I had forecast a 0.1% M2M and 5.9% Y2Y figure based on my my inventory-driven model in this post
If pressed, I'd say the M2M will probably be slightly lower than what the model shows (e.g. negative due to financing issues) but the Y2Y should still be w/in +/- 0.2% of that number.
I had forecast a 0.1% M2M and 5.9% Y2Y figure based on my my inventory-driven model in this post
If pressed, I'd say the M2M will probably be slightly lower than what the model shows (e.g. negative due to financing issues) but the Y2Y should still be w/in +/- 0.2% of that number.
well, not too far off -
Y2Y = 5.7% (vs. 5.9% from model)
M2M = -0.1% (vs. +0.1% from model)
This approach seems to be holding up pretty well, with the results slightly lower than forecast due, I think, to financing difficulties.
You made a prediction of YOY changes based on a regression several months before that prediction. Do you know where that is and how well its accuracy is holding up?
That first attempt proved to be overly pessimistic, but later I added seasonality factor to it, which improved the fit. that's the model I was referring to in this blog post.
For that model I used a weight based on the average monthly absorption rate for the seasonality effect (so the model can be forward looking), and what us happening is that the real absorption rate has gotten so low that it's causing the model to come out high. If I manually plug in the weight based on the actual absorption rate for each month, it comes out just about right.
when I have some time I will revisit the approach.
"Science: We finally figured out that you could separate fact from superstition by a completely radical method: observation. You can try things, measure them, and see how they work! Bitches."
On a year-over-year basis, prices were up in five cities, led by Seattle and Charlotte, N.C., with 4.7% increases. After adjusting for inflation of 3.7% in the past year, real prices were up in just two of 20 cities.
Here are the year-over-year nominal price changes for the 20 cities covered by the index:
Tampa, down 11.1%; Miami, down 10%; Detroit, down 9.6%: San Diego, down 9.6%; Las Vegas, down 9%; Phoenix, Ariz., down 8.8%; Los Angeles, down 7%; Washington, D.C., down 6.6%; San Francisco, down 4.6%; Minneapolis, down 4.5%; Cleveland, down 4%; New York, down 3.6%; Boston, down 3.2%; Chicago, down 2.5%; Denver, Colo., down 0.9%; Dallas, up 0.2%; Atlanta, up 0.4%; Portland, Ore., up 2.2%; Charlotte, up 4.7%; and Seattle, up 4.7%.
Comments
I had forecast a 0.1% M2M and 5.9% Y2Y figure based on my my inventory-driven model in this post
If pressed, I'd say the M2M will probably be slightly lower than what the model shows (e.g. negative due to financing issues) but the Y2Y should still be w/in +/- 0.2% of that number.
well, not too far off -
Y2Y = 5.7% (vs. 5.9% from model)
M2M = -0.1% (vs. +0.1% from model)
This approach seems to be holding up pretty well, with the results slightly lower than forecast due, I think, to financing difficulties.
And in closing, I would like to add
http://seattlebubble.com/forum/viewtopi ... se+shiller
That first attempt proved to be overly pessimistic, but later I added seasonality factor to it, which improved the fit. that's the model I was referring to in this blog post.
For that model I used a weight based on the average monthly absorption rate for the seasonality effect (so the model can be forward looking), and what us happening is that the real absorption rate has gotten so low that it's causing the model to come out high. If I manually plug in the weight based on the actual absorption rate for each month, it comes out just about right.
when I have some time I will revisit the approach.
Wow! I never thought I'd see reference to Planck's law in a real estate blog.
http://xkcd.com/store/
"Science: We finally figured out that you could separate fact from superstition by a completely radical method: observation. You can try things, measure them, and see how they work! Bitches."
My prognostication...
Y2Y = 4.8% (vs. 5.7% last month)
M2M = -0.1%
I think we are still getting to the period where the impact of growing inventory is going to be felt. Give it a couple months.
On a year-over-year basis, prices were up in five cities, led by Seattle and Charlotte, N.C., with 4.7% increases. After adjusting for inflation of 3.7% in the past year, real prices were up in just two of 20 cities.
Here are the year-over-year nominal price changes for the 20 cities covered by the index:
Tampa, down 11.1%; Miami, down 10%; Detroit, down 9.6%: San Diego, down 9.6%; Las Vegas, down 9%; Phoenix, Ariz., down 8.8%; Los Angeles, down 7%; Washington, D.C., down 6.6%; San Francisco, down 4.6%; Minneapolis, down 4.5%; Cleveland, down 4%; New York, down 3.6%; Boston, down 3.2%; Chicago, down 2.5%; Denver, Colo., down 0.9%; Dallas, up 0.2%; Atlanta, up 0.4%; Portland, Ore., up 2.2%; Charlotte, up 4.7%; and Seattle, up 4.7%.
According to the crackpots at the United States Conference of Mayors, who commissioned this spankin' fresh report (see page 15 for our glorious demise) from Global Insight:
http://usmayors.org/uscm/news/press_releases/documents/mortgagereport_112707.pdf
h/t Kett82 over at Calculated Risk.
off by a tenth of a point. 4.7% and -0.2%