Old Media Again Claim Declining New-Home Prices by Ignoring Changes in Regional Mix

Photo of Tom Blumer.

Yesterday, Brent Baker at NewsBusters caught the Old Media emphasis on the decline in existing-home unit sales, even though the median existing-home price went up. CBS and Katie Couric apparently invoked the Great Depression in their existing-home sales commentary (I think any number of those 90 and older could say: "I knew the Depression, and Katie, this is no Depression.").

Today we have the Commerce report (PDF) that new-home sales volume is down, AND the media crowing (unfortunately fed by the lack of Commerce Dept. detail) that the nationwide median new-home selling price is down:

The median price of a new home sold last month dropped to $237,900, down by 2.2 percent from a year ago. It was the biggest year-over-year price drop since a 6.5 percent fall in April. The median price is the point where half the homes sold for more and half for less.

But at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I'm forced to make the same point I made a couple of months ago in more detail -- by the time you consider changes in the regional mix in home sales, you're left with an overall new-home market where regional prices are holding steady or perhaps even slightly increasing -- and definitely NOT in decline.

A quick look at the following figures will illustrate the point:

Story Continues Below Ad ↓
NewHomeSalesFigures0607vPriors

The drop-dead obvious point to anyone looking at these figures for more than 30 seconds is that the regional mix of new-homes sales is weighted more heavily in the less-expensive South and Midwest regions. Of course the national median selling price will go down if prices are steady (or even slightly increasing) and you mix 5% or 6% more homes from cheaper regions, supplanting 5% or 6% from the more expensive ones.

People who are doing business reporting for a living are making the same lazy mistake month after month in reporting housing-market conditions. It's getting very tiresome. Reasonable people have to wonder if there's no further looking into the details simply because the topside result fits the "GOP is in the White House, the economy must be bad" template.

UPDATE: Quarterly data by region obtained from the Census Bureau prove the point:

RegionalNHsalesMediansByQuarter

Year-over-year new-home median sales prices are higher in three out of four regions (WAY higher in the West and Northeast), as are Q107's medians compared to Q406's. Yet the nationwide median is only up a few percentage points, primarly because of the lower-cost South’s increasing percentage of total sales volume.

Case closed.

Slightly revised from original post at BizzyBlog.com.

 

—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Oh, that's much too much

Oh, that's much too much math.

But wanna bet they re-discover the concept of a weighted average in the next Democrat administration?

Let me get this straight...

So, the media reported numbers that were clearly reported in a government report, but what they should have done was work a bit harder and combine data from different time periods taken from multiple reports in order to try to put a more positive spin on things? I am having trouble accepting this implication.

The report

In a word, YES, that IS what I expect -- not for "spin" reasons, but for "reality-based" reasons.
It all depends on whether your interest is to portray the situation accurately or not. If you know that the raw data isn't good enough (and they should know that), you work with it to get it right. If I were covering business FULLTIME, as they are, I would have a little model at the ready to plug in Commerce's regional data on unit sales with the latest data on regional prices from elsewhere. 
Like I said, it's laziness that's distorting reality. The reality, as you see above is that home prices are NOT falling in three of four regions. Yet the reporting is the opposite. 
THEN (here's the "agenda" part as it's all just soooo convenient), the reporting inevitably builds on the false premise, as the linked article does, to talk about the problems the (misreported) price weakness are supposedly bringing to the economy:
++++++++++++


...... The weakness reflects spreading troubles in the mortgage market as more borrowers are defaulting on their loans, dumping those homes back on an already glutted market. In addition, banks and other lenders are tightening their standards, making it harder for prospective buyers to qualify for loans.

 

...... Economists believe the weakness in housing could linger through the rest of this year until a huge overhang of unsold homes is worked down.


++++++++++++
There IS weakness in home sales, but NOT in home prices, DESPITE the mortgage-loan troubles and the tightening standards.
Yes, Commerce should do better and get regional sales-price data into its monthly report. But the business press should be doing whatever it takes to adequately inform the reader. "Math is hard" isn't much of an excuse on the business beat.

Read the methodology and

Read the methodology and follow it to the letter. That's how the data is arrived that. That's also the only way to make data useful - historic data must follow the same methodology in order for comparsion to be valid.

On the other hand I am curious if you have a significant long position in homebuilders because you certainly sound like the cheerleaders of dotcom bubble and Enron. 

No

Re: Positions -- No. I don't even want to try to figure out how the builders' stocks are going to perform. 
I don't "get" your "cheerleaders" sentence. The dotcom bubble was 75%-plus haircut in the NASDAQ real bubble; the housing "bubble," as shown above, has yet to appear.

Many have tried, but what

Many have tried, but what nobody has explained to me is why the Implode-O-Meter (a real estate bubble caused by a monetary policy of too-easy credit) is all that different from the Clinton-era "Tech Bubble" (which also reflected unwise monetary policy). Both seem like the same kind of problem being ignored until it's a crisis. In this case -- as with the tech bubble -- we'll also no-doubt see the regulators saying they need even more of my tax money, despite all the tax money they've been wasting hysterically for years by now...
JMR

Easy Answer

Because the tech bubble was based entirely on speculation, wheras the housing market is based upon tangible assets.

Sheesh--that was easy!

Easy but wrong, IMO. Plenty

Easy but wrong, IMO. Plenty in tech (see shares of Google, for but one example) is entirely real and plenty of value was created even back then, albeit often at repellant-to-me P/E levels. Failures like drkoop.com and space.com were predictable -- they didn't DO anything special. Google started-out doing something others were already doing, but did it right, and that was special. Then they did other things right, again running circles around more-experienced competition. Now they're a financial & political powerhouse. And just as the tech era wasn't "entirely" speculation, neither is this one. Many mortgage lenders have yet to fail (the Implode-O-Meter is likely to stay interesting for a few months...) but a few well run ones are likely to emerge as survivors. The key for me as a taxpayer is to desperately-try to keep big government from tax-financing the stupidity of either: 1. Business executives who made poor decisions, or 2. Home buyers who made poor decisions. For once the consequences of mass stupidity need NOT to be tax consequences for taxpayers like me.
JMR

sarc - Google and others

sarc - Google and others were winners after the dust settled. I was in the middle of that brief period and it was the wild west. There was an enormous amount of highly seculative investment going around for dot.coms that clearly had no sustainable value. I was associated with three. One was a career site that aped the many others and had no point of difference. Another was a site about the club scene that Morgan Stanley invested $10 million at a time when their revenue was $1700 a month. The final one was in development when the dot.com bubble burst. Whenever you have a new industry segment there is always going to be enormous speculation before there is a standard of investment/performance. For some reason dot.coms got out of control. It was all paper and was an economic house of cards that superficiouly elevated our economy - but then suddenly crashed.

 

 

So was/am I

So was/am I (only one company here, quite a success considering how much less loot we got than PayPal, but recently attacked by a hysterical and political "Justice" dept. with your tax dollars). but my point is the "some reason" was the same reason as we're now having the current implosion. I've been watching this bubble and the tech bubble all along, and I was predicting various failures like drkoop.com before they happened. Too much liquidity due to poor monetary policy in both cases. People aren't used to me questioning monetary policy, but it's being done wrong, so I question it, and the history of monetary policy being done-wrong extends back beyond the current fiscally-irresponsible Presidential administration to previous fiscally-irresponsible Presidential administrations.
JMR

Hello Sarc, I am following

Hello Sarc, I am following your bad fiscal policy link here. I don't see where the current administration has a bad monetary policy that is effecting real estate, do you? It seems there is alot more screeching liberal press than there is a real estate bubble to burst, it is too tangible, unlike the dot.coms.

I see poor monetary policy

I see poor monetary policy in too much liquidity being forced into the market, which led to weird loans in an overheated real estate market to less than great borrowers. To the extent (a secret...) that politicians have effects on the Federal Reserve, that's bad monetary policy which will naturally lead to more inflation. The truth is, we need to return to the limits on money in the constitution, but nobody wants the party to stop. And while I agree that real estate at least has something tangible besides Aeron chairs when it hits the fan, the problems in both cases stemmed from similar too-much-liquidity policy failures of the Federal Reserve. Inflationary policy is like heroin addiction for politicians, and once they start it they find it very hard to quit.
JMR

It's the Federal Reserve Bogeyman!

The reason why you see bad Federal Reserve monetary policy behind all economic woes is because you have the same irrational fear of the "unconstitutional" Federal Reserve System and its "fiat money" as a child who fears The Bogeyman.

Real Estate prices

Real Estate prices historically appreciate to match inflation. If inflation is 1% then RE appreciates at about 1%. So we either have enormous inflation or we have a bubble. Pick your poison.

Actually, there are

Actually, there are exceptions to this theory that new home values are increasing. A couple of days ago I dud a sales analysis for one of our local markets, in this case a smaller city, and found that new-construction ranches were actually selling for some $20,000 less than their 30 year old counterparts. Go figure!

Eyes/stomach

The old sayings, "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach" and "The chickens are coming home to roost" certinly apply here in the real estate market.

NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal