Connect with us

Why home-price growth is still up 18% year over year

NAR has a very critical data line, which shows that 82% of the active listings are being sold within a month.
The post Why home-price growth is still up…

Published

on

On Tuesday, the S&P CoreLogic Case Shiller Index reported that national home prices grew 18% year over year. While the growth rate is cooling monthly, we are still in a savagely unhhealthy housing market trying to get national inventory levels back to pre-COVID-19 levels.

From the index:

I know it seems strange, but existing home sales are falling, and the monthly supply of new homes is at 10.9 months even if the last existing home sales report showed home price growth of near 11% year over year. 

There is a simple explanation for this, but you’re going to have to believe that supply and demand economics still work and that the credit profiles of homeowners matter more than people think. This means all those men and women since 2012 who have been saying its housing 2008 all over again on their YouTube, Twitter, Facebook and other social media outlets simply don’t have the proper training to talk about housing economics. I have documented the history of these housing price crash addicts for a decade now.

Housing inventory issue with no booming demand

My observation post-2020 is that many people have never read the total housing inventory data because we still have people who say active listings aren’t low or that it’s fake news. I understand why anti-Central Bank people say this because they want to blame everything on the Federal Reserve and say it’s just been booming demand.

However, we haven’t had a credit sales boom like the one we saw from 2002-2005. Nor can we ever have a credit sales boom again with lending standards back to normal. Case in point, purchase application data is already below 2008 levels today. 

Total Inventory had been growing from 2001-2005; total listings data in 2005 was at the higher historical range of 2.5 million listings. We broke to all-time lows post-2020, continuing the trend of lower inventory. Today, we stand at 1,310,000 active listings.

NAR Total Listing Data:

If we cut the timeline to the last time inventory grew, which was 2014, you can see this downtrend in inventory, unlike 2001-2005, when inventory grew from 2 million to 2.5 million. Inventory has been falling for years but people ignored the trend because some were always talking about the housing bubble 2.0 crash, especially from 2012-2019.

Then we can see a vicious break to all-time lows in 2020 when we didn’t have a seasonal push in inventory, and even today, with the weakness in home sales, we aren’t back to the range I believe would be ok, between 1.52-1.93 million. I don’t need to see total active listing get back to the historical range of 2-2.5 million to take the savagely unhealthy theme off, but I do need us to get into a range between 1.52-1.93 million, like I have talked about for some time now.

New listings are declining now

One of the issues with existing home inventory has been that, for the most part, a traditional seller is usually a buyer of a home. I am not talking about investors; I am talking about primary resident homeowners. Some sell to rent, of course. However, traditionally speaking, they buy a home.

One of the points of concern this year has been that when rates got toward 6%, this could potentially have new listings decline faster than normal because buying a home after selling might not be the best financial decision. Inventory is always seasonal, but the decline in new listings this year was not what I wanted to see. The decrease also happened when rates fell 1.25% from the recent highs of 6.25% back down to 5%. This is not encouraging news at all, in my view.

From Redfin

The recent decline in new listings has impacted the active listings to be negative now year to date. From Realtor.com:

Even with demand weakness in recent months, days on market are still low.

This is the most frustrating aspect of housing and the inventory situation. Because total inventory data is still low historically, the days on the market are not growing, year over year, per the last two existing home sales reports. NAR has a very critical data line, which shows that 82% of the active listings are being sold within a month. This is a much higher percentage than what we saw pre-COVID-19. This is also the most recent data, so the decline in sales still hasn’t increased the total inventory levels high enough to get back to pre-COVID-19 levels.

From the NAR

In the last existing home sales report, you can see the year-over-year decline on the days on market data.

In the early 1980s we had a significant sales decline from 4 million to 2 million, but we had more active listings then. In 2022, despite our robust sales declines, we are still seeing low days on the market because total active listings are still lower today than then.  

Also, homeowners on paper look great with fixed long-term debt products and have positive cash flow, so owners need a valid reason to sell. The next job loss recession, when it happens, will have more foreclosures, short sales, and bankruptcies. However, not to the degree we saw from 2005-2008. The 2005 bankruptcy reform laws and the 2010 Qualified Mortgage laws, once passed, created an expansion that has produced the highest quality homeowners in our lifetime.


