Once a puzzle, always a puzzle: Reading Housing Data

Posted by Ana Maria on October 30, 2009 at 8.40 AM

We couldn't help but take note of today's article in the Real Deal that notes the downside of giving too much credence to national housing data.

"With the glut of housing data and statistics available, it's difficult to know which figures give the most accurate representation of home sales and prices. In Manhattan, the disparity between national housing figures, such as average home price and sales, and city numbers can be particularly noticeable. Rather than one national market, there are, in reality, many mini-markets to evaluate, according to broker Douglas Heddings, president of the Manhattan-based Heddings Property Group at Charles Rutenberg Realty. Heddings told Fox Business News that it's unwise for both homebuyers and mortgage lenders to rely on monthly national data to determine housing trends. The data "can be incredibly confusing to the buying and selling public," Heddings said."

Let's take a peek at the various aspects of reading data, and ways to avoid the pitfalls in trying to digest it.

Seasonality: It's not news that real estate is highly seasonal. This means buyers buy in the spring and fall, renters lease in the summer and most activity is dead in peak winter months, each and every year for the most part. To adequately analyze housing data, you need to compare numbers to those of the same "season" last year. This is why month to month comparisons fail to see the big picture. Rather than waiting a whole year to compare data as it is generated, researchers "seasonally adjust" data to make it more useful and relevant, smoothing it out over the course of the year. Pay attention to the numbers quoted: seasonally adjusted data is reported as "SA", and not seasonally adjusted data is reported as "NSA". The trick is knowing which is which and how to read it. In a period of high seasonal volume, the adjusted numbers will be lower than the not adjusted, and vice versa, precisely due to this smoothing out process. Reading that SA housing starts are up by 20%, for example, doesn't mean that starts themselves are up by that much; rather that they beat the expectations of the smoothed out numbers we would have seen had we ignored seasonal influences. Understsand the nature of the numbers you are reading, SA or NSA, and read analyses through those respective lens.

Margin of error: New home sales data comes out monthly, only to be revised up or down a some time later (same goes for unemployment figures, jobless claims, home prices, etc.). Needless to say, when the margin of error % is greater than the actual reported change in sales, the released figure becomes meaningless. Since the markets are forward looking, few people actually look back to see the revised numbers, relying purely on the first-reported estimates. Compare the margin of error with the degree of change being reported to gauge how meaningful the data really is, and don't neglect revisions.

Trend numbers are so last year: Trend numbers imply a linearity of sorts. One could look at prices in February versus May, for example, draw a straight line and conclude the degree of movement (falsely assuming the data reflects the same 1-bed that sold for in February for $600k is now selling for $550k). What such trends neglect is the actual shift in inventory from month to month or quarter to quarter. The key question is: Is there a seasonal difference in actual market inventory, what does it look like and how significant is it? Observe the changing inventory of what you are comparing as a backdrop against which to analyze the data.

Beware of sequential reporting: Take month-on-month and quarter-on-quarter data analysis with a grain of salt, as it neglects the very seasonality we've been discussing. Of course Q2 will be busier than Q1, for example; this happens every year. This is why researchers primarily use seasonally adjusted numbers versus not seasonally adjusted data. Year on year comparisons (y-o-y) provide a more accurate perspective on market activity. Do not make decisions or enter negotiations relying solely on quarter-on-quarter data.

Year on year imperfections: While Y-o-Y data is the gold standard, even it is imperfect. Great examples can be found on the Lower East Side and Midtown East, where a plethora of new condo developments have significantly skewed year-on-year sales numbers upwards based on luxury inventory which previously did not exist. Neighborhoods have evolved significantly over the last few years and will continue to change over time. Analyze year on year data with an understanding of neighborhood-specific developments.

To tidy up all of these points and wrap'em with a ribbon, not so long ago, we came across a WSJ article mentioning that NYC housing prices were flat, only to add in a small caption that the NY data did not include co-ops and condos. Reader beware. Don't take headlines at face value, particularly national headlines. While there are nation-wide, macro dynamics at work, real estate has and always will be a local game, with all the pros and cons that come with that.

So, while Noah and company at UrbanDigs will still provide real time analysis on changing trends in the Manhattan residential marketplace ("Expect Significant Quarter-to-Quarter Improvements"), their will always be a caution tag attached.

Comments (5)

Another layer to obfuscate the interpretation of housing data. This is a formula for a slow decline in values for NYC across the board, exacerbated by rising operating expense - slow value deterioration by attrition. From today's WSJ, on new bank guidance for performing loans where collateral values have fallen below UPB:

The new guidance "gives people a long time to figure out they're not going to pay it back," said Douglas Durst, a leading New York City developer. "We are in a period where nothing is happening," he said, adding that banks are "not making any new loans because they have this bad debt on their books and not writing it down and getting rid of it."

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2009 8:23 AM

Agreed. It is an entirely different yet significant overlay. Unfortunately, there is no real way of incentivizing banks to sell or move assets at a loss for several reasons: 1) It erodes their capital base (thereby affecting their capital requirements), 2) it has a down-ward ripple effect on the rest of their existing assets, and 3) it puts them in a vulnerable competitive position with respect to other banks that have not yet begun writing off their toxic assets.
Write-downs are only occurring slowly (quarter by quarter) as offsets to their quarterly gains.

Posted by Ana Maria | October 31, 2009 8:58 AM

Yep, at some point owners will realize that at least 50% of the value proposition at any point in time in contingent upon new equity participation. If you make it unattractive for the new money to come in, value simply grows stagnant.

Posted by Fred | October 31, 2009 4:12 PM

From Calculated Risk today - worth a read - OER just turned negative for the first time since 1992:

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2009/11/more-on-falling-rents.html

The WSJ has an article on landlords cutting effective rents: Landlords Offer Incentives to Stay Put

... Equity Residential said new tenants in the third quarter paid 9% to 10% less rent than the previous residents. ... Denver-based UDR is offering renewing tenants a flat-screen TV, new carpet, kitchen upgrade or, $300 in cash. ... Some landlords have also become more open-minded about tenants with credit issues involving home foreclosures.

Posted by Fred | November 1, 2009 8:22 PM

Yes, rents have definitely been falling: 9-11% on average in Manhattan would be an accurate range. Moreover, landlord concessions are almost never accounted for as they are close to impossible to track. Therefore, it's safe to assume that net effective rents are at least 11% off versus last year. (Interestingly, since coop and condo rentals have to compete, they likely represent some of the best values out there.)

Furthermore, with Manhattan having a higher percentage of its overall housing inventory come from rentals versus other cities, it will be interesting to see the impact of these lower rents on default rates in NYC.

Posted by Ana Maria | November 1, 2009 9:32 PM

Post a comment


To help maintain the integrity of the conversation we ask that each user simply paste the keyword (below in red) into the confirmation field below. Sorry, but if you forget this step, your comments will not be saved!