Housing Rally Continues
The Case-Schiller index of home prices was released today....I'm sure many have seen it. The bottom line is that the upward trajectory in home prices across the nation continues although it appears to have slowed in October. Home prices which have increased for five months in a row, were up 0.4% month-to-month and the year-to-year decline moderated to 7.3% from 9.4% for the month of September. According to figures posted on Seeking Alpha by Research Recap, prices across the 20 city composite have now fallen from the peak in the second quarter of 2006 through the trough in April 2009, by 32.6% and from the peak to today by a slightly moderated 29.0%.
So what is going on closer to home here in the New York City Area? According to S&P, keeper of the Case-Schiller Indices, the New York MSA composite (which includes parts of New Jersey, Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties-see top graphic), saw home prices unchanged month-to-month from September to October, after a 0.1% decline from August to September. On a year-to-year basis prices were down 7.7%, better than the 9% year-to-year decline registered in September.
So what's the outlook for the Metro area? I was sifting through some e-mails today and came across a piece by Deutsche Bank's securitization research group from December 17. They report on everything from credit card debt to CMBS and seem to do some very good deep dives on the underlying credits. It's no surprise then that they have a healthy interest in the mortgage market and have done some fairly extensive modeling on the residential housing markets of the country's key cities. Their conclusion is that during this rolling real estate downturn (it started in late 2005 for markets like Las Vegas) markets have tended to revisit prior levels of "maximum affordability". On that basis they believe that the New York/New Jersey MSA has the worst outlook of the 100 MSAs they follow, with a projected 29% decline in home prices projected still to come to reach maximum historic affordability levels. This would bring home prices from a current 7x median incomes down to the historically most affordable level of 4x reached in 1998. If the New York/New Jersey area resists the tendency of other markets to touch maximum affordability levels on the way down, but instead merely corrects to the average affordability levels of 1980 to 1999; home prices would decline another 8% on average. My current opinion is that the former is more likely than the latter, as the aberrant Wall Street performance of 2009, is replaced by several years of much more sedate profit potential, which will unfortunately cause a slow grinding down of Wall Street incomes, employment and real estate values for the Tri State area. But hey, our area is much less over-built than many markets across the U.S., the economy seems to be turning around, and 2010 is a new year, so maybe the New York/New Jersey MSA just sees a bit more correction before bottoming.
Have a and Profitable Happy New Year!
Posted by mike
Tue Dec 29th, 2009 08:31 PM
Noah, how about down 8% every year for the next 5 years?
Posted by john
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 12:06 AM
noah - does this concur with your 2010 prediction for manhattan real estate prices? does the manhattan real estate market differ that much from the tri-state market as a whole?
Posted by David UWS
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 12:58 AM
29% more to go.. Damn, my as* hurts.
Posted by In Debt We Trust
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 07:27 AM
Noah,
Is there a way to speculate on the Case Schiller index? Like buying or selling CS futures?
Posted by Kevin
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:02 AM
In Debt We Trust,
Yes there is- you can bet on them directly via CME housing futures. These products came out around 2007 if I remember correctly, and last I heard, the volumes on them are very low, so beware of liquidity issues and such. My broker (which I am more or less locked into due to my company's restrictions) unfortunately doesn't let me trade them, yours may not either.
You can get pricing info here if you don't have Bloomberg: http://datasuite.cmegroup.com/dataSuite.html?template=hsng&category=Housing&exchange=XCME&selectedProduct=NYM&assetClassURL=http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/real-estate/
That is for the NY market, but you can change it up for the other big 10 markets, and the overall.
Posted by Noah
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:12 AM
Hey guys, first off this was written by Jeff, not me! As you know, urbandigs has 4 writers: me, Jeff, Ana Maria, and Toes. The new urbandigs will have a pic of he author for easy referencing.
Back to Jeffs article!
Honestly, no I dont see a further 29% down move across price points here in Manhattan. But the call is for the greater NY Metro area, which is basically NY, Northern NJ, Long Island, 5 boroughs...very different than Manhattan or what many readers of UD talk about and interpret articles to.
For Manhattan, yes, I think it does differe from these areas. First off, the ratio of the buyer pool (if we could ever quanitfy that) to the supply is much tighter here in Manhattan, as opposed to say NJ, Long Island, etc..I recall selling my mothers house on LI, and with every price cut came 5 new properties to hit the market. An active open house meant 4-5 people showing up.
