Market Conditions: Chicago Sales Jump 22% in June YOY But Is It Really That Hot?
It’s that time of the month again to evaluate just how “hot” the Chicago housing market is.
From the Illinois Association of Realtors:
In the city of Chicago, June 2012 home sales (single family and condominiums) totaled 2,246, up 22.0 percent from 1,841 homes sold in June 2011. The city of Chicago median home sale price for June 2012 was $216,700, up 4.7 percent compared to June 2011 when it was $207,000.
We’re coming off of very low levels in 2011 so any gain would be “good.” But if you look at prior year sales data, the number doesn’t seem all that impressive.
Here is the prior sales data (thanks to G for the older historical data):
- June 2012: 2246 – up 22%
- June 2011: 1841- down 27.1% yoy
- June 2010: 2526 sales (tax credit sales)
- June 2009: 1981 sales
- June 2008: 2282 sales
- June 2007: 3,127 sales
- June 2006: 3,557 sales
- June 2005: 3,850 sales
- June 2004: 3,752 sales
- June 2003: 2,891 sales
- June 2002: 2,590 sales
- June 2001: 2,451 sales
- June 2000: 2,513 sales
- June 1999: 2,435 sales
- June 1998: 2,214 sales
- June 1997: 1,817 sales
Here is the monthly median price data:
- June 2012: $216,700- up 4.7%
- June 2011: $207,000- down 11.6% yoy
- June 2010: $234,250
- June 2009: $242,050
- June 2008: $309,945
“Compelling interest rates and motivated sellers are helping move the market,” said REALTOR® Zeke Morris, president of the Chicago Association of REALTORS® and Operating Principal and Managing Broker, Keller Williams Realty, CCG. “With both affordable and high-end properties attracting offers across the spectrum, we are seeing more buyers come off the fence and make decisions today about their investment in homeownership. We will continue to monitor closely the impact of distressed properties as well as continue to service our clients in the return of multiple offers in home buying.”
“This high level of housing market activity was last seen in the first half of 2010 promoted in large part by the homebuyer’s tax credit,” noted Dr. Geoffrey J.D. Hewings, Director of the Regional Economics Applications Laboratory of the University of Illinois. “The current market seems to be operating more normally with perhaps some effects of the significant number of foreclosed properties that are for sale.”
June sales were still below the juiced 2010 tax credit sales.
With all the talk about how “hot” the market is, is that the reality or is it simply influenced by low inventory in the GZ?
June home sales in Illinois up 18.0 percent from a year ago; Median prices also post year-over-year increases [Illinois Association of Realtors, Press Release, July 19, 2012]
The numbers don’t look great, but they don’t look horrible either, somewhere in the middle, “meh” perhaps. I’m wondering if we can all agree the outlook is positive.
About the same sales as the last pre-bubble year.
Of course, with a lot more units potentially available.
1) If not for the government interference in 2010 that would be the highest level in 4 years.
2) For the metro area it was the highest sales level in 5 years
However, contract activity dropped off dramatically in June: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2012/07/chicagos-fledgling-housing-recovery-may-be-losing-steam/ which may be a reflection of the low inventory levels. But eventually we will see that reflected in lower levels of closings. We still have quite a backlog of pending sales.
The other thing is that we continue to see multiple offers and I’m seeing several instances of properties selling for more than they did last year or the year before. Since they haven’t closed yet I can’t share the specifics but the areas are Printer’s Row and Lakeshore East.
Also seeing the same in Lake Forest – offers on the first day of listing and multiple offer situations.
“I’m seeing several instances of properties selling for more than they did last year or the year before. ”
Do you mean similiar properties or are these props being put back on the market after one year?
What does “hot” mean? Hotter than last year? Hotter than last few years? Hotter than a “normal” non-bubble year? And measured in what terms? Number of sales? Prices? And sales/prices adjusted for distressed sales or not? In what regions? Chicago overall? GZ? SFH? Condo?
