Jan 2008 real estate data -- Fairfax County prices down 13% since last year (sale, foreclosures)

[ACWhite]

Originally Posted by vanyali

I like tire swings.

Yeah, but raking up those huge sycamore leaves is a royal pain!

[ACWhite]

Originally Posted by saganista

The data may not mean what you think they mean. First of all, they are of no general relevance to real estate values at all. They describe only the unique population of homes that was both offered for sale and purchased during the month. Data for Jan 2008 would be comparable to those for Jan 2007 only to the extent that the mix of homes that was offered for sale and purchased in the earlier month was at most only slightly different from that of a year later. The credit crunch of course has caused some quite significant distortions in such mixes. For instance, the median price of new SFH's sold in Fairfax County has been rising steadily, recently approaching $1 million. That's not necessarily because values are going up. It's rather that the credit crunch has only barely touched either buyers or sellers in the 7-figure range, so that portion of the market has been relatively unchanged. But a sizable chunk of the 6-figure new SFH market is encountering problems in meeting tightened credit requirements, and as the result, sellers are not building and offering into that segment of the market. What would you expect to see then in the numbers? An increasing median on rather sharply declining volume...exactly the trends that are observed. Another bit of information that would be useful to have is some sort of idea of the nature of the market in Jan 2007. Was it at or near a peak, whereby an decrease might have been due, or was it at or near a trough, where an increase might have been expected. How did the 2007-over-2006 and 2006-over-2005 trends look in comparison to those of 2008-over-2007? The bottom line is that year-over-year median sales prices don't necessarly say anything clear or distinct about trends in generalized values. It's also well to remember that home sales are a function of both the real estate market and the credit market. It might well be that the real estate market itself in Fairfax County, and in the area generally, is very little changed of late, but that problems in the credit market are influencing the number of transactions rather severely, and that this is actually the dominant factor to be noted in explaining the data that are observed.

(1) Some of your hypotheses seem reasonable--it would be interesting to see a breakdown by price category to test them. I believe the Northern VA Realtors' site reports these #s.
(2) The large number of units sold (more than 500) likely mitigates many of the factors that you mentioned. If only a handful sold, the mix would be a more powerful potential factor.
(3) The higher end houses have been affected somewhat, because jumbo loans are much less available and more expensive these days. Many million $ homes require jumbo loans.
(4) Didn't the OP note a *declining* median, not an increasing median?
(5) These results may mask a trend somewhat opposing to the ones you described--the unrealistic seller. I have noticed a number of houses (near $1MM and over) on homesdatabase.com that have been on the market for months with unchanging prices. Either the sellers don't have to sell but don't mind keeping the house on the market a long time or they need to sell but simply can't accept that prices are going down, or feel they can't afford to "give their house away." Since these houses have not yet sold for their true current market value, if they eventually drop and sell, it may be the market numbers do not yet reflect the real declines in this time.

[vanyali]

Originally Posted by ACWhite

Yeah, but raking up those huge sycamore leaves is a royal pain!

Try a willow oak. Not only are the leaves completely unrakeable, but they always get into your gutters (no matter how "high tech" you think your gutters are) and form nearly water-tight mats.

[mojo_1979]

Originally Posted by claude henry smoot

Good luck mojo… debating this topic with certain posters is like debating with the NAR/David Lereah. I recently engaged in a similar debate regarding the relationship between median incomes and housing prices. I argued that median incomes and housing prices were horribly disconnected, and that would lead to continued falling prices. The thread quickly degenerated into nitpicking and was essentially saturated with spin, which left me so dizzy I had to lie down for several hours and eventually seek the care of an ENT. That being said, in the weeks since that thread ended, I have seen dozens of articles in the media citing the historical and relevant relationship between median incomes and housing prices. Apparently I was not as misguided as some on this board had implied.

So reading this thread – flashbacks – very dizzying indeed. But I’ve regained my composure, and I, for one, understand and agree with the general point of your post, and appreciate the research.

I understand your frustration. It wasn't that long ago when the sheeple were using the year-over-year statistics to validate their delusions that they would all soon be millionaires. They envisioned early retirement, sunny beaches, and live a life of leisure where the peasants (i.e. renters) served them cocktails and entertained them. Of course, they were entitled to this. After all, they did purchase a home.

Now that the ink on these pesky statistics has turned red, logically, they are now completely irrelevant or are somehow masking the true strength of the market.

[vanyali]

Originally Posted by mojo_1979

I understand your frustration. It wasn't that long ago when the sheeple were using the year-over-year statistics to validate their delusions that they would all soon be millionaires. They envisioned early retirement, sunny beaches, and live a life of leisure where the peasants (i.e. renters) served them cocktails and entertained them. Of course, they were entitled to this. After all, they did purchase a home.

Now that the ink on these pesky statistics has turned red, logically, they are now completely irrelevant or are somehow masking the true strength of the market.

I think all the poster said was that it was worth thinking about what's going into the statistics, that's all.

[mojo_1979]

Originally Posted by vanyali

I think all the poster said was that it was worth thinking about what's going into the statistics, that's all.

What is going into the statistics is ALL homes sold in Fairfax County. I'm not sure how that can be questioned?

[vanyali]

Originally Posted by mojo_1979

What is going into the statistics is ALL homes sold in Fairfax County. I'm not sure how that can be questioned?

Not all homes in Fairfax County were for sale.

[McScootch]

I like statisitcs. I really do... but lest look at the statistics that Mojo posted regarding home sales from 2005 to present. More specifically lets look at the month of January in thost stats.

Jan 2005 is up 25.69% of the same month in 2004

Jan 2006 is up 10.60% of the same month in 2005

Jan 2007 is up 1.39% of the same month in 2006

Jan 2008 is DOWN 13.20% of the same month in 2007


so it's simple math - add the ups and subtract the downs.

The CURRENT January Housing market is UP 24.48% from January 2004. This represents a 10% rise, roughly, in the market each year.

[vanyali]

Originally Posted by McScootch

I like statisitcs. I really do... but lest look at the statistics that Mojo posted regarding home sales from 2005 to present. More specifically lets look at the month of January in thost stats.

Jan 2005 is up 25.69% of the same month in 2004

Jan 2006 is up 10.60% of the same month in 2005

Jan 2007 is up 1.39% of the same month in 2006

Jan 2008 is DOWN 13.20% of the same month in 2007


so it's simple math - add the ups and subtract the downs.

The CURRENT January Housing market is UP 24.48% from January 2004. This represents a 10% rise, roughly, in the market each year.

Is that sales volume, dollar volume, or dollar value?

[ACWhite]

Originally Posted by vanyali

Try a willow oak. Not only are the leaves completely unrakeable, but they always get into your gutters (no matter how "high tech" you think your gutters are) and form nearly water-tight mats.

No, thank you! I'll take your word for it!