Note: Even with the savings rate percentage below pre-COVID-19 levels, we still have net excess savings of over 2 trillion dollars.


With housing tenure much longer post-2008, people’s wages have increased yearly, and their cash flow has improved with multiple refinancing since 2012. 


Since we never had any exotic loan debt products in the system post-2010, you don’t see foreclosures and bankruptcies rising even as the expansion was moving along like what we saw in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008.


To wrap it up, inventory started the year at all-time lows, which is the most significant reason pricing is still firm even this late in the year. The growth rate of pricing above 20% wasn’t sustainable, and I and others are rooting for this madness to stop. However, there is a proper way to talk about and price cooling market other than saying 2008 every day of your life.

As I have stressed, people need to be patient with inventory growth and not run 2002-2011 credit sales to inventory models for this marketplace. It hasn’t worked since 2012 for a reason. Weakness in demand can create inventory, but it takes time because each new year we have new traditional listings.

Since we are so close to the fall, it’s time to look at housing with a 2023 outlook because seasonality will kick in soon. The growth rate of home prices is already cooling off, and the Case Shiller report lags that data, just like in October of 2020 when prices started to rise, but the data back then lagged the price growth.

I am all for price growth to fall and decline to get my price growth model back in line. As any analyst will tell you, you can’t just give up tracking data and throw up a random percent decline number and then hope that happens. Any good analyst will account for all the variables around the sector they follow. This is why I take the economic data one day at a time and stress that inventory growth needs more weakness and time.

I know the popular theme in 2021 was that we were going to see mass selling from homeowners who wanted to get out of their homes before prices crashed. This of course didn’t happen, but for me personally, something more problematic is happening right now. New listing data has fallen so much in the last seven weeks that it’s impacting the active listing data year to date, making it go slightly negative according to Realtor.com data. This isn’t what I wanted to see happen because it keeps the housing market stuck in a savagely unhealthy state.

The post Why home-price growth is still up 18% year over year appeared first on HousingWire.

Read More

Continue Reading

Spread & Containment

Decrease in Japanese children’s ability to balance during movement related to COVID-19 activity restrictions

A team of researchers from Nagoya University in central Japan investigated how restrictions on children’s activities during the COVID-19 pandemic affected…

Published

on

A team of researchers from Nagoya University in central Japan investigated how restrictions on children’s activities during the COVID-19 pandemic affected their life habits and their abilities to perform physical activities. By comparing medical examination data before and after the onset of the pandemic, they found that physical functions among adolescents deteriorated, including their dynamic balance. They also found that the children had higher body fat levels and worse life habits. Rather than a lack of exercise time, this may have been because of a lack of quality exercise due to activity restrictions.  

Credit: Credit must be given when image is used

A team of researchers from Nagoya University in central Japan investigated how restrictions on children’s activities during the COVID-19 pandemic affected their life habits and their abilities to perform physical activities. By comparing medical examination data before and after the onset of the pandemic, they found that physical functions among adolescents deteriorated, including their dynamic balance. They also found that the children had higher body fat levels and worse life habits. Rather than a lack of exercise time, this may have been because of a lack of quality exercise due to activity restrictions.  

During the COVID-19 pandemic, in Japan, as in other countries, schools and sports clubs tried to prevent the spread of infection by reducing physical education and restricting outdoor physical activities, club activities, and sports. However, children who are denied opportunities for physical activity with social elements may develop bad habits. During the pandemic, children, like adults, increased the time they spent looking at television, smartphone, and computer screens, exercised less, and slept less. Such changes in lifestyle can harm adolescent bodies, leading to weight gain and health problems. 

Visiting Researcher Tadashi Ito and Professor Hideshi Sugiura from the Department of Biological Functional Science at the Nagoya University Graduate School of Medicine, together with Dr. Yuji Ito from the Department of Pediatrics at Nagoya University Hospital, and  Dr. Nobuhiko Ochi and Dr. Koji Noritake from Aichi Prefectural Mikawa Aoitori Medical and Rehabilitation Center for Developmental Disabilities, conducted a study of Japanese children and students in elementary and junior high schools, aged 9-15, by analyzing data from physical examinations before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. They evaluated the children’s muscle strength, dynamic balance functions, walking speed, body fat percentage, screen time, sleep time, quality of life, and physical activity time.  