“Do you mean similiar properties or are these props being put back on the market after one year?”
Two instances in the last couple of weeks of the same property resold after 1 year and 2 years. In both cases around 10% higher.
interest rates at record lows and people think housing may have bottomed.
long, long, long ways to go i’m afraid.
eventually interest rates will be set by the market, and when they are, well…it isn’t going to be pretty.
I think we have hit bottom so people who have been on the sidelines are getting in. The problem is the lack of quality properties. Lots of foreclosures but those tend to be in less desirable areas or smaller properties (condos) not ideal for families. The low interest rates also push people of the sidelines b/c they cannot be sustained long-term. That said, we have hit bottom but will probably not trend very far up in the next few years.
consider the source
“That said, we have hit bottom but will probably not trend very far up in the next few years.”
Which means a continued decline in real dollar terms. (yeahyeah, unless you buy Bob’s preferred doomsayers)
Eventually interest rates will go up and I’ve always assumed that meant the economy had recovered, otherwise as some of you point out, it would be disasterous. However, why would low interest rates push people to the sidelines “because they cannot be sustained long term?” Are buyers that rationale thinking about inverse relationships and 10 years from now mortgage rates will go up and depress their sell price? This seems like a great time, assuming you can find a place at a price you can accept, at least from a limited 30 year interest loan rate perspective. Heck, this is a great time for a 15 year fixed. I find it hard to believe in my lifetime that interest rates would be meaningfully lower than now. I still marvel at my 8.25% 30 year rate in 2000 – over the years that was refinanced to less than half the original rate. I guess I can imagine rates halving from where they are now, but that won’t have the same impact on my bottom line as over the past decade.
“However, why would low interest rates push people to the sidelines “because they cannot be sustained long term?””
Missing f. Push people *off* the sidelines.
“anon (tfo) (July 19, 2012, 9:42 am)
“That said, we have hit bottom but will probably not trend very far up in the next few years.”
Which means a continued decline in real dollar terms. (yeahyeah, unless you buy Bob’s preferred doomsayers)”
As with all investments we have to look at the alternative (renting). In many situations one is better off buying than renting so zero appreciation on a home over 5 years would actually have a positive return. Of course this goes out the window if you are going to be moving shortly as the RE commissions eat away at the return.
Interest rates will only go up when the economy gains traction (and inflation), i’m not too worried about that affecting housing actually I’m more worried about stupid builders flooding the inventory than interest rate risk. Fed has basically said, we are keeping rates near zero for basically forever (2015? lol right), mainly due to political pressure to continue to expand the big gubermint regime at low low prices
“Interest rates will only go up when the economy gains traction (and inflation),”
Are you saying that NewsMax is wrong? That we won’t see 100% inflation and 50%+ unemployment this year?
“Are you saying that NewsMax is wrong? That we won’t see 100% inflation and 50%+ unemployment this year?”
lol, its about as right as zerohedge
the one thing that i’ve noticed is that builders/developers have been aggressively getting back into the market, especially for low priced properties that are in need of repair. here’s an example. this bucktown property sold about an year and a half ago for $325k with no interest except the buyer. it just re-sold (with no work done to it and still in need of a gut) for $385k cash with multiple offers.
http://www.redfin.com/IL/Chicago/2314-W-Palmer-St-60647/home/13357043
Why would someone compare bubble year sales and prices to today? Looks like we are very close to normal sales.
We are nowhere near pre-bubble sales rates.
“We are nowhere near pre-bubble sales rates.”
OK, I’ll bite. Why? More total inventory?
June 2012: 2246 – up 22%
June 1997: 1,817 sales
Yes
“1) If not for the government interference in 2010 that would be the highest level in 4 years.”
Why ignore the govt interference of 2012? Lowered rates mean many more $’s saved than from dough4dumps. Still, no real traction in reversing the inevitable correction. It was enough for the realtwhores to pump the market all spring, though. Nothing like bottom fever and manipulated inventory to feed that fear of loss so coveted by used house salespeople.
