Just In: Where Are Prices Now And Where Are They Going?

Where Are Prices Now And Where Are They Going?

Submitted by Murray Balkcom on 10/12/10



Recently, someone showed me a graph of average price sales for homes in Walton County, noting that prices had no where to go but down.

I compiled sales data back to 2003 from Emerald Coast Association of Realtors, but using a better indicator, median sales price, and limiting the sales to South Walton



Read more

In your narrative, you stated:

"The linear progression (white line) shows that in 2010, we are relatively in line with the historical median price growth. Did your view of current median prices change after looking at this graph? This growth line is fairly steady, with median price growth of about $25,000 per year. "

Can you please show the math??

$25,000 x 17.5 years = $437,500

Add that to the starting point on the graph (1993) at $100,000 and the current price should be $537,500--no?

.

So does the $25,000 per year figure you quoted include the dates that you extracted out of the graph (2004-2009)?

.

No, as I thought I clearly stated, the data excepts 2004-2009. I included the exception in the title of the graph as well as in the x-axis labels. It is basically a graph showing that if we hadn't seen the crazy run up and fall down in the market, we would be in line with traditional real estate growth.

No, as I thought I clearly stated, the data excepts 2004-2009. I included the exception in the title of the graph as well as in the x-axis labels. It is basically a graph showing that if we hadn't seen the crazy run up and fall down in the market, we would be in line with traditional real estate growth.

...but how did you come up with the ... "median price growth of about $25,000 per year. "?? Is that some type of "NAR math?"

Further, you don't think $25K per year (however you ended up with that figure, I don't know) isn't a "crazy runup" in your estimation--seeing that "traditional" RE appreciation is 4-5%?


.

I believe that excel formula for the linear trendline is:
y = m * x + b
m: =SLOPE(y,x)
b: =INTERCEPT(y,x)

The $25,000 per year doesn't mean anything without a basis, and I clarified that this historical data includes 1993-2010, excluding 2004-2009. If ECAR stats went back to the first land sale in South Walton, I would include them too.

I believe that excel formula for the linear trendline is:
y = m * x + b
m: =SLOPE(y,x)
b: =INTERCEPT(y,x)

The $25,000 per year doesn't mean anything without a basis, and I clarified that this historical data includes 1993-2010, excluding 2004-2009. If ECAR stats went back to the first land sale in South Walton, I would include them too.

Your formula for a linear function is indeed correct--but in regression analysis, you can't just arbitrarily remove the mid-data points that don't fit your thesis and state the results as sound. That being the case, the results at worst would be deceptive or at best would simply be a fairy tale.

...still can't come up with a $25K per year figure though--no matter how I've sliced it and diced it--maybe the readers won't question that....you hope.

.

I understand that you cannot eliminate what has already happened. I'm using the graph to show where we would line up if the boom and bust hadn't existed. It is not meant to represent anything more. It is not trying to be in fairly land, cutting out that which we don't like.

I understand that you cannot eliminate what has already happened. I'm using the graph to show where we would line up if the boom and bust hadn't existed. It is not meant to represent anything more. It is not trying to be in fairly land, cutting out that which we don't like.

Just as a matter of full disclosure....can you redraw the graph and this time include the data you extracted?

Murray you are fighting with someone who bought during the boom and is in foreclosure. If you can pry those doom colored glasses off his face he might get what you are talking about.

Murray you are fighting with someone who bought during the boom and is in foreclosure.

...yeah, right....but isn't it refreshing to know that the folks who did get roped in during the boom-years (and whose homes are now so far underwater that the fish don't have eyes) can "pretend" that the bust didn't exist?

I don't think a linear model works well with this data. My mind is blanking on the correct name, but I think it needs to have an x or x^2 instead. :idontno:

Dunno if it is using the median or what, but even taking out those years (which I think are rather important) the line you drew and the data on the graph rarely intersect and it gets worse as the years pass. In some cases that line is off by $150K.

The first graph's white line makes sense and shows some upticks and that prices (while lower and skewed by short sales and foreclosures) are still around 2004 prices, the second one seems like you are trying to skew the data and the model doesn't fit.

I don't think a linear model works well with this data. My mind is blanking on the correct name, but I think it needs to have an x or x^2 instead. :idontno:

Dunno if it is using the median or what, but even taking out those years (which I think are rather important) the line you drew and the data on the graph rarely intersect and it gets worse as the years pass. In some cases that line is off by $150K.

The first graph's white line makes sense and shows some upticks and that prices (while lower and skewed by short sales and foreclosures) are still around 2004 prices, the second one seems like you are trying to skew the data and the model doesn't fit.

...I got Oakley "doom-colored glasses" what brand are yours?

Shelly, If you want to write your own blog, collect your own data and draw your own graphs. I made this particular graph to show that in 2010, we are in line with where we would have been had the boom and bust not happened. To me, it shows that median prices are in line with recent historical prices in South Walton.

Scooter, the white line in the first chart is a 6 month moving average and just helps show a smoother flow and more recent trend as it nears the current date. For the second graph, I chose to use the linear trendline as I think it shows more of a long term approach and since I removed 2004-2009 data. (The linear trend line pulls all data closer to center.)

...yeah, right....but isn't it refreshing to know that the folks who did get roped in during the boom-years (and whose homes are now so far underwater that the fish don't have eyes) can "pretend" that the bust didn't exist?

I get it, the persona on here is an old man in a cheap busted van filled with gold. That seems to be the gist of your posts. I'll leave you with this, and yes, I'm aware it's from a cartoon.

In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so.

I get it, the persona on here is an old man in a cheap busted van filled with gold. That seems to be the gist of your posts. I'll leave you with this, and yes, I'm aware it's from a cartoon.

...but are you also aware that the verbiage in your post above the 'cartoon quote' about my persona and my van was itself the work of a critic??

I'll give you a minute for that to hit the wall and come back at ya and sink in.

.

...but are you also aware that the verbiage in your post above the 'cartoon quote' about my persona and my van was itself the work of a critic??

I'll give you a minute for that to hit the wall and come back at ya and sink in.

.

Oh gee I didn't realize that. :sarc:

Just as a matter of full disclosure....can you redraw the graph and this time include the data you extracted?

Shelly, were you able to find the graph including the excepted data yet? Hint, it was the first graph I posted in the article, so as to provide as you say, "full disclosure."

Shelly, were you able to find the graph including the excepted data yet? Hint, it was the first graph I posted in the article, so as to provide as you say, "full disclosure."

I found your creative graphs and stuff on day one--what I've been trying to ascertain from day one (and asked you in four (4) different posts nonetheless) is.....

HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE FIGURE OF $25k AS THE MEDIAN PRICE GROWTH PER YEAR?

Again....HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE FIGURE OF $25k AS THE MEDIAN PRICE GROWTH PER YEAR??

And incase you missed it: HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE FIGURE OF $25k AS THE MEDIAN PRICE GROWTH PER YEAR??

[/Sam Kinison off]

THAT--is the question.

As for full disclosure, the first graph did indeed include all the "real" data points, but they weren't put into the formula you used to achieve your slope. Did you get an error and start taking out data points until you ended up with the slope? Just curious.