Here in Manhattan, I find a much deeper pool of buyers looking for quality products, which there is a lack of right now that is priced right. Inventory is down 30% in 6 months. Does NOT mean this market is immune to further dips, rather, that this market has characteristics to it that make it different than other metro submarkets. How big is the buyer pool in Commack, LI as opposed to say Gramercy/Murray Hill in Manhattan?
It doesnt really jive with my piece on 2010 predictions. I see an active start to the year due to limited supply after a surges in sales volume that lasted a good 6-7 months or so now. But, as we get to year end, I see higher rates, higher taxes somewhat muting the urgency or willingness of buyers to continue to bid up prices, as we did the past 6-8 months as buyers priced OUT Armageddon and reflated a good 5-10% across price points.
I see a more slow decline if anything, slower sales volume if anything - not a fierce move down like after lehman when sales just ground to a halt. Doesnt mean that cant happen, I just dont see it as likely for 2010 unless a big shock to the system comes out.
I think this market had a nice adjustment in prices, not to levels consider cheap for rent vs buy enthusiasts. But a healthy correction in prices nonetheless. Put me down for a slower, more gradual decline that is harder to pinpoint - the lehman was easy for me to see and report to you here, even if other brokers or sellers denied it at the time in late 2008.
y-o-y reports for next 2 quarters are likely to reinforce confidence in buyers as Q1 and Q2 of 2010 is compared to the very weak quarters a year prior! That will lead to bullish arguments from broker execs and brokers and media that the bottom is in and its all good from here. The lower inventory will support that argument further, and it may affect buy side confidence a bit. You know how that is
Posted by Noah
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:14 AM
Mike - a case like that may be more likely. But declining as years go down, maybe down 8%, down 4%, down 3%, and flat. Who knows. But not another fierce 25-30% move down that we saw this market absorb from the freeze up period of SEPT 2008 to March 2009, when the hardest hit deals took place. Since we reflated a bit.
Like a stock that fell from 100 to 70, then bounced to 75-80 range. Thats where we are now, generally speaking. You can get more specific by breaking this down by price point, higher end affected more.
Posted by anonymous
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:34 AM
Noah, you always talk about the quality product which is in short supply. You make it seem like only a very small portion of the inventory is 'quality', so how can this be representative of Manhattan real estate in general? Lower quality product will need to trade too? What's the supply/demand story there?
Posted by Jordan
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:53 AM
It is not widely known, but Case-Shiller also publishes a "condo" index for 5 major cities including, of course, New York.
Start at http://www.standardandpoors.com/indices/sp-case-shiller-home-price-indices/en/us/?indexId=spusa-cashpidff--p-us----
and click on "Condominium Values". Login required to see the data, but it's free.
Posted by Noah
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:58 AM
oh totally ANON, products will trade at some level. The statement I made was 'lack of quality product that is priced right' given where this market is trading right now!
So for my classic 7,8 buyers that have realistic budgets, I am finding a lack of quality products (meaning above average light, exposures, views, etc..) that is priced right. Usually when something comes out, it is priced even higher than where it might trade at peak and seller is testing the market. So while I have realistic buyers, willing to give seller an improved bid over say 6-7 months ago, I find seller is asking for way way more. So what is a buyer to do? They dont expect 30% of peak levels, but are willing to pay say 18-20% off peak levels, which is where that price point seems to be trading today, with the improvement in bids. But seller wants peak level.
There are way more products out there with so so exposures, so so obstructed views, etc. that buyers dont feel compelled to aggressively bid on because there are many of those out there. There are fewer properties with the features that most buyers target, and are priced correctly for this market. In the end, its all about what the buyers needs and desires are and what they are willing to pay for any product. Some buyers dont care about views/light, and will look to get a good deal when they find one - and that product will trade.
