Seattle Bubble

News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Seattle Bubble - News & discussion about real estate & the housing bubble in the Seattle area.

Entries Tagged as 'dead horse'

Recent Spike in “Pending” Sales Due to Change in Definition?

By The Tim on May 11th, 2009 at 8:07 AM · 170 Comments

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I feel we must revisit the “pending” issue once more. This time, we’ll take it from the top.

Prior to June of last year, a “pending” sale in the NWMLS system was defined as a sale in which an offer had been accepted, inspection and/or feasibility studies had been passed, and the parties were proceeding down the path to a near-certain closed sale. This is likely why on average, only around 5% of “pending” sales did not convert to “closed” status after 30 days from 2000 through 2007.

In late June of last year, the definition of “pending” changed. The biggest change was that homes that were previously considered “active” and “subject to inspection” were now part of a new category: “pending inspection.” Two other categories of “pending” status were added as well.

As recently as February of this year, I had received assurances that this change in pending statuses was not affecting the end-of-month statistics being reported by the NWMLS. We specifically asked their “statistician,” who assured us that the definition of “pending” used to calculate the end-of-month statistics had remained constant.

However, last week reader “One Eyed Man” reported receiving the following in an email from the NWMLS Director of Business Development and Member Relations (emphasis mine):

Our pending stats are based on the pending date received, so we count only the listings that went to pending during the month. In addition, all pending statuses count as pending. When a listing moves from pending inspection to pending, we do not count it again.

Since he stated that “all pending statuses count as pending,” it would seem that they are now counting “pending inspection” as “pending” in their end-of-month reports.

This is important for two reasons. First, we know for a fact that until at least July’s data, any year-over-year “pending sales” data is now useless. Second, if the change was made sometime between February and April, it could even be creating an illusory “spring bounce” (clearly visible in comparing the first two charts here), giving the pending sales data an extra bump that is not necessarily the result of additional buyer activity. That would also make the year-over-year stats useless until March or April.

Until we receive some straight answers from the NWMLS as to when exactly they changed how they report end-of-month pending sales, I don’t believe we can rely on any year-over-year comparisons of this metric. Please keep this in mind over the next year or so when we look at pending sales.

[Update]
According to a June 2008 message from the NWMLS quoted below by commenter JJL (a Realtor), the information I received in February via the NWMLS statistician was apparently completely false, and the new pending categories have been counted in the end-of-month reports since July last year. At least that answers one question. Unfortunately, we still have no way of knowing how many “pending inspection” listings tend to revert to “active,” or whether the percentage of the total pending sales that are “pending inspection” is increasing in recent months compared to the winter.

→ 170 CommentsCategories: Statistics
Tags: , , ,

Beating a Dead Horse: Gas Prices

By The Tim on July 7th, 2008 at 11:31 AM · 62 Comments

I realized we have beat the subject to death with a pair of posts and this week’s poll, but I had to at least point out a Rhodes piece in today’s Seattle Times on the issue of gas prices and home buying patterns: Will gas prices drive homebuyers away from suburbs?

The article starts off with an anecdote about a couple of people that currently rent a condo in Kirkland, but allegedly decided due to high gas prices to buy a townhouse in Seattle (presumably around Capitol Hill Update: see below). Unless they’re seriously downgrading the size of their living space, I don’t see how that could possibly pencil out to spending less overall.

A Portland economist predicts that buyers soon will choose where to live based on what they would spend for gasoline.

That, eventually, will devalue suburban housing while strengthening in-city home prices, says Joe Cortright, whose Portland consulting firm, Impresa, recently released a report saying as much to U.S. mayors.

“The new calculus of higher gas prices may have permanently reshaped urban housing markets,” said Cortright, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit Washington, D.C., think tank. “What this really means is that as people move, they’re going to look for places that enable them to drive shorter distances and avoid places where they have to drive a lot.

“I expect this to be a subtle process. I don’t expect everyone to put their suburban houses on the market all at the same time.”

I agree that driving less is an important factor, but I still don’t see how it makes sense financially when you factor in the more expensive home prices “closer in.”

Cortright says he’s starting to see proof of change in cities nationwide — from Los Angeles to Pittsburgh, from Tampa to Seattle.

“Statistically, home prices are down more in the most distant suburbs and still relatively strong in the closer-in neighborhoods,” he says. “The closer you are to downtown Seattle, the stronger the single-family residential market is.”

“The thing we heard was, ‘Drive until you qualify’ [for a mortgage] because real estate is less expensive the further out you go,” Cortright says. “So if people would put up with a longer commute, they’d have the opportunity to be able to afford a place.”

Just so I can get this straight, the argument appears to be:

  1. People bought in the suburbs because it was cheaper than closer to the city.
  2. With high gas prices, that discount is eliminated.
  3. This will drive people away from the suburbs toward the cities.
  4. Therefore, home prices will fall more in the further out suburbs and less in the close-in neighborhoods.

Am I the only one that sees a problem with this logic? Wouldn’t the end result still be that buying in the suburbs would be more affordable than buying close to the city? I still don’t see a convincing argument that gas prices alone will significantly change people’s home-buying habits.

One last time, for the record: I’m not saying that there aren’t a lot of convincing reasons to want to live “close-in.” I’m also not making some sort of general statement about the overall economics of living further out. Articles such as these are making the claim that gas prices alone will drive people into more expensive in-city real estate. I’m simply saying “prove it.”