The researchers found that after the onset of the pandemic, children were more likely to have decreased balance ability when moving, larger body fat percentage, report spending more time looking at TV, computers or smartphones, and sleep less. Since there were no changes in the time spent on physical activity or the number of meals eaten, Sugiura and his colleagues suggest that the worsening of physical functions was related to the quality of exercise of the children. The researchers reported their findings in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health.  

“Since the outbreak of the novel coronavirus in Japan after April 2020, children have not been able to engage in sufficient physical education, sports activities, and outdoor play at school. It became clear that balance ability during movement was easily affected, lifestyle habits were disrupted, and the percentage of body fat was likely to increase,” explained Ito. “This may have been because of shorter outdoor playtime and club activities, which impeded children’s ability to learn the motor skills necessary to balance during movement.” 

“Limitations on children’s opportunities for physical activity because of the outbreak of the novel coronavirus have had a significant impact on the development of physical function and lifestyle and may cause physical deterioration and health problems in the future,” warned Ito. “Especially, the risk of injury to children may increase because of a reduced dynamic balance function.” 

The results suggest that even after the novel coronavirus becomes endemic, it is important to consider the effects of social restrictions on the body composition of adolescents. Since physical activities with a social element may be important for health, authorities should prioritize preventing the reduction of children’s physical inactivity and actively encourage them to play outdoors and exercise. The group has some recommendations for families worried about the effects of school closings and other coronavirus measures on their children. “It is important for children to practice dynamic balance ability, maintaining balance to avoid falling over while performing movements,” Ito advised. “To improve balance function in children, it is important to incorporate enhanced content, such as short-term exercise programs specifically designed to improve balance functions.” 


Read More

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

These Are The World’s Richest Billionaires Over The Past 10 Years

These Are The World’s Richest Billionaires Over The Past 10 Years

The last decade has seen a number of changes in the world’s richest billionaires…

Published

on

These Are The World's Richest Billionaires Over The Past 10 Years

The last decade has seen a number of changes in the world’s richest billionaires list.

For one, there are new faces at the top of the leaderboard that were never there before. But, as Visual Capitalist's Nick Routley details below, one of the most obvious changes though, is that the richest billionaires have accumulated a lot more wealth in recent years.

Using annual data from Forbes on the richest billionaires, Routley has visualized the wealth and ranking of the top 10 billionaires over the past decade.

Who are the World’s Richest Billionaires?

While the pecking order has fluctuated, the leaderboard remains very exclusive. Out of a possible 10 spots, there are only 19 individuals that have made the list over the last decade.

Here’s the current list of richest billionaires in 2022, including when they first made the list (if in the last decade):

 

*Billionaires with “-” first made the list at an earlier date. Example: Mukesh Ambani made the 2008 list.

 

Microsoft co-founder turned philanthropist, Bill Gates, is a perennial presence at the top of these lists. Gates is currently at his lowest rank over this time period, but is still in fourth spot. The billionaire has pledged to give away nearly all of his fortune to the eponymously named Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

From 2018 to 2021, Jeff Bezos sat at the top of the world’s richest people ranking, only to be bumped out by Elon Musk. In 2020, Bezos became the first person to amass a $200 billion fortune after Amazon’s stock price surged during the pandemic. In recent months, Bezos’ net worth has taken a hit as Amazon’s share price has fallen back down to Earth.

Today, Elon Musk is the world’s richest person.

The Rich Get Richer

Over time, the median net worth of the richest billionaires has grown significantly.

 

Most fortunes are held in the form of business equity, real estate, and publicly-traded stocks—all asset classes that have benefited from the era of cheap money and ultra-low interest rates.

 

Over the decade period, the median net worth of the top 10 billionaires has nearly tripled from $39 billion to $115 billion.

