• Markets
• Economy
• Federal Reserve
• Housing
• Energy
• Digital Media

New Home Sales Up (but beware double digit monthly gains)

~~~

In the past, we have cautioned that double digit gains of new home sales are VERY unreliable monthly data points. (It is mostly due to the way the Builders self report their sales to Commerce).

Have a look at this analysis we did a few years ago:  It turns out that whenever New Home Sales jump double digits, it usually reflects a mean reversion from the prior (or subsequent) month's reportage. Indeed, over the past 15 years of data, we found that a mean regression followed nearly every double digit monthly gains. Typically, the subsequent month's data was significantly lowered -- flat to negative in nearly every case:

>
New Homes Sales

*February 1994 was the one exception -- it was followed by strong March and April data -- but came after January 1994, which has the honor of being the very worst month ever in the history of the Census Construction data: Down -23.77%.

In other words, stick with the two or three month average.

>

>

Sources:
New Residential Sales
Commerce Department Census Division
http://www.census.gov/newhomesales
http://www.census.gov/const/newressales.pdf

U.S. April new-home sales unexpectedly jump 16%
Rex Nutting
MarketWatch, 10:00 AM ET May 24, 2007
http://tinyurl.com/36dt2d

Home Sales Soar by Record Amount
Thursday May 24, 10:09 am ET
By Terence Hunt, AP White House Correspondent 
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/070524/economy.html?.v=17

Thursday, May 24, 2007 | 10:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (26) | TrackBack (1)
add to de.li.cious | digg this! | add to technorati | email this post

Comments

“At a recent courthouse auction, a five-bedroom, four-bathroom 3,500 square foot house on Richfield Way that sold in July 2005 for $526,000 was offered by the bank for $295,000. There were no takers.”

Apologies for posting that quote twice but yowza, Sacramento is in a full on meltdown. If sales weren't up with 40+% price cuts I'd be worried about the apocalypse.
http://www.news10.net/display_story.aspx?storyid=28110

Posted by: KirkH | May 24, 2007 10:44:47 AM

Note also that the biggest source of the national rise in new home sales was a 27.8% rise in the South. Sales elsewhere were unremarkable. With home prices in the South typically lower than elsewhere, a huge sales rise in the South would pull down the median sales price.

Even if we accept the sales figure at face value (I am personally rather eager to see the revisions), sales in April were merely on a par with Q4. Back in Q4, we thought we were having the weakest quarter in a long time. Wires quote a number of bank economists and their cousins giving full credence to the April data and talking about the worst being over. Worst being over is what they were saying after the Q1 GDP data too, so they are clearly sticking to the story.

Posted by: kharris | May 24, 2007 10:49:10 AM

My understanding is that the NON seasonally-adjusted number is 92,000, which is the lowest since April 2003 (91,000). April 2006 sales were 100,000.

But the reaction to data is more important that the data itself. Speculators (equity) want to believe that the economy is getting better. So they will speculate accordingly.

Posted by: gmak | May 24, 2007 10:50:29 AM

"In other words, stick with the two or three month average."

I agree. Yet you can't ignore that prices coming down an average of 11.1% is starting the process of flushing out the inventory (~20% of the inventory - in one month). Price correcting is the natural trigger. The "drive by MSM" loves rubber necking at the latest accident or problem here.

Does anyone have a 3 month average chart going out there?

Where's Roubini's deep dark recession, eh?

Posted by: Fred | May 24, 2007 11:04:52 AM

These price drops no doubt exclude builder extras. How much is the real price drop including what builders are giving away with the new home contracts?

Posted by: ross | May 24, 2007 11:07:48 AM

BR said "The big price decline implies that builders are slashing prices to move the huge overhang of unsold inventory"

Is it not also possible that the decline in median sale price reflects a pick-up in contract signings in lower priced homes? Also, if I'm reading the report correctly, contract signings appear to have grown most in the early construction stages.

Put this together with a recent uptick in mortgage apps and the reported tightening in lending standards, and the picture emerging may be one in which lower end consumers are signing contracts and applying for mortgages, but are getting turned down and cancelling.

Just in case that isn't depressing enough, let's also keep in mind that bonds are looking like they want to challenge the rate highs of 2Q06.