(Elizabeth Rhodes, Seattle Times, 07.07.2008)

Update: My bad, I didn’t pay enough attention to the very end of the article where it placed the anecdote buyers in the Roosevelt neighborhood.  I just caught that they were moving “as close to their jobs as possible” and that one of them works at Seattle Central Community College on Capitol Hill.  Not that it makes that much difference in home price.

→ 62 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , , , ,

Foreclosures, FHA, Commercial, & Countrywide

By The Tim on June 27th, 2008 at 10:08 AM · 51 Comments

Here are a few recent stories that have been covered elsewhere and are worth at least mentioning here.

Latest foreclosure statistics: Seattle P-I, Foreclosures in Seattle higher, but much lower than nation’s

The Seattle area had about twice as many foreclosures in May as it did a year earlier but continued to have a far lower foreclosure rate than the country as a whole, according to new reports.

King and Snohomish counties had a combined 881 trustee-sale notices and bank repossessions in May, one for every 1,219 households, according to RealtyTrac, an Irvine, Calif., company that tracks foreclosures. The area’s rate put it 148th out of 229 metro areas the company ranks.

FHA tries to ride in to the rescue housing bubble (they’re a little late for that). Coverage:

The much-vaunted commercial real estate market is apparently showing signs of weakness as well: Seattle Times, Commercial real estate brokers worry about Seattle buildings

After climbing for years, are office lease rates in downtown Seattle getting ready to turn south?

Some commercial real-estate professionals think so.

More than 2 million square feet of new office space — the equivalent of 1 ½ Columbia Centers — will come on the market in greater downtown next year. Almost none of it is pre-leased.

And lastly, Christine Gregoire is taking her turn beating the dead horse that is Countrywide. Where was she when they were busily pumping the housing bubble up with all of these ridiculous loans? Not running for re-election, that’s where. Coverage:

Did I miss any recent stories that should have been included?

(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 06.13.2008)
(Elizabeth Rhodes, Seattle Times, 06.13.2008)
(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 06.16.2008)
(Eric Pryne, Seattle Times, 06.26.2008)
(Phuong Cat Le, Consumer Smarts (P-I Blog), 06.25.2008)
(Phuong Cat Le, Seattle P-I, 06.26.2008)
(Susan Kelleher, Seattle Times, 06.26.2008)
(Jillayne Schlicke, Rain City Guide, 06.25.2008)

→ 51 CommentsCategories: News
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Those Darn Fundamentals

By The Tim on February 23rd, 2008 at 11:42 AM · 117 Comments

This is a little redundant, but that’s why I’m posting it on a Saturday. It’s just a slightly different take on the economic fundamentals that allegedly drive the local housing market. Much of this data comes from the recently-released 2007 King County Annual Growth Report. You can get all these charts and the data behind them in this spreadsheet.

Here’s a chart of local economic fundamentals from 2000 through 2006:

King County Fundamentals: 2000-2006
Click to enlarge

And here—on the same scale—are some measures of the local housing market for the same time period:

King County Housing Market: 2000-2006
Click to enlarge

Here are the fundamentals and the housing market measures all on the same chart.

King County Fundamentals vs. Housing: 2000-2006
Click to enlarge

I realize that posts like this are seen by some as beating a dead horse. The sad thing is that there are still people that believe that home prices are somehow supported by these fundamentals. I wonder if someone that believes this could be bothered to bring out the data that supports such a position.

(King County, 2007 Annual Growth Report, 2007)

→ 117 CommentsCategories: Statistics
Tags: , ,

If the MLS is an advertisement…

By The Tim on January 22nd, 2007 at 3:47 PM · 23 Comments

At the risk of beating a dead horse, I’d like to continue Friday’s conversation about the re-listed house on Avondale.

Thanks to yet another reply by Ms. Reed as well as a series of replies from Ardell, it has finally gotten through my thick skull that “cancel and relist” is different from “let expire and relist.” Ms. Reed is guilty only of the latter, which is technically not a violation of NWMLS rules.

Although I now understand the difference, it seems to me like a trivial distinction. Ardell claims that a seller’s agent that uses a short listing agreement in order to be able to re-list an unsold property “takes the risk of being replaced as the seller’s agent by having short contracts.” However, it seems to me that once the benefits of re-listing (falsely appearing to be a “fresh” listing) are explained to the seller, they would be more than happy to keep the agent on board, knowing that this is an agent that is willing to pull whatever kind of tricks are necessary to sell their house.

In fact, Ardell had an awful lot to say on the matter. Here are a few quotes that I found most interesting:

The general public’s perception [of the MLS], the one most focused on here…is really the least of our concerns.I am sorry that no one wants to understand that the mls system is not meant for the public to use as a means for purchasing property without an agent.

The public’s view [of the MLS] is an “advertisement” for the most part, and not a “sharing of the agent tool”. … It is just a small view of the big picture and one to give the public an “idea” of what is out there…not the whole story.

If the publicly-accessible portion of the MLS is an “advertisement,” shouldn’t it be held to truth in advertising standards? When a property appears as “new on market” despite having languished non-stop on the market for months upon months, how is that not a deceptive practice? To simply brush off such concerns by saying that the MLS is “not meant for the public” seems a bit cavalier to me.

Ms. Reed’s tactic, which Ardell describes as both something that “we [agents] hate” and “an excellent job” appears to have paid off. As Ardell pointed out, the listing has gone to “subject to inspection,” presumably meaning a twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollar payday is in the beleaguered Ms. Reed’s near future. When the transaction shows up in the public records, I’ll post the last update on this house.

→ 23 CommentsCategories: Uncategorized
Tags: , ,