Posted by jef
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 10:03 AM
Obviously this piece focuses on the NY/NJ MSA, which is specifically not the more affluent near-in parts of Queens, Brooklyn and Manhattan tnat Urban Digs generally focuses on. For my part, let me speculate a little on Manhattan and the near-in boroughs locales. I think that while affordability is an issue in our area, the shortage of product in Manhattan is the real cause of this. The big downside potential Deutsche Bank is talking about is much more likely for Westchester, New jersey et al than for New York City. That said, likely flat to declining Wall Street profitability for the next couple of years (personal opinion) will take its toll on Manhattan as well, but I see it as a slow leaking out of value (as was the case in the late 1980s/early 1990s), rather than a precipitous decline from here and likely of lesser magnitude than the surrounding area.
Posted by Fred
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 11:55 AM
Jeff - nice catch. the median income multiplier is a great metric, because it speaks to affordability and i gather is a leading indicator?
Posted by Thisson
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 11:59 AM
Since we have Japanese disease, I think Manhattan will follow in the footsteps of Tokyo. After 20 years of deflation, Tokyo real estate prices are still very high compared to median incomes.
Additionally, I suspect that Manhattan apartments will be increasingly attractive compared to suburban homes.
I *do* think a 30% decline is possible in the suburbs (NJ, Westchester, Long Island, CT) and in the less gentrified areas of NYC. But I suspect that places under $1.5mm in Manhattan proper will be relatively stable.
Posted by Fred
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 12:09 PM
Thisson - some suburbs have already seen 30%+ so i think one of the questions is where will the money go in the near term? as for the sub $1.5mm price point, I totally agree that the liquidity is there but would add that it's probably more like $1.2mm and below. the issue is all the new stuff sitting at 2mm to 5mm. we could get back to 4x median income just by reducing the upper high end BUT what happens to the $1.3mm pre-war 2 bed, when you can buy a brand new $1.6mm (real) 3 bed? i don't know the answer to this but my hunch is it's going to push the whole stack down. the only reason 500k studios move is b/c of FNM. from a value perspective, it's a stupid investment because you can basically rent the same space for 2k, or less, today and put your 100k in a yielding instrument, eliminating the exposure to more downturn in the real estate market. you don't have the same flexibility with larger units, in particular 3 beds in a decent zip code. so i wonder if the higher end starts really collapsing if those in the sub $1.2mm segment don't look up and say, hey, price point compression is for real here, may be better to wait?
Posted by xyz2010
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 02:36 PM
Agree w/Thisson - Manhattan is super attractive vs. suburbs. 2009 was actually a monster year for hedge funds - huge come backs and everyone did 50% or better ROI. PE is coming back huge in 2010 - M&A is way up. We just need a Republican president & we're good to go. Prices will go back up - I think the bottom has come and gone - walk around Fifth Ave - spend a few hours in Bergdorf - there is ALOT of money out there - A LOT and it wants to be in this city period. I think the days of the 900k 2 bed 2 bath as brief as they were are gone and 1.2mm is the new 900k in 2010 and if you don't pick it up it's going to 1.5 by 2010.
Posted by Fred
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 03:15 PM
the decent product never got to 900k for a 2 bed and you may consider cleaning the filter on the graphix before projecting a 25% increase in prices, in a year. PE is not on its way back and furthermore pays out over long periods of time; M&A may seem some life but it's def not go-go years and as for the hedgies, well, they don't live in NY state. what's next? no-doc option ARMs will be back in vogue? Oh wait, no, the Euro-zombies are coming back to save the day.....
Posted by anonymous
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 03:52 PM
Even though hedge funds did much better, a huge number of funds are still below the high water mark, which means no incentive fees.
Posted by jeff
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 05:49 PM
xyz 2010 - I really hope your right about the outlook for 2010. I see strategic M&A coming back and maybe some distressed PE, but nothing like the go go years. Sorry to say, but hedge funds mostly were late to the turn in the market and many fought it all the way up. The Barclays Hedge Fund Index is up 21.5% y-to-y through November. Only convertible Arb funds did better than 40% on average. In general that's nowhere near good enough to overcome the drawdowns of 2008 and allow for incentive fees to be earned. There is a renewed focus in the industry on tying in compensation to long-term performance, by forcing re-investment of incentive comp back into the funds. That's the least that can be expected after all the gating of withdrawals done in 2008....it cuts both ways. So my guess is bonus #s will not be as important as cash $ dispersed and we will have to rethink this indicator for NYC real estate.
Posted by drtomaso
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 06:01 PM
No one, unless you are buying with cash, can afford to be levered long a depreciating asset. So what if RE falls another 3%? Levered against a 20% down payment, that's a negative ROI of 15%. There goes Johnny's college education! Add to that the fact that most people I know aren't putting down 20%, but more like 10-15.
As for the money shopping on 5th Ave? That money will return to Italy/Germany when the vacation is over. The certainly wont be buying RE if there's a chance the dollar might strengthen.
Posted by drtomaso
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 06:13 PM
I know people like Manhattan. We can debate what the demand picture is going to look like til we are all blue in the face. But what of the artificial limitations on demand?
One thing that we do know is that rates will be going up- that's higher monthlies and further downward pressure on prices, especially on the lower end which we can assume are purchased by people earning a salary using a mortgage. That 900k 2 bed might be around for a while. Especially when you consider that 900k buys you an awful lot of house out in the burbs, with no condo charges.
What about tax abatements? These are moving into their ramp-up phase or at least getting closer to it, and I highly doubt new programs will be coming on line in a cash-strapped metropolis such as oh, every single one in the US. That also means higher monthlies and downward pressure on prices.
What about maintenance charges? As our "new" inventory becomes "old", requiring repairs, and condo boards find distressed residents defaulting, these are going to go up. That also means higher monthlies and downward pressure on prices.
In short, lacking wage growth, these higher costs push prices down.
Posted by shopboy
Wed Dec 30th, 2009 09:19 PM
hey xyz2010 - high-end stores might have traffic but the successful ones are down approx. 30% from 2008 - do you look at street easy? pick any building and see how many apartments stay listed, are unlisted, relisted and still don't sell...
Posted by Foreclosure Listings
Thu Dec 31st, 2009 07:05 PM
Great post....
Thanks for the post....
Posted by anonymous
Thu Dec 31st, 2009 07:43 PM
No one knows. A year ago people thought this city fell off a cliff and the rate by which things have changed for the better is astonishing to all of us. I don't think xyz 2010 is right about end of 2010 but I do think we'll see prices inch up slowly and then bubble up again by 2012. I don't think it's going to be a big bubble, but it's just not going down again. When I look on Trulia not specific to nyc - but in the metropolitan area in GENERAL I see alot of price increases. I do double takes but there are plenty of small increases. In Manhattan the price cuts have gotten to be fewer and far between. I do think a year ago you could have gotten a decent 2 bed 2 bath for 900k with all the media crazyness putting pressure maybe on a seller who was laid off. As for Europeans visiting, there are tons visiting and there are certainly plenty shopping for real estate. You'd be surprised how many pied a tierre shoppers there are. I think what's important is when people say I don't know anybody - not to discount your reality but others realities might be different and you can't discount theirs either. My friends quite frankly in finance got great bonuses, some of them complained they weren't so great but from my perspective - finance might not be acting like it's a go go situation but I think the reality is much different, it's maybe hidden, but there's a lot of money out there just because maybe you aren't aware of it firsthand doesn't mean there isn't. Happy New Year.
Posted by Donald
Fri Jan 1st, 2010 03:03 PM
As someone who owns property in northern NJ, I would just like to chime in since many people above have made some interesting predictions about the market that I could not disagree more with. First off, nearly all of the NYC suburbs have multiple markets. The Atlantic City market is much different than the Bergen County market. The Westchester market is much different than the Rockland market in terms of incomes, home values, etc. You cannot paint all of the suburbs with one thick brush.
I personally disagree with the DB report. The report's main author, karen Weaver, does not seem to have a strong track record. For instance,a few months ago she predicted that 50% of all homeowners would be upside down. A few weeks after that report came out, Zillow reported that the number of upside down homeowners actually declined from 23% to 21%.
Posted by Donald
Fri Jan 1st, 2010 03:08 PM
I also don't think we wil see "maximum affordability" since one cannot discount all of the govt. intervention we have seen: home buyer tax credit, loan modifications, 0% interest rates, Fed/ Treasury purchases of MBS, stimulus, discount window, TARP, etc. At the end of the day, all of these have an impact and will keep the floor in housing prices higher than it normally would be.
