AP's Kravitz Plays 'Let's Pretend the New-Home Market Is Recovering' Again
The Associated Press, aka the Administration's Press, and designated drone Derek Kravitz clearly haven't tired of putting smiley-faces on the ongoing, relentlessly awful conditions in the new-home market.
As shown on February 17 (at NewsBusters; at BizzyBlog), the number of single-family homes under construction is barely above its all-time low (since records have been kept), while January's figure for single-family units completed was absolutely the lowest on record. Yet Kravitz, as has been his habit, erroneously presented housing starts alone as a proxy for "construction" activity, made it appear to many typical readers that housing starts have been averaging about 500,000 per month (not per year), and pretended that the modest rise in starts "suggests builders are growing more confident that more buyers are ready to come off the sidelines." In his Friday report on new-home sales, Kravitz noted a seasonally adjusted January drop, but trumpeted a minuscule upward adjustment to fourth-quarter sales which was barely more than a rounding error:
Story Continues Below Ad ↓New-home sales dip after 4 straight monthly gains
Sales of new homes dipped in January but the final quarter of 2011 was stronger than first estimated.
The Commerce Department said Friday that new-home sales fell 0.9 percent last month to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 321,000 homes. That followed four straight months of gains in which home sales rose 10 percent.
The gains came after the government upwardly revised October, November and December's figures. December's annual sales pace of 324,000 was the highest in a year.
Even with more sales, just 304,000 new homes were sold in 2011 - the fewest on records dating back to 1963. And new homes are selling well below the 700,000-per-year rate that economists equate with healthy markets.
Still, the pickup in sales at the end of last year coincides with other improvements in the housing market and should bolster the view that the depressed sector is starting to revive.

At the right is the raw data which forms the basis for Kravitz's first-paragraph placement of the fourth-quarter revision and its characterization as "stronger than first estimated."
You've got to be kidding me, Derek.
A whopping 2,000 more homes were sold in December (because of rounding, it could be anywhere from about 1,000 to about 3,000 more).
This is supposed to indicate that the industry is "starting to revive"? If Kravitz thinks that 23,000 is "stronger," he must want us to believe that original 21,000 was "strong."
The 304,000 homes sold last year represent 3.4% of the nation's roughly 88.6 million single-family units (attached and detached), or a turnover rate of about 290 years.
In any kind of context, characterization of any new-home sales number during the past few years as "strong" or "stronger" has to be a sick joke. It certainly has no basis in reality:

December's rip-roaring raw-number revision to 23,000 merely means that it was just as dismal as December 2010. January's raw number barely beats January 2011, and is worse than 2009 and 2010, when we were told that the market was bottoming out. Before 2009 and the Obama administration's arrival , the previous worst single-month in the recorded history of new-home sales was 23,000, which occurred in December 1966, when the country's population was about 40% lower. The historical runner-up was the 24,000 figure seen in December 1974. Since 2008, monthly sales have come in at or below 24,000 twelve different times.
Seasonally adjusted, each month in the fantasmagorical fourth quarter of 2011 trailed either 2009, 2010, or both.
There is no housing market recovery, no solid reason to believe that it is "starting to revive," and no strong reason to believe that "more buyers are ready to come off the sidelines." It getting quite tiresome watching Kravitz and the AP blow smoke up the news-consuming public's posterior.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
- Tom Blumer's blog
- Login to post comments
















Comments
It's a trend that's been going on for decades.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 12:34pm.
It's not surprising that the "new home sales" figures are so low, especially when one considers the number of existing homes, "townhouses" (actually half a house), and condos, that are for sale, never mind the abundance of apartments, all which reflects the changes in dwelling types that have been going on for decades now, especially in "large metropolitan areas." It's hard to find people willing to build new homes in areas with high property tax rates, limited property "foot prints," and higher construction costs.
What's we're witnessing is a trend, a shift in demographics, one that is moving away from large, single-family homes and into smaller "dwellings." What we need is a comparison between the numbers of "new" homes being built and the number of "new" apartments and condos being sold or rented. The only indication that "new home construction" figures gives us is an estimation of the number of people moving away from the cities and into the "country' a population shift from higher population density areas to areas of lower population density.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Speaking of demographics...
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 12:42pm.
As our population ages, and women tend to outlive men, we end with more widows. Most elderly women I know soon find without a husband they can't or don't want to live in their home, and often move to condos or apartments where they don't have maintenance issues. This puts more pre-existing homes on the market, which are cheaper than new ones.
Just a thought.
Say Auf Wiedersehen to the Handyman
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 1:05pm.
That also puts us Handyman types in dire straights. No more Old Ladies looking for someone to fix their plumbing, their squeaky doors, their 100 year old, two conductor, post and wire , four fuse (they still use fuses!) electrical systems. Sigh.
I mean, really, why hire some handyman to replace your aging, dangerous electrical system for 100 dollars plus components when you can have your landlord hire a licensed, insured, "reputable" union dues paying "contractor" to do it at 100 dollars an hour, plus component costs?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by Radical1979 on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 1:20pm.
My husband is a landlord, and if he had to hire union guys for anything we wouldn't be in business!
Lets play pretend!
Submitted by NJRightWinger12 on Sat, 02/25/2012 - 2:59pm.
I'll be the Daddy, you be the mommy, now BEND OVER! Seriously, weve been playing pretend with a Manchurian Candidate pres for 3 years, and all this playing has driven this country, and the world, down the toilet! Now, how about the adults take over and fix up the mess the little kiddies have made, huh?