“However, contract activity dropped off dramatically in June”
Who could have known? The early spring contracts just pulled sales forward. This bounce off the cliff face did not mark the bottom. It’s not going to get interesting again until all the new construction and empty shadow units are added to the rental market. Then, another round of foreclosures for investors and all those other hopeful bottom feeders of recent vintage.
“Interest rates will only go up when the economy gains traction (and inflation)”
interest rates never rise because of credit risks where you live?
“interest rates never rise because of credit risks where you live?”
dollars are king, the world currency
trust me, go visit some 3rd world crapholes and tell me what kind of money you see floating around, shit ain’t chinese yuan thats for sure
dollar is king of a hollowed out rotten house.
it’s a tear down. if you’re living inside it i wouldn’t wait until you see the wrecking ball before moving out.
and by “3rd world craphole” do you mean Englewood?
“Yes”
Any idea how much total inventory is up from 1997? 20%? 50%? Other?
“Any idea how much total inventory is up from 1997? 20%? 50%? Other?”
How about the population?
yeah well thats just like your opinion, man
“How about the population?”
You’ve spoiled the next question.
Population graph of Chicago:
http://tinyurl.com/csdd2r2
“Are buyers with that rationale thinking about inverse relationships and 10 years from now mortgage rates will go up and depress their sell price?”
EXACTLY!!! Buy a house now and lock in a GREAT mortgage that cannot be assumed. Interest rates go up after you have a few kids and your house is worth 20% less. That is my fear, but most buyers these days are too stupid to figure that out. no offense
“Interest rates go up after you have a few kids and your house is worth 20% less.”
Where are our proponents of “increases in mortgage interest rates have absolutely no effect on housing prices”???
“Where are our proponents of “increases in mortgage interest rates have absolutely no effect on housing prices”???”
Is there such a thing? Take an economics course
“Is there such a thing? Take an economics course”
How do you explain 1940 to 1980?
http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/business/assets_c/2011/07/interest%20rates%20and%20home%20prices%20shiller-56453.php
Ah, I’d forgotten that chuk was one of them.
Would be easy with the wiki …
The one thing the chatterati fail to grasp is that the main reason 90-95% of people out there buy houses is for lifestyle reasons – NOT investment purposes. PEOPLE DON’T BUY THEIR PERSONAL HOMES FOR PROFIT OR INVESTMENT. Sure, it’s great if you make money on your home, but you morons think that buyers view the real estate market like the stock market. Continue to do this, and you will always be surprised at how wrong your predictions are……
“Ah, I’d forgotten that chuk was one of them.”
Actually, I’m not. I don’t think there is an absolute “correct” answer. However, there are periods of times where interest rates and home prices DO correlate, and periods of time they do not. I am just saying you can’t make any definitive statements either way. If you were to guarantee me right now that 30 year rates would be 6% 10 years from now, I wouldn’t be willing to predict if house prices would be up or down.
“I am just saying you can’t make any definitive statements either way.”
I can definitively say that that is correct.
“Actually, I’m not.”
Again, wiki.
“The one thing the chatterati fail to grasp is that the main reason 90-95% of people out there buy houses is for lifestyle reasons – NOT investment purposes”
They are not mutually exclusive. It used to be that no investment thinking was necessary because it WAS going up, we just didn’t know by how much. The fact of the matter is that for 90-95% of the population, buying a home is the biggest investment decision they will ever make.
“EXACTLY!!! Buy a house now and lock in a GREAT mortgage that cannot be assumed. Interest rates go up after you have a few kids and your house is worth 20% less. That is my fear, but most buyers these days are too stupid to figure that out. no offense”
Bless you, xoxo – a Landlord
“They are not mutually exclusive. It used to be that no investment thinking was necessary because it WAS going up, we just didn’t know by how much. The fact of the matter is that for 90-95% of the population, buying a home is the biggest investment decision they will ever make.”
