs. 2000 levels of the other four cities. Chicago condos are back to June, 2000 valuation levels.
City, M/M%chg, Y/Y%Chg, Valuations Back to what Time
CSINSA
LA, -1.0%, -6.2%, 9/2003
SF, -2.1%, -6.0%, 12/2000
CGO, -3.1%, -13.8%, 6/2000
BOS, -1.5%, -1.4%, 8/2003
NYC, +0.8%, -1.2%, 1/2005
CSISA
LA, -1.1%, -6.2%, 10/2003
SF, -0.4%, -5.9%, 4/2003
CGO, -1.5%, -13.7%, 12/2000
BOS, -0.6%, -1.3%, 1/2004
NYC, +0.5%, -1.2%, 1/2005
Since the decline started, Chicago condos haven’t experienced a year over year gain in condo valuations for the past forty-one months.
Ever since Chicago condo valuations crested 51 months ago in October, 2006, there have been 35 months with month over month condo index declines, ranging from -.09% in November 2006 to -5.44% in January 2011, and 16 months with price increases, ranging from +.02% in August 2007 to +5.23% in April 2010.
“Since the decline started, Chicago condos haven’t experienced a year over year gain in condo valuations for the past forty-one months.”
Same for SF and LA, no?
“Same for SF and LA, no?”
Nope. That honor of that impressive streak goes solely to Chicago.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/news/local/ct-biz-0427-renters-20110426,0,3091647.story
Cost burdens rise for renters
Almost one-third of renters in the Chicago area — and one fourth of them nationally, or 10.1 million households — spend more than half their pretax income on rent and utilities, and that cost burden may grow.
A report issued Tuesday by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University warned that a sharp increase in demand for rental units, and the long lead times needed to build apartment buildings, could increase rents, putting financially strapped consumers in even more dire straits.
Someone please tell us again how rents can not increase unless wages increase as well?
“Someone please tell us again how rents can not increase unless wages increase as well?”
You excluded two variables in drawing that conclusion.
If R + U is over .5*I, it could be b/c Rent went up, or it could be that Income went down, or Utilities went up, or a combination of the two while Rent actually went down.
I’ll try to explain it JZ/sparky, as you aren’t too keen on economics (although both you and JZ seem to have a recent interest in the rental market, maybe your first target market…evaporated?).
People earn what are called wages. Let’s call the total of all of these wages…aggregate wages. People live in a thing called housing: some rent some own but basically it’s the same thing for this dumbed down analysis.
Now housing is a durable good with a very long lifespan which means that once it’s built, it stays irrespective of subsequent economic conditions. Let’s call the total housing out there the housing stock. In normal economic times it grows along with the rate of the overall economy. In boom times it surpasses that. In bust times it is much lower, even closer to zero, which is where we are today.
You have a pool of aggregate wages which needs to spend some of that money on housing. Typically when aggregate wages experience a decline, like we’re seeing, there is less money available to chase that fixed housing stock. Just because the housing stock isn’t growing today does not mean rents will rise: remember that housing stock experience a period of overinvestment during the boom so we have ample excess housing stock. Also given the economy there are now more people per domicile which further drags on rental rates.
Walk around the South or West Loop, sparky: where there used to be parking lots developers made McShitBoxes all over the place. Just because the developers might have a very high cost basis because they paid a premium on labor and materials during the boom and need X rent to not go bankrupt does not mean they will receive the rent they need to stay in business.
“In the Chicago area, 28.6 percent of renters are severely burdened by their rental costs, compared with only 20.4 percent in 2000.”
If anything this article shines light that rents are going to be dropping, if anything, in the Chicago area going forward.
That was a question, not a conclusion….
U, can’t be looking good.
rents could increase…..from the report
A report issued Tuesday by the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University warned that a sharp increase in demand for rental units, and the long lead times needed to build apartment buildings, could increase rents, putting financially strapped consumers in even more dire straits.
“That was a question, not a conclusion….”
Okay then, just ignore my first sentence, which relied on the rhetorical phrasing of your question.
How much money are you and Joe donating to Haaaarvard these days, sparky?
I guess it could also then assume that more dire straights COULD cause more tenants to squat in their apartments. No idea in Chi, but in NY it’s a bitch to evict a tenant.
“rents could increase…..from the report”
Okay, and how do landlords extract blood from a stone? Yes, rents on the top X% of apartments may well rise, but if 1 out of 3 Chicagoans are *already* spending more than is “affordable” on rent, what happens when it’s 1/2 or 2/3s?
Sparky I am confused.
Am I suppose to buy now or risk being priced out forever?
Or am I supposed to rent now and sign a 10-year lease or risk being priced out of my apartment due to skyrocketing rents?
You’re mother’s basement is already occupied so I can’t use that option.
Why? are you looking for a donation, bob? If so, I’ll spring for a couple of beers at SPIN up in your neck of the woods. Or are you suggesting that donations to Harvard could entice them to put out studies that support any cause one has?
“You’re mother’s basement is already occupied so I can’t use that option.”
While it would be a step up from the $600/mo prize that you are currently living in, I’m so very flattered that you would even consider living in my mother’s basement!