Joe, did you happen to read the tribune aricle "Record condo numbers to saturate downtown"? This is something that you have denied would happen for some time (loop specific). I'm not saying that since the tribune has recognized it, that it is NOW true, but you always ask us to cite facts. This article is full of them. What are your thoughts?
I did read the Trib article and am looking forward to scanning the data behind it, which we get access to through Appraisal Research. I've seen instance after instance in which the Tribune inaccurately reported what was happening in this area or slanted it in a highly misleading way.
I don't think you can find an instance of me denying that something "would happen" in the future. I've been very reluctant to speculate on what would happen and have largely confined my comments to what I've seen happening.
There is no doubt that the market has slowed dramatically and even crashed in some areas, and this site has consistently recognized that in our own posts and comments and by reference to all of the related reporting out there. We've reported project closings, foreclosures, etc. etc. You can't fairly tag me or this site as deniers or cheerleaders.
"You can't fairly tag me or this site as deniers or cheerleaders." If I did this, I didn't mean to, but with regard to the loop condo market, I do remember the conversation in which you firmly held that the this specific market would not be oversaturated this year. You held that xx% of the units were under contract etc. I guess time will tell…
If my recollection is correct what I did was report data from Appraisal Research as to the number of unoccupied completed units in that market area - a small number. I also reported ARC's numbers that a large percentage of the units being completed this year were under contract and ARC was not yet seeing any significant number of cancellations - but reserving judgment on whether cancellations would accelerate as they have in other markets.
I'm still waiting to see the latest ARC data to learn what the Trib was reporting on - the number of units in new projects coming to market this year or the number of units in projects being completed this year. These are two very different numbers and the Trib article was unclear as to which was being reported on. If it's the former the number can shrink radically by projects being withdrawn from the market.
Whichever number is in question we learn nothing - nothing at all - from the number of units coming to market. The Trib article implies that a record number of units "coming to market" equates to a saturated market. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. The supply - demand equation has two sides and only one of them is being reported even marginally well. Sales slowed dramatically in the first quarter, we're told. But we're not told what percentage of the units coming to market are under contract or closed and what the cancellation rate is or whether it's changed.
Pending further info, it's worthwhile paying attention to Alan Lev's comments in the Trib article - the size and severity of the inventory problem varies depending on the price point in question. According to Lev the largest problem is in the $400K to $800K price range.
It's also worthwhile keeping in mind that a headline is not an analysis, that the Trib has a lengthy history of shoddy reporting on the state of the market, and that some of the consultants being quoted may have an economic interest in spinning the numbers in a negative direction.
Comments
5/15/08
Alan said:
Joe, did you happen to read the tribune aricle "Record condo numbers to saturate downtown"? This is something that you have denied would happen for some time (loop specific). I'm not saying that since the tribune has recognized it, that it is NOW true, but you always ask us to cite facts. This article is full of them. What are your thoughts?
Joe Zekas said:
Alan,
I did read the Trib article and am looking forward to scanning the data behind it, which we get access to through Appraisal Research. I've seen instance after instance in which the Tribune inaccurately reported what was happening in this area or slanted it in a highly misleading way.
I don't think you can find an instance of me denying that something "would happen" in the future. I've been very reluctant to speculate on what would happen and have largely confined my comments to what I've seen happening.
There is no doubt that the market has slowed dramatically and even crashed in some areas, and this site has consistently recognized that in our own posts and comments and by reference to all of the related reporting out there. We've reported project closings, foreclosures, etc. etc. You can't fairly tag me or this site as deniers or cheerleaders.
Alan said:
"You can't fairly tag me or this site as deniers or cheerleaders." If I did this, I didn't mean to, but with regard to the loop condo market, I do remember the conversation in which you firmly held that the this specific market would not be oversaturated this year. You held that xx% of the units were under contract etc. I guess time will tell…
Joe Zekas said:
Alan,
If my recollection is correct what I did was report data from Appraisal Research as to the number of unoccupied completed units in that market area - a small number. I also reported ARC's numbers that a large percentage of the units being completed this year were under contract and ARC was not yet seeing any significant number of cancellations - but reserving judgment on whether cancellations would accelerate as they have in other markets.
I'm still waiting to see the latest ARC data to learn what the Trib was reporting on - the number of units in new projects coming to market this year or the number of units in projects being completed this year. These are two very different numbers and the Trib article was unclear as to which was being reported on. If it's the former the number can shrink radically by projects being withdrawn from the market.
Whichever number is in question we learn nothing - nothing at all - from the number of units coming to market. The Trib article implies that a record number of units "coming to market" equates to a saturated market. Maybe it does; maybe it doesn't. The supply - demand equation has two sides and only one of them is being reported even marginally well. Sales slowed dramatically in the first quarter, we're told. But we're not told what percentage of the units coming to market are under contract or closed and what the cancellation rate is or whether it's changed.
Pending further info, it's worthwhile paying attention to Alan Lev's comments in the Trib article - the size and severity of the inventory problem varies depending on the price point in question. According to Lev the largest problem is in the $400K to $800K price range.
It's also worthwhile keeping in mind that a headline is not an analysis, that the Trib has a lengthy history of shoddy reporting on the state of the market, and that some of the consultants being quoted may have an economic interest in spinning the numbers in a negative direction.
5/16/08
Sheridan B. said:
The New West article was interesting. There was a great article yesterday in the New York Times about problems with condo's.