Yes, BUT unlike non-housing investments–in which you can just stick your $$ under your mattress if you don’t like the options out there — for housing — all have to live somewhere. Own it or rent it. Someone is going to make $$ — especially now, low prices, low rates and rising rents.
if interest rates rise, prices will drop. The FED has the interest rates manipulation as their main resource to guide the economy. They are at a point now, where the cannot lower interst rates anymore, so they have to use QE 1, 2, 3, 4. Usually the fed lowers the rates from 8-7 to juice the market or increases them from 4-6 to slow down the economy. I thin we all have to agree these are unprecedented times and huge fortunes can be made if this is played right.
1. Interest rates are not going up anytime soon, and probably not for a long time.
2. Interest rates do not affect housing prices directly – interest rates affect how much buyers can borrow, which indirectly affect housing prices. Put another way: buyers tend to borrow more when interest rates are lower, which tends to increase housing prices. It’s an indirect correlation, not a direct correlation.
3. Housing prices still have lower to go. The particular suburb I follow has 300+ homes listed for sale but less than 150 under contract. Sellers – or least sellers who listed to their realtors – seem to be pricing on the high side again, hoping to sell for the highest price rather than quickly. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn’t.
4. It seems more likely than not we are heading into another recession, and if the news from Europe and China is a harbinger of what’s to come here, it’s going to be another 2 or 3 year long mild recession. The UK is officially in recession, Spain/Greece/Ireland/Portugal are in depressions reminiscent of the turbulent 1930’s. China has slowed down and the government has admitted things are going to be difficult – and the juked stats even reflect a large change;
5. Housing will continue to get cheaper – however, the cost to update the homes will offset the cheaper homes. new floors, windows, hvac and kitchens cost tens of thousands of dollars and many 1950’s – 1970’s are in desperate need of updates. Get a deal – use the ‘savings’ to modernize the home.
“if interest rates rise, prices will drop”
Depends.
“I thin we all have to agree these are unprecedented times and huge fortunes can be made if this is played right.”
And what do you think is the right way to play it? It’s one thing to recognize/predict a trend. It is another to be able to financially benefit from it.
6. Interest rates in a fiat credit based economy tend to reflect RISK of repayment not the amount of money available. There’s tons of money sloshing around all competing for lower and lower yields. As long as the borrower’s risk does not increase then interest rates will continue to stay low. There’s no reason rates would shoot up unless there was a credit risk – the mere fact that there is so much money sloshing around chasing paltry yields is yet another reason why interest rates stay low.
“I can definitively say that that is correct.”
Ahhh, I see you’ve found the third way.
“And what do you think is the right way to play it? It’s one thing to recognize/predict a trend. It is another to be able to financially benefit from it.”
Become a landlord, like COOP is a good start.
As long as coop didn’t buy between 2000 and 2010, he probably has a good investment.
“Become a landlord, like COOP is a good start.”
But that means buying real estate. If you are predicting prices will go down 20% from here, will the income you earn offset your predicted decrease in equity?
there is a HUGE difference between buying a condo or single family home, and buying INVESTMENT real estate. One creates income while the the doesn’t. I do not think the value of an apartment building will go down with a rise in interest rates. Actually if inflation kicks in, values should jump. and interest rates might be raised to cool it off.
‘Sure, it’s great if you make money on your home, but you morons think that buyers view the real estate market like the stock market. Continue to do this, and you will always be surprised at how wrong your predictions are’
Clio is right on that one. If you wanted to really make (save) money, you’d never had children. A vacation, eating out, decent furniture, season tickets… total wastes of money. You may very well loose money when you sell your house, who cares, it costs money that you’ll never get back to live… renting or buying, you’ll pay one way or another.