Posted by: Estragon | May 24, 2007 11:09:11 AM

Thank you, Barry, for parsing the data and giving the real story.

Is this large variation in regional sales common? What's the reason this time around?

Posted by: Michael C. | May 24, 2007 11:12:14 AM

Stick to two or three month averages...

Why do that when you can take the "manhattan guy" approach (which is not very different from the way it's really released) and just cut and paste the supposed positives like the N.E. "growth" rates while completly ignoring the continuation of the down trend in all the other area's of the country. Nevermind that the builders are moving these houses at fake prices that do not incorporate all the freebies they have to include to move them.

Take a look at the memory market from the late 80's and early 90's for a great parable. You had massive amounts of dumping of product (memory) on the market so that the sales numbers looked great...too bad there was no money to be made from that practice. Looks the same to me for the housing market.

Just keep reporting those positive excerpts though MG......

Ciao
MS

Posted by: michael schumacher | May 24, 2007 11:55:11 AM

Is a foreclosed home on the books of a troubled institution that is transfered to another institution called a sale?

Posted by: Greg0658 | May 24, 2007 11:56:52 AM

I guess Wall Street has a hard time understanding the concept that you need LOWER prices to attract buyers.

After all, it seems to work the opposite way with stocks.

Posted by: stevez | May 24, 2007 11:59:19 AM

estragon-

therein lies a big problem upon which these numbers are presented.

>>applying for mortgages, but are getting turned down and cancelling.>>

A cancellation is STILL counted as a new home sale-from the builder supplied numbers. Cancellations are not backed out of the numbers. There is another BR post somewhere in this site that discusses this.

Ciao
MS

Posted by: michael schumacher | May 24, 2007 11:59:56 AM

Bond Market reversal today, seems like a little hesitation on the rosy outlook. Bonds will have a short term rally and equities will correct over the next few weeks.

Posted by: Jim | May 24, 2007 12:43:30 PM

Hey Barry,

If gov't stats were reliable - you would be out of work! (Although they would probably count you as employed anyway!)

Posted by: Christopher Laudani | May 24, 2007 1:01:27 PM

Hank Paulsen said the housing bottom is in, while Ben Bernanke said the subprime collapse is contained. How come foreclosures are at record levels and where are all the derivative losses in the CDOs hiding?

Posted by: Winston Munn | May 24, 2007 1:08:45 PM

A. A correction is healthy and needed

B. The yield curve is now positively sloped -- a positive for growth and equites.

C. The put buyer might spoil the party (again) for the bears...it has been > 1 all day.

Posted by: Fred | May 24, 2007 1:09:47 PM

MS - I know that cancellations aren't backed out of sales figures. That's a big part of what makes the numbers so potentially depressing. The builders don't seem to be suggesting that cancellations are easing yet.

I also agree that these figures need to be viewed over at least a 3 month period to draw any conclusions. Like the starts and permits numbers, the margin of error is too high to draw conclusions on a single monthly number.

Posted by: Estragon | May 24, 2007 1:52:06 PM

Remember, we are discussing two different issues: Sales volume, and Prices.

The total sales seem to be hastily assembled data, and self-reported by the builders. Aside from the cancellation issue, I get the sense that they “get around to doing the numbers when they have to. I’ve always wondered if we end up with 8 weeks reported in a 4 week period.

As to pricing, that’s an entirely separate issue, impacted by what price range homes are selling.

In the mid to late part of the housing cycle (7th and 8th innings?), we see lots of Condos sold – nationally, they tend towards cheaper housing. At that point, they are probably skewing the sales data downward. In the midst of a boom, no one really notices.

Later on in the cycle (9th inning?), we see the entry level buyer priced out of the market.
As the cycle heads down, prices appear better than they really are. With the least expensive homes removed the data, prices – which are in reality falling – are skewed much higher.

That’s before we even get to the Price hiding business Builders engage in – attempting to maintain sales prices by throwing in new kitchen upgrades, pools, taxes paid for a year, even Mercedes car leases. They hate to have an existing owner feel like they overpaid . . .

See this for more details:
The Not-So-Hidden Truth About Home Prices
http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2006/12/the_notsohidden.html

Posted by: Barry Ritholtz | May 24, 2007 1:54:48 PM

Fred: 5.25% is still above the 2, 5, 10, and 30...so how did you get to conclusion B?