Posted by Rodg
Sun Jan 3rd, 2010 09:34 PM
Donald,
Ms. Weaver may turn out to be right, about 50% of home owners will be underwater. If the prediction is only a few months old, it's certainly too soon to say. And if she's writing that prices still have a long way to fall, then that's consistent with the underwater prediction.
Posted by drtomaso
Sun Jan 3rd, 2010 10:53 PM
I don't disagree about the effects of the massive government intervention in residential real estate- but I've seen no talk of making these programs permanent. Thus, we must ask ourselves what happens when these programs end? What happens if they end in an increasing rate environment, as is likely to be the case by year's end?
I really want to buy- its the right time in my life for it- but I am (a) having trouble finding anything I can afford, despite my wife and I's 200k plus salary, especially when compared to renting and putting the difference in a CD, and (b) if I did so before establishing the effects of the removal of all this government stimulus, I'd be speculating, pure and simple.
If you stop looking at RE as an investment, and look at as purely a roof over your head, there's absolutely no point in paying the premium to "own" rather than "rent" unless you can pay in all cash.
Posted by Fred
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 07:01 AM
A really nice summary of Bernanke's speech yesterday with an excellent accompanying graph that illustrates the monthly PMT difference between different pre-crisis mortgage products. I never hear any brokers talking about the long run impact on NYC real estate when you go from conventional to exotic back to conventional/conservative underwriting practices.
http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2010/01/what-bernanke-didnt-say.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CalculatedRisk+%28Calculated+Risk%29
Posted by NYC
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 12:50 PM
With this phase going down with NYC real estate makes it harder for all investors to really get going for the new year.
I Suggest they should have a chapter for Real Estate investors benifets
Posted by Nick
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 01:35 PM
The idea that Manhattan prices can hold steady or even go up, while close by suburbs drop significantly seems questionable to me. I think the young families that have been staying in Manhattan in recent years, may start moving to the suburbs in greater numbers (like in the past). This demographic seems to be very concerned about crime. Rising homelessness and 9% unemployment for 2010 (and beyond?) are not going to help.
Posted by Donald
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 02:21 PM
Your right Nick. I don't really see how a city could stay flat or go up while the immediate suburbs plummets 30%. It would not seem logical since people are constantly moving between the burbs and the city, so over time, you have the same buyer pool. When somone is sinlge, they will be looking for a 1 bedroom in Manhattan. But when they are married with 2 kids, they are more likely to be looking in the burbs.
Posted by JanG
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 05:08 PM
The buyer pool for NYC & the suburbs is ABSOLUTELY different. Europeans, students, people who move to the area for work - plenty more target Manhattan with no interest in the suburbs. The population is increasing, not decreasing. When jobs do come back, they will come back to NYC and so will the people, that's the cycle. People retiring in the suburbs often look at cities as an option and many people in the suburbs that were priced out are looking to come in to the city as well. The suburbs and the city inflow and outflow are not directly correlated at all and so the suburbs going down does not mean much to nyc. When NYC goes up and people are priced out again then you'll see the suburbs pricing go up because it will push people out there. The city will go up when there's a real recovery period.
Posted by JanG
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 05:09 PM
The buyer pool for NYC & the suburbs is ABSOLUTELY different. Europeans, students, people who move to the area for work - plenty more target Manhattan with no interest in the suburbs. The population is increasing, not decreasing. When jobs do come back, they will come back to NYC and so will the people, that's the cycle. People retiring in the suburbs often look at cities as an option and many people in the suburbs that were priced out are looking to come in to the city as well. The suburbs and the city inflow and outflow are not directly correlated at all and so the suburbs going down does not mean much to nyc. When NYC goes up and people are priced out again then you'll see the suburbs pricing go up because it will push people out there. The city will go up when there's a real recovery period.
Posted by Migrations
Mon Jan 4th, 2010 10:05 PM
More pointedly, the city's population has grown ONLY because of in-migration from out-of-country people; this constant influx is the only thing that (marginally) makes up for the yearly & growing exodus of NYC residents to the burbs and points beyond.
There is a constant, massive stream of people leaving the city (presumably for the suburbs) and, depending on jobs & real estate values, this exodus may increase.
Conversely, the make-up inflow of new residents, largely from overseas, which keeps NYC freshly stocked, is governed more by global political factors, US immigration policy, freedom of movement, and off-book economic factors than property conditions in the suburban market.
Airport & border security policy and increased joblessness are two of many conditions that suggest (baring calamity in the originating country) decreases in foreign immigration (US history is patterned with the active curtailing of immigration during recessions), something that could be a leading indicator of NYC population decrease & consequent impacts on the RE market.
Posted by Nick
Tue Jan 5th, 2010 10:02 AM
I wish people would not refer to the Manhattan housing market as "NYC".
>>Europeans, students, people who move to the area for work
The number of students buying properties in Manhattan has to be in the dozens, at most. Are we still going to talk about the old canard of Europeans propping up the Manhattan market after the drop in values proved it untrue?
>>people in the suburbs that were priced out are looking to come in to the city as well
So the suburbs and Manhattan are uncorrelated, but people will somehow be priced out of the suburbs (which are dropping in price faster than Manhattan) and move to more expensive Manhattan?
I don't take issue with your claim that there are a lot of people with no interest in the suburbs, Europeans, etc. However, I grew up in Manhattan and I know that the MAJORITY of the people are in fact local. Will the new arrivals support the market? That was the claim in 2007/2008 and it proved not to be true. What is different now?
Posted by Nick
Tue Jan 5th, 2010 10:17 AM
>>>>people in the suburbs that were priced out are looking to come in to the city as well
I re-read your post and realized that you must have meant people who were priced out of Manhattan and thus moved to the burbs will now return to Manhattan. I find it unlikely that this represents a significant number of people. When you talk suburbs, you mean families. I don't see a lot of parents uprooting their families to relocate to a small apartment in Manhattan and then pay for private schools. The market has not dropped enough to justify this. Brooklyn maybe. Plus, this ignores the difficulty (and financial loss!) they will have when they try to sell their suburban houses.
Basic math: suburban prices are dropping faster than Manhattan prices. If I bought in the suburbs, I will probably take a loss when I sell. How will I then use that money to move to a more expensive Manhattan?
Posted by In Debt We Trust
Tue Jan 5th, 2010 07:55 PM
Thanks for the CS futures product. My full service guy never heard of them and had to make a few calls. Looks like it's a product I'll avoid.
Posted by Donald
Tue Jan 5th, 2010 10:56 PM
"People retiring in the suburbs often look at cities as an option and many people in the suburbs that were priced out are looking to come in to the city as well."
As someone with first hand knowledge of the suburbs, I can assure you that there are MANY people who buy in the burbs and can just as easily afford to buy in Manhattan. Don't think for a second that living in the burbs is a secnd choice for people. If someone can afford a $1.4 million McMansion with $18k in taxes, they can just as easily spend that same amount on an apt. in Manhattan.
No offense to this forum, but it seems that many people here have a superiority complex and think that the city is better than the burbs and anyone who lives in the burbs merely does so because they are priced out of Manhattan. This is completely untrue. For a lot of people, space, privacy, and good schools are more important than convenience. Hence why they don't buy in Manhattan.
Posted by Donald
Tue Jan 5th, 2010 10:58 PM
"suburban prices are dropping faster than Manhattan prices."
Not necessaruly. The burbs started falling 2 years before Manhattan, so they have pretty much bottomed out while Manhattan is still falling. The Fed Beige book has even pointed this out by stating the burbs have stablized while the city contibnues to soften.
Posted by rootless cosmopolitan
Wed Jan 6th, 2010 10:48 AM
Jeff,
I just want to point out that the Case-Shiller index in a month doesn't measure the home prices in this month. The index is the moving average of home prices from three months. Thus, one can't conclude that the prices have moved up (or down) compared to the previous months using this index, even if the index has moved up (or down). The housing rally may have already ended, despite the increase in the Case-Shiller index.
rc
Posted by Noah
Sun Jan 17th, 2010 10:43 AM
rootless cosm - Ill add that CASE SHILLER needs to wait for closings to become public record and there is a 1-5 month lag on that as well. Which is why, I believe, the CS index is also revised until that lag is completed!
Posted by Condos
Wed Jan 27th, 2010 04:36 AM
Another factor in the decision to buy a home might seem like a matter of semantics. Are you looking for a home or a house? A home is a place that you could stay in for the rest of your live.