USAT Builds a False Alternative Reality in Reporting on Housing Market
2010 will be by far the worst ever in the 48 years records of new home sales have been kept, and there is little if any reason to believe things will get better soon. The news on existing home sales has hardly been better, given the price reductions sellers have had to make to move their homes. Graphics will follow shortly indicating just how bad the market for new and existing homes has been this year.
These on-the-ground realities explains why one's jaw has to almost hit the ground when reading the headline and first few paragraphs of Julie Schmit's December 23 front-pager in USA Today's Money section:
Optimism for home sales adds up
Demand for existing houses continues to rise
The housing market's climb from the depths of depression is continuing at an uneven pace, and economists say signs point to further slow improvement in 2011.
"The trend is starting to move in the right direction," says Diane Swonk, chief economist at financial services firm Mesirow Financial.
A string of new housing data is building optimism. Existing home sales in November rose 5.6% from October to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 4.68 million, the National Association of Realtors reported Wednesday. Demand has steadily improved since bottoming in July following the end of the buyers' tax credit.
New home sales data for November, out today, are also expected to show slight improvement after an October that made the third-worst showing in 47 years, says IHS Global Insight. Last week, the Commerce Department reported that housing starts rose almost 4% in November, the first uptick in new home production since August.
Let go over a few -- actually quite a few -- inconvenient facts that cause USAT's and Ms. Schmit's optimism not to "add up."
Let's start with new home sales. First, the numbers from the eight most recent months:

After making a bit of a comeback in April -- a comeback attributed to that month representing the final opportunity to take advantage of an $8,000 homebuyer's tax credit, the market has hit rock bottom, and stayed there:
- (red boxed months) The May through November sales total of 170,000, which annualizes out to less than 300,000, even though it includes most of the strongest sales months, is the lowest seven-month total on record by far. A couple of seven-month periods including the winter months of 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 scraped as low as 200,000, but that's as close as any period in the past 48 years.
- (starred item) USAT, Julie Schmit, and others in the establishment press, please take note -- November's 21,000 new homes sold is the lowest total for any month in the 48 years the Census Bureau has been publishing its monthly sales report (large PDF here). How anyone can spin the worst month in recorded history as a cause for optimism is beyond anyone even remotely attached to reality.
- (green boxed seasonally adjusted annual totals) The only reason Ms. Schmit can type mindless statements about the new-home market's "climb" is that the Census Bureau's seasonal adjustment factors enable it. That isn't to knock the attempt, but when the numbers are this low and this unprecedented, the seasonal numbers don't mean as much. Astute journalists should know this; they either clearly don't, or are desperately searching for something, positive to write, even if it's thoroughly misleading. But even then, the past seven months' seasonally adjusted annual figures represent the seven worst such numbers on record, and November's 290,000 is barely above the 289,000 average of the previous six months. This is cause for optimism?
Now let's look at annual new home sales from the past 30 years (I went back that far to show 1982, the previous lowest annual total):

This really brings out how pathetic USAT's headline and Ms. Schmit's reporting are:
- (blue box) 2009 was the worst year on record, roughly 9% below the previous worst in 1982, when the country had about 25% fewer people.
- (orange box) 2010 will be far worse than 2009, to the tune of about 15%. Again, with the most recent seven months established as the worst on record, what possible justification is there for the "optimism" Schmit cites?
In 2011 and 2012, you can expect the establishment press to trumpet the wonders of "double-digit" increases in new home sales, while conveniently forgetting to tell readers, listeners and viewers that anything would seem impressive in the context of the market's two worst years.
Now let's examine existing-home sales (complete graphic, including seasonally adjusted annual sales by month, is here at the National Association of Realtors web site):

Here again, the reality in the raw data betrays the optimism based on seasonally adjusted numbers. November 2010 was 25.1% below a year ago. Yet according to Ms. Schmit, "demand has steadily improved" in the existing-home market. Give, me, a, break.
The fact of the matter is that this administration has taken a tough situation and turned into an absolute nightmare, driving the homebuilding and home-lending industries so far into the ground that any movement at all looks impressive. It isn't, but it seems that during the next two years you can count on ignorant cheerleaders in the business press to try to make it appear that way.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
People aren't buying houses
Submitted by big.league.slider on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:24am.
People aren't buying houses for the same reason that businesses aren't hiring or spending. They're better off keeping the money in the bank and waiting until the market improves. Why buy a house now, when prices will drop another 10% in the next 12 months. There's a huge number of foreclosures that have been delayed by federal bailouts. Next year, these foreclosed properties will finally get dumped into the market, and will depress prices. Smart home buyers will wait at least another 12 or 18 months before buying.
As for property values appreciating, it will be at least another 5 to 10 years before that happens.
The reason USAT is pumping home price increases is because they make lots of advertising dollars from real estate companies.
Go read the rest of the claptrap by this woman
Submitted by TheHistorian on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 8:20am.
Look at some of her past titles in USAT:
Homeowners use 'show me the note' to fight foreclosure
Broken links in food-safety chain hid peanut plants' risks
Do you use more energy than your neighbors?
This socialist is committed to bigger government and screw the capitalist. This article is just more in the run of her trying to sell her government, and her personal savior, Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. as saviors of the world. Hopefully, we are smarter than when Durante did this with FDR, Morgenthau, and that socialist group.
Dennis Prager
Thanks for flagging those links
Submitted by Tom Blumer on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:12am.
Useful background for future ref.
"USAT Builds a False
Submitted by Chris Norman on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:28am.
"USAT Builds a False Alternative Reality in Reporting on Housing Market" Couldn't one say that the Mainstream Media has been building a false alternative reality in just about everything it reports on? When you boil it down, that's what media bias does. According to the MSM, everything is better under the Democrats and worse under Republicans. For example, when a Republican is in charge, the MSM paints a picture that just about every other person is either homeless (or about to be) and as soon as a Democrat gets in, the homeless problem magically disappears and everything is apparently fine.Media progressives like Schmit were able to create a recession..
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:31am.
...when there wasn't one by making people believe things were worse than they really were. They did this mainly by convincing people that other people were suffering far more than they were aware. Perception became reality.
Since Obama, the same media progressives think they can now create a recovery by convincing people that things are better than they know they are. Unfortunately, this cannot work because now everybody is directly experiencing the down economy in some form. It's hard to believe the economy has recovered when everybody either knows someone who is unemployed, or is unemployed.
As I was scrolling down,
Submitted by dmntd1 on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 11:48am.
As I was scrolling down, trying to figure out a way to say this, I found you alread had. Good job! Perception often becomes reality. It worked wonderfully when they kept telling us about Pres Bush's 'recession'.... I don't know if it will work regarding Obama's 'recovery'.
I do suspect, however, that any recovery will be based, in part, due to the (R)'s in congress, as opposed to the (D)'s in the Senate/WhiteHouse. The (D)'s will get the credit, much as Pres Bush got the blame for the actions of the (D)'s in Congress his last two years...
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.
The recovery will only happen...
Submitted by JohnMcGrew on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:38am.
...when Congress gets out of "managing" the economy and trying to fix things. Until then, formulating and executing any business plan that looks forward more than 18 months in the future will be too risky to contemplate.
Also, there will be little growth until tax rates are made permanent. The 2-year extension of the Bush tax cuts will do little good because of the unpredictability of what will happen in 2 years, during an election year no less. Only when tax rates are made permanent with little fear of government "tweaking" them more will business and investors feel comfortable in moving forward.
When Obama goes on trial next
Submitted by Barack_must_go..... on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 10:45am.
When Obama goes on trial next year for High Crimes against America, all of these liberal / socialist co - conspirators should be forced to stand right there beside him.
Barack_Must_Go.....
High crimes? Such as what?
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:52pm.
High crimes? Such as what?
Zippers, shouldn't you be out collecting toys
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:55pm.
instead of picking pointless fights here?
Christmas is over, SOL.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:56pm.
Christmas is over, SOL.
Yes, all charity endeavors ends at 11:59 pm Dec 25
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:58pm.
.
There. That feels
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 3:59pm.
There. That feels better.
I feel so liberated!
Oh, did a diaper pin pop open?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 5:38pm.
And that over filled diaper drop like a stone?
I would suppose that you would feel better.
What exactly are you returning to Dead Zippers? The vicious obnoxious behaviour that got your guttermouth account banned?
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:02pm.
Unless I'm mistaken, isn't part of the problem regarding new home sales due to the overbuilding of new homes during the bubble?
Actually, the large part
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:12pm.
the problem was selling houses to people who couldn't possibly make the payments on the houses. And, it is still going on. But, everyone had a "right" to own a house, according to the people who created the problem.
Sure, everyone had a right to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:17pm.
Sure, everyone had a right to a house. Only I know I was doing pretty well through those years and yet still couldn't afford a house until just recently.
In the end we did it the old fashioned way - 20% down, and a mortgage affordable on one of our salaries. Fixed, 4 point something percent, and 30 years of payments...
Good for you,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:33pm.
the point was that the "bubble" burst because people were loaned money for houses they coudln't afford, and had no chance of paying back on their loans. Glad to hear that you did it "the old fashioned way", as did I and most of the people I know. Others I've heard complain that the bank/mortgage company/credit union actually expected them to pay on their loans. When Obama didn't pay their mortgage, buy them a car and fill the tank, they were offended. They also complain when the State government doesn't really see the need to use their bridge card to buy alcohol, or let them go on a cruise, or visit a casino.
So, it would seem that the "problem" is one of perception. You see too many homes being built. I see people who have no business entering into an obligation that they have no intention to honor, and no means of paying off.
I think you're confusing my
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:38pm.
I think you're confusing my position with that of a bed-wetting liberal. I agree with you 110% in that that buyers were completely at fault while not denying the bank were at fault for giving loans to those who couldn't afford them.
But there are areas around the country that saw great leaps in development during the bubble, building homes and condos while expecting banks to give out loans to anyone who can sign their names in order to fill the new structures. Florida is a prime example of a state with too much real estate and too few bodies to fill 'em.
So what is the point of
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:43pm.
So what is the point of constantly changing your screen name?
Doesn't such action fall under the 'waste of time' label?
I have a lot of time to kill.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:45pm.
I have a lot of time to kill.
And not much imagination.
Submitted by NL207 on Mon, 12/27/2010 - 4:54pm.
And not much imagination.