Posted by: RP | May 24, 2007 2:09:52 PM

RP:

Sure...the Fed controls the FFR...at 5.25.
But the MARKET has gone from serious inversion (and claims of a 50% chance of recession here) to a moderatley positive slope 1 year out. Also see that the 3 month bill (even after these "strong" numbers is only 14 bps from trading 10% below the FFR. That (market made) level always has forced the Fed to CUT rates.

AND BY THE WAY...no notice here of the breakdown in the gold ETF GLD??...I'm sure Bernanke is noticing!

Posted by: Fred | May 24, 2007 3:41:50 PM

This exact same thing happened last year.

The huge jump in new home sales (also accompanied by a price plunge) was simply revised away:

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/26/news/economy/newhomes/index.htm

Posted by: super-anon | May 24, 2007 3:42:17 PM

The only way for sellers (including new home sellers) to compensate for the tightening up of lending standards, is to lower prices. People who can't qualify for bigger mortgages may indeed still be able to qualify for smaller mortgages. Builders will now be looking for ways to cut costs, and ofering smaller homes and/or lots so they can lower prices and move product in this new lender tightening environment.

Posted by: Irving | May 24, 2007 3:50:36 PM

I put in an offer this weekend for a newly built home. A little too low for them. Among other things, they are concerned of cancellations should other buyers waiting for their homes to be completed see that they just sold a home for a lot less.

So be it. Home inventory is like a buffet out there. They keep putting out more than people can eat, and this is after a multi-year eating marathon.

Posted by: Michael C. | May 24, 2007 6:26:18 PM

Quote Fred:

"Sure...the Fed controls the FFR...at 5.25.
But the MARKET has gone from serious inversion (and claims of a 50% chance of recession here) to a moderatley positive slope 1 year out. Also see that the 3 month bill (even after these "strong" numbers is only 14 bps from trading 10% below the FFR. That (market made) level always has forced the Fed to CUT rates.

AND BY THE WAY...no notice here of the breakdown in the gold ETF GLD??...I'm sure Bernanke is noticing!"

Fred:

1). The Federal Reserve does not control the Federal Funds Rate - the Federal Reserve announces a target rate but the markets set the actual rates. The only thing the Fed literally controls is the discount rate.

2). The inverted yield curve has been a 100% indicator of a recession start within a year after it has inverted for 3 consecutive months - a recession could start anywhere from Q3 2007 to Q3 2008 and still be within these paramenters.

3). Spain's central bank dumped 80 tons of gold onto the markets in order to create liquidity and avoid a financial meltdown due to their housing bubble crisis and trade imbalances.

4). There is no Easter Bunny and Goldilocks is really only a fairy tale.

Posted by: Winston Munn | May 24, 2007 10:12:12 PM

Hey Barry,

Great post. Today showed us the equivalent of a fire sale and shows a market with a ton of sellers and a lack of buyers - the sellers probably too much in debt.

I posted a piece on the retail sales and weather and show how it ties in with the Northeast's skew in these numbers.

http://zerobeta.typepad.com/zerobeta/2007/05/when_it_rains_w.html

Posted by: ZeroBeta | May 24, 2007 11:14:54 PM

FYI World

If anyone has seen my "Family of Man in the Garden of Eden" shot off my "Unity" photo essay ...

http://graphicsplus.info/_wsn/page2.html

after 25 years off thinking about the burnt up dollar and sharing concept

I still have no clue how to transform this Capitalist world.

I also came to the conclusion if I dreamed it up alone, it wouldn't work anyway.

I'm actually coming around to ... but I know its wrong ... "That Capitalism is the Best Path to Prosperity" ... if ya can't beat em join em.

I can't figure out how to get lazy asses to work. How to get real down and dirty labor (rigorous schooling) to be paid fairly. And how excesses can be curbed. In this energy dependent/exhausting world - is 35,000 sq feet of house to one family prudent?

Arts vs. Sports
Artists vs. Jocks

In Gene Roddenberrys Star Trek, was the USS Enterprise launched from this humanist system?

ps - I Do Not want the job of President, I can't be your puppet.

Posted by: Greg0658 | May 25, 2007 8:12:33 AM