But this isn’t so much about being cautious with your money, it’s generational arrogance in thinking that the world is going to stop spinning and crash on *your* watch. Bombs have never dropped on cities, plagues have never happened, markets have never crashed, no, they’ve all been saving themselves up just for *you*. Life is full of risks/stranger dangers, something your parents and society shielded you from, and not everyone gets a ribbon just for showing up, nor selling at the perfect time. So live in a box under the bridge because you know that’s one way of beating the evil system whose one intention is out to get y-o-u.
“I do not think the value of an apartment building will go down with a rise in interest rates.”
yes, it will. “Cap rates” for investment property are priced at a given margin above UST rates, let’s say 400 basis points for argument’s sake. If UST rates rise, so will the cap rates, and that makes invesment property prices fall. I agree that we’re not really at risk right now of rising UST rates. Mish’s blog has a post on that subject today.
“trust me, go visit some 3rd world crapholes and tell me what kind of money you see floating around”
been to some crapholes recently, Sonies? lol…
“Actually if inflation kicks in, values should jump.”
Do you expect an increase in wages along with that? I’m not seeing much wage inflation, and definitely not enough wage inflation to keep up rising food prices, much less with price increases in housing…
. “Cap rates” for investment property are priced at a given margin above UST rates, let’s say 400 basis points for argument’s sake. If UST rates rise, so will the cap rates, and that makes invesment property prices fall. I agree that we’re not really at risk right now of rising UST rates. ”
All this economic talk is way over my head, can someone dumb it down for me?
“Population graph of Chicago:
http://tinyurl.com/csdd2r2”
Thanks, so how does that effect the sales rate?
“All this economic talk is way over my head, can someone dumb it down for me?”
Buy low, sell high.
“loose money”
wtf jay, I thought you were one of the good guys
“been to some crapholes recently, Sonies? lol”
no but my best friend has
“All this economic talk is way over my head, can someone dumb it down for me?”
“sophisticated” RE investors expect a certain return above the “risk free” rate obtainable from parking the money in T-notes. Taking TheHof’s 400 bips, and yesterday’s10 year rate of 152, that’s 552 bps as a cap rate. You divide the cashflow (determined with as many or as few assumptions as the investor wants to apply) from the asset by the cap rate to get the max price you’d pay for the asset (obv, paying less is better). So, an apartment building with net expected annual cashflow (total rent less taxes, maintenance, vacancy, whatever else) of $100,000 would be “worth” about $1.81mm at a 5.52 cap rate.
If the ten year rate went up to 6%, then your cap rate goes to 10, and that same $100,000 net cashflow is then worth $1m–a decline of about 45%. Maybe rents go up, too, but expenses likely do as well, etc, etc. so it’s not a straight line forecast.
Good answer anon(tfo). You have to wonder, in addition to the credit bubble, how much of RE’s price increases are due to lower interest rates and lower cap rates. For instance, REIT stocks used to be priced at 8%-9% yields, fastforward to today 10 years later, and they’re priced at 3-4% dividend yields, which results in a doubling of the price, from that stanpoint alone. I’m sure they’ve perhaps increased their per share operating results to some degree, but I’ll bet operating results today aren’t that much better than they were 10-12 years ago, rents haven’t risen that much in hotels, retail, office, industrial, apts. while Opex and RE taxes have risen. I’d be curious if anyone knows what EQR’s earnings per share was in 2000 and what it was in 2011. If it’s gone up 50% plus a cap rate drop of 50%, that could explain the good rise in the price of the stock. Amazing.
” For instance, REIT stocks used to be priced at 8%-9% yields, fastforward to today 10 years later, and they’re priced at 3-4% dividend yields, which results in a doubling of the price, from that stanpoint alone”
Again, this is a lot of cheap money chasing too few assets. When money is cheap and in this sort of RE environment, any positive return is acceptable; and as we have discussed in the past – a negative return is acceptable too as long as on paper it appears that if the stars align with teh sun and the moon – a positive return may happen. There is a nearly inexhaustible supply of hedge funds, wealthy investors, banks, lending institutions, investment banks, sovereign wealth funds (merely extensions of wealthy foreign families), pension funds, etc, all seeking yield with access to large pools of money.
