You're now on the archive server. Commenting has been disabled.

Home Prices Double Dip Validated As Unadjusted Case-Shiller Numbers Indicate Third Sequential MoM Decline

Tyler Durden's picture




After a third sequential decline in unadjusted Case-Shiller housing prices, is it ok to come out of a contrarian shell and proclaim the government-subsidized home price appreciation rally dead? Afdter the unadjusted Composite-20 reading peaked at 146.7 in September, the index has slowly declined for 3 months in a row and is now at 145.9. The only good thing one can say is that the rate of decline has not accelerated. However, with just over a month left on MBS QE, we are not very hopeful for a second V-recovery to appear in home prices any time soon.

Here is the monthly change:

Below is the index unadjusted data for the past several months, and the year ago month:

The same data on a MoM % change basis:

And as YoY % change:




Similar Articles You Might Enjoy:

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:49 | Link to Comment jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

But...but...scroomberg just told me housing prices climbed for the seventh consecutive month..is it too late to get in on the action?!?!

The truth has been banned.

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:52 | Link to Comment monmick
monmick's picture

Remind me why you are looking at unadjusted data....

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:55 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 10:53 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 15:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:02 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:22 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:25 | Link to Comment RSDallas
RSDallas's picture

I think the report shows that we have leveled off.  Now we are going to scrape along the bottom for a  long long time. 

I had a discussion with a friend of mine yesterday who has been trying (for some time now) to purchase non performing residential real estate properties (lot's & homes) from the local lending institutions in and around Dallas, Texas.  He told me that asset managers at the banks are all telling him that they are sattisfied in sitting back and collecting interest payments from those who can pay even though they know that the property is underwater and is likely to stay materially impaired.

The bankers are also not requiring their clients to put up additional equity.  He tells me that this is happening because the regulators are NOT requiring the banks to take any action on any properties as long as the clients are making interest payments, which by the way have often been set well below market rates. 

He tells me that the bankers are just waiting for a recovery.  "Houston, we have a problem!"  Herein lies our challenge going forward folks.  This Case Shiller graph could look like this for years and years to come.  Especially when you recognize that the financial institutions and regulators are applying this strategy to all assets, land, office buildings, homes, apartments and on and on and on. 

I just don't get it.  I was just entering the real estate business in the late 80's when the Resolution Trust Company was formed to handle that Real Estate bust, which was also impacted by the Oil industry. Anyway, what I do remember was that the regulators and FDIC weren't screwing around and letting the S&L's keep the crap on their books.  They were liquidating that crap and closing down the S&L's as fast as they could, or it at least appeared that way.  The Nation (and Texas where a lot of damage was done) did just fine during this period of mass liquidation.  Was it painful for some?  You bet it was and rightly so, it should have been.  It's no different this time in that some stupid lenders made a lot of stupid loans to a lot of stupid buyers. 

The RTC worked then, so why is the FDIC and the White House choosing the "kick the can" approach?

 

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:12 | Link to Comment Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

"The RTC worked then, so why is the FDIC and the White House choosing the "kick the can" approach?"

Money, of course. See my other comment below. The Bankers are in the drivers seat, and making money by dribbling out properties.

There's also the small fact that the FDIC doesn't have the funds to shut down all of the involvent Banks. If it wasn't for the Mark-to-Myth(Model) accounting fraud, the Big Banks would be insolvent, and that would require about $4 Trillion to cover their deposits. The FDIC is currently in the hole by about $20 Billion.

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 14:00 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 12:51 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:58 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:29 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:26 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:37 | Link to Comment Eternal Student
Eternal Student's picture

I wouldn't write off the increases just yet. What's going on in California is that the Banks have woken up to the fact that they are completely, totally in the drivers seat, and can make money as fast as they want.

Inventory which is on the market is at historical lows. It's really amazing. And buyers are starting to panic, as they fear that interest rates are going to go up, and there's the loss of the $8,000 tax credit. Bidding wars have broken out (10-20+ multiple offers in some cases), driving prices up in the main metro areas.

Which is great for the Bankers. They can dribble out a few properties, and be assured of getting a really top dollar for them. And it looks like they can ride this gravy train for at least the next five years with all the inventory that they have.

All the while, driving the sheep to slaughter.

 

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 11:58 | Link to Comment ptuomov
ptuomov's picture

It's pretty stupid to look at monthly changes in seasonally unadjusted version of a series with a strong annual seasonality.  I mean, what's up with that?

 

You can argue about the method of seasonal adjustment, but almost any adjustment to this series is better than no adjustment. 

Or if you want to compute trend indicators that don't require seasonal adjustments, compute the second derivative: First, compute the 12-month change in the seasonally unadjusted series and the monthly change in that.

 

 

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 14:27 | Link to Comment Anonymous
Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:15 | Link to Comment AnonymousMonetarist
AnonymousMonetarist's picture

You should post Shiller's appearance on Hee-Haw this morning, there was fear in his eyes...

Tue, 02/23/2010 - 13:24 | Link to Comment jdrose1985
jdrose1985's picture

well slick since you're so smart how about you crunch the adjustment data and get back to us ptuomov
Can't wait to hear back from you.

Sat, 04/17/2010 - 10:22 | Link to Comment Tom123456
Tom123456's picture

Good Linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. cheap vps Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost thanks

Sat, 04/17/2010 - 10:22 | Link to Comment Tom123456
Tom123456's picture

Good Linux hosting option package offered by ucvhost which not only provides the best in terms of hosting packages but also believes in truly being there for the customer, 24x7. cheap vps Moreover , they offer unlimited bandwidth as well as nearly 1GB storage along with database maintenance, email facility along with storage, availability of sub domain and many other important features for a very low price. ucvhost thanks

Fri, 04/23/2010 - 09:02 | Link to Comment LT
LT's picture

Looks like S&P just came out with a memo that says to ignore the seasonally adjusted data.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!