No, Pending Home Sales Index Did Not Rise

"The worst part of the credit crunch" is already reflected in the data, said Lawrence Yun, chief economist for the NAR . . . the data
suggested the worst declines are over."

-NAR release, December 10, 2007

>

Um, no.

That is not what their own data suggested. (You can always tell when these folks are lying — the clue will be their lips are moving).

The trade association is notorious for their ever-sunny forecasts
and steadfast denial of the housing bust.  The monthly release of the
Pending Home Sales Index (PHSI) presents just
another opportunity to offer their absurd take on the Housing market.  The headline data release yesterday (Existing-Home Sales to Trend up in 2008) along with that absurd quote above reveal no change in their willingness to misrepresent even their own data. Yesterday’s spin was "Existing-home sales are
projected to trend up in 2008, with pending home sales showing a slight
near-term rise. However, a recovery for new-home sales is unlikely
before 2009."

Phsi_20071210 That is a false interpretation of the Index reading, according to the NAR website. Why ? Look at the index itself (see chart), and the NAR’s own methodology of how to interpret it.

The PHSI is an index based on a large national sample. The operators of Realtors.com site states this indicator, derived from "about 20 percent of transactions for
existing-home sales,"
is supposed to lead activity in the housing sector over the next few months. The PHSI Index for October 07 showed an 18.4% drop below the year-earlier level, and month-to-month showed a rise of 0.6%.

By emphasizing the monthly data, the NAR chose to ignore their own methodology for interpreting the Index. From the NAR explanation of the methodology of the PHSI:

"In developing the model for the index, it was demonstrated that the level of monthly sales-contract activity from 2001 through 2004 parallels the level of closed existing-home sales in the following two months. There is a closer relationship between annual index changes (from the same month a year earlier) and year-ago changes in sales performance than with month-to-month comparisons.

In other words, which should we pay attention to: the piddling 0.6% rise in October from the revised September reading, or the 18.4% year-over-year earlier drop?  Its the annual data — and that was quite awful . . .

~~~

The NAR continues as a source of amusement. They are instructive as to why news releases from industry spokesgroups need to be fisked very closely.

>

UPDATE:  December 11,  2007 10:22am 

See Dan Gross’ Slate piece:

Worst. Forecasters. Ever?
http://www.slate.com/id/2179605/

>

Sources:

Existing-Home Sales to Trend up in 2008
NAR, December 10, 2007 http://www.realtor.org/press_room/news_releases/2007/ehs_dec07_trend_up_2008.html

Pending Home Sales Rise But Remain Below Year-Earlier Level
JEFF BATER
December 11, 2007; Page A2
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119729785587819345.html

Category: Credit, Data Analysis, Real Estate

“Economics and Business” Books of the Year (Economist)

Category: Books

14,164.53* (Read it here first)

Category: Financial Press

Damn Spammers!

Category: Weblogs

How Big Is It?

Category: Credit, Derivatives, Real Estate

Housing Charts: Genesis of a Crisis

Category: Credit, Derivatives, Finance, Real Estate

SubPrime? So what?

I have long respected and enjoyed Jim Cramer, but jeez, could he have possibly been any more wrong than this?  Its one thing to be wrong about the future, but how about getting the present correct?

So Subprime Blows Up; So What, Says Cramer (Jim gives you the scoop on why the $500 billion market is no threat to
the market, even if it fully collapses. Added: July 16, 2007)

Geez, that makes 6,800 look good.

via ZackAttack (here)

Category: Credit, Derivatives, Video

December Linkfest: Week in Preview

Category: Financial Press

More Trouble for Mortgage Securitizers?

Category: Credit, Real Estate, Taxes and Policy

December Linkfest Week in Review

Category: Financial Press