In fact, the first billionaire to pass the $100 billion threshold was Jeff Bezos in 2018, when he took the top spot on the list from Bill Gates. However, now all but two on the top 10 wealthiest list are centibillionaires.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/05/2022 - 20:40

Read More

Continue Reading

International

Contradictions, Lies, And “I Don’t Recalls”: The Fauci Deposition

Contradictions, Lies, And "I Don’t Recalls": The Fauci Deposition

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

Today, Missouri Attoney General…

Published

on

Contradictions, Lies, And "I Don't Recalls": The Fauci Deposition

Authored by Techno Fog via The Reactionary,

Today, Missouri Attoney General Eric Schmitt released the transcript of the testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci. As you might recall, Fauci was deposed as part of an ongoing federal lawsuit challenging the Biden Administration’s violations of the First Amendment in targeting and suppressing the speech of Americans who challenged the government’s narrative on COVID-19.

Here is the Fauci deposition transcript.

And here are the highlights…

EcoHealth Alliance - the Peter Daszak group - is knee-deep in the Wuhan controversy, having been funded by the Fauci’s NIH for coronavirus and gain of function research in China (and having worked with the Chinese team in Wuhan). What does Fauci say about EcoHealth Alliance? Over two years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, and after millions dead worldwide, he’s “vaguely familiar” with their work.

In early 2020, Fauci was put on notice that his group - NIAID - had funded EcoHealth alliance on bat coronavirus research for the past five years.

This coincided with early reports - directly to Fauci, from Jeremy Ferrar and Christian Anderson - “of the possibility of there being a manipulation of the virus” based on the fact that “it was an unusual virus.”

Fauci conceded that he was specifically made aware by Anderson that “the unusual features of the virus” make it look “potentially engineered.”

Fauci couldn’t recall why he sent an article discussing gain of function research in China to his deputy, Hugh Auchincloss, telling him it was essential that they speak on the phone. He couldn’t recall speaking with Auchincloss via phone that day. But remarkably, Fauci did remember assigning research tasks to Auchincloss

Fauci was evasive on conversations with Francis Collins about whether NIAID may have funded coronavirus-related research in China, eventually stating “I don’t recall.”

The phrase “I don’t recall” was prominent in Fauci’s deposition. He said it a total of 174 times:

For example, Fauci couldn’t remember what anyone said on a call discussing whether the virus originated in a lab:

During that same call, Fauci couldn’t recall whether anyone expressed concern that the lab leak “might discredit scientific funding projects.” He also couldn’t recall whether there was a discussion about a lab leak distracting from the virus response. Fauci did remember, however, that they agreed there needed to be more time to investigate the virus origins - including the lab leak theory.

What else couldn’t Fauci remember? Whether, early into the pandemic, his confidants raised concerns about social media posts about the origins of COVID-19.

Yet Fauci did admit he was concerned about social media posts blaming China for the pandemic. He even admitted the accidental lab leak “certainly is a possibility,” contradicting his prior claims to National Geographic where he said the virus “could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated.”

Fauci also couldn’t recall whether he had any conversations with Daszak about the origins of COVID-19 in February 2020, but admitted those conversations might have happened: “I told you before that I did not remember any direct conversations with him about the origin, and I said I very well might have had conversations but I don't specifically remember conversations.” And he couldn’t recall telling the media early on during the pandemic that the virus was consistent with a jump “from an animal to a human.”

Fauci said he was in the dark on social media actions to curb speech and suspend accounts that posted COVID-19 information that didn’t fit the mainstream narrative: “I’m not aware of suppression of speech on social media.” Yet it was Fauci’s proclamations of the truth, whether about the origins of COVID-19 to the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, that led to social media companies banning discussions of contrary information.

Regarding those removals of content, Fauci had no personal knowledge of a US Government/Social Media effort to curb “misinformation.” But he conceded the possibility numerous times.

Then there’s the issue of masks. In February 2020, Fauci informed an acquaintance that was traveling: “I do not recommend that you wear a mask.” Fauci would later become a vocal proponent of masks only two months later.

I’m near my Substack length limit - posting the excerpts does that - but you can see from Fauci’s testimony that his public statements about COVID-19 origins and the necessity to wear a mask didn’t match his private conversations. This has been known for some time, but it’s finally nice to get him on record.

Again, read it all and subscribe here.

Tyler Durden Mon, 12/05/2022 - 21:40

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending