Baby, we got a bubble!?

[interested]

I love Guava and follow it. I agree gives wonderful clear data but very macro...the whole city of Toronto.

However I would suggest the last 10 years have been very good with continued improvement and I do believe there are submarkets. I think what he is trying to accomplish is to look at the recent trends and inflection points trying to see what is just happening recently and pick up the trend before it becomes apparent on the Guava stats. I could however be wrong.

 

[recharts]

I love Guava and follow it. I agree gives wonderful clear data but very macro