AS they say in the famous TV show we all know: this has all happened before and it will all happen again. Well, slightly different – at the very least. The first instance I can think of was during the late stages of the roman empire where a handful of families owned virtually the entire known world. For example, Sicily was an estate owned by one family. The 1% back then conducted their business for major assets in gold. The rest of the world used regular coinage or in many cases, simply bartered. Just as then, there was a lot of money sloshing around, chasing yield, and the one way to keep it free from the inflation of the regular roman coinage was to conduct in an entirely different currency. The second example was during the middle ages when the 1% owned the estates and everyone else was a serf. real estate and goods were cheap, very cheap, because there was very little money coined (that coincided with teh breakdown of a centralized government and the rise of the manorial estate) – it made it difficult for anyone to buy anything. How do you do payment in-kind for a 10,000 acre estate? How do you decide how many cows or bushels of wheat should be traded for vast territorial holdings? Quite frankly, no one could – so the King owned everything and merely granted the right to use the land through feudalism.
Today we have a similar problem – where the 1% owns the vast majority of the wealth – but the nature of our money has different effects. As I discussed above, the vast amount of wealth owned by the 1% and the institutions that support them, along with the low interest rates that supply them with unlimited access to cheap money, has created a situation where there aren’t’ really any more risk free investments that pay real yield. Money flows in an instant by the billions and trillions to any asset that appears to even give a hint of yield. This is not going to change.
How does this affect the average real estate buyer? Well, prices will continue to fall, not because of any rise in interest rates, but as a result of supply and demand. Prices are more affordable – underwriting cured that problem back after the big crash. But the demand for homes are weak and supply is still high (incl. shadow inventory) so prices will continue to fall. Secondly, investment properties will yield paltry results, and the ability to ‘landlord’ will be more important than the price paid of the asset – becauese the price of the asset will always be ‘too much’. even private investors have access to some of the institutions of the 1% through loans, investment pools and creates too much competition for two few assets, all chasing yield, creating price inflation.
That price inflation gives a lower yield because the lower or middle class renter can’t really afford to pay any more and starts risking default – and a default of one month by a tenant in some cases can wipe out the yield for an entire year on that asset. But if you don’t pay too much for the asset, someone else will. Things got too crazy during the boom when dumb investors would buy assets with negative yield and no way of ever making it positive – and they all went into foreclosure. So as long as you have sophisticated investors with access to large vast pools of money that can chase yield in an instant, yields will always be as close to zero as possible for the less risky assets.
high risk assets will always be attractive of course, with lots of risk. subprime car loans, greek sovereign debt, and payday loans – all risky assets, with substantial risk of non-payment. The higher yield reflects risk; whereas the lack of risk – Class A office buildings, bonds, t bonds etc other low risk or AAA assets, the yield will always be as close to zero as can be, as long as there is ultimately limitless amounts of money searching yield.
“the lack of risk – Class A office buildings”
Fully-tenanted, long-term-leased, with LOCs backing the rent, Class A office buildings.
Class A buildings are plenty risky if the existing leases have upcoming expiration/renewal dates. Or if too much is leased to a single tenant, who could go bankrupt.
Regarding population…better to look at employment: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2012/07/improving-employment-should-drive-chicago-housing-market-higher/ Still have a ways to go to get back to the peak.
“Class A buildings are plenty risky if the existing leases have upcoming expiration/renewal dates. Or if too much is leased to a single tenant, who could go bankrupt.”
Of course, that’s why I say sophisticated investors making these investment decisions. People often complain that GZ properties are barely cash flow, if at all. And if you go to the 14th floor of the Daley Center, you’ll see that the vast majority of the evictions are not occurring in the GZ so provided you ‘landlord’, of which includes ‘good tenants’, they’re considered a relatively safe asset, which is why there is no yield.
There are other benefits of course, like the fact that its owned outright after 30 years (or less) and that there is depreciation to offset ordinary income, so the ‘it doesn’t cash flow’ argument doesn’t give the entire picture, but sophisticated investors will give an even better picture of what true ‘yield’ is on a specific property – but the yield isn’t much.
“sophisticated investors will give an even better picture of what true ‘yield’ is on a specific property – but the yield isn’t much.”
It’s apparently more than you think it is. Unless you think 650+ (office & industrial) is “not much” in a zero rate environment. Multifamily is a little oversold right now, so it prob is too expensive.
If you’re talking mainly about mini-trumps, you are def correct in most cases.
“It’s apparently more than you think it is”
650? Maybe some deals, but some go for a lot less too. Just the very nature if a buyer could get that much yield on an asset, then it would have multiple bids driving up the price of the asset and the yield down.
“650? Maybe some deals, but some go for a lot less too”
And some go for a lot more (yes, it’s a year old, but it’s free):
http://www.cbre.us/o/minneapolis/AssetLibrary/PCGMN_CapRateSurvey_Aug2011%5B2%5D.pdf
Another, yes, two years old, but:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704499604575407663997998660.html
note that 300 N LaSalle–A+ asset with A+ tenants–sold at about 650, and was the most expensive large building ever in Chicago.
By 650 I thought you mean 650 bps I didn’t know you meant $650 million dollars. Sure, that article proves my point, even in 2010, someone paid ” $655 million (that) has left a number of real-estate professionals rubbing their eyes.”
That’s what I mean – money chasing paltry yield.
“By 650 I thought you mean 650 bps ”
That *is* what I mean.
Sorry about the dud link; google the title–you should get a free link to the full article which notes that the cap rate was about 6.5 at time of sale. Just a coincidence that $650m was a 6.5 cap.
So, you sticking with 650 as a paltry yield?
“Today we have a similar problem – where the 1% owns the vast majority of the wealth”
Except they don’t. Except perhaps in law school where 40% equates to “vast majority”.
http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/top-5-facts-america-richest-1-183022655.html
“Things got too crazy during the boom when dumb investors would buy assets with negative yield”
You mean like the latest TIPS or bunds auctions? Or a deposit account in Denmark? 😀
Shit is hitting the fan in Europe and it’s not getting a lot of press lately. Germany just decided to jump off the plank with the others with their bailout of Spanish banks today lol.
And gotta love RE headlines where an extra 400 sales YTD in a city of 2.7MM makes headlines. What is that 800 extra sales annualized?! WHOA!
Kind of like how new housing starts were GREAT yesterday according to the financial press!
Until you see the graph:
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/search?updated-max=2012-07-19T10:00:00-04:00&max-results=5
“Except they don’t. Except perhaps in law school where 40% equates to “vast majority”.”
Thank info is all confused. “The 1%” by income are not the same people as “the 1%” by wealth, yet that list of “facts” equates them.
‘course, the top 10% DO own the “vast majority” of the nation’s non-primary residence wealth, which isn’t a whole lot better, when the median person is nearly assetless.
“Thank info ”
And it looks like HAL finally made a mistake or typo. Mistake would be That info typo would be Think.
What’s gonna happen to the martian bound mini cooper anon–gonna land okay?
“And it looks like HAL finally made a mistake or typo.”
Prob 75% of my posts have typos. I don’t really proof em.
DJIA is down 100 points today. But it could go up 100 on Monday, for all we know. Too much volatility to be sure which way it’s going.
I just pulled the July market data. Demand is up – by a lot. Supply is down. Sales were up 26.3% over last year and contract activity is still running very strong.
My complete post with long term graphs of several measures is here: http://www.chicagonow.com/getting-real/2012/08/chicago-home-sales-show-largest-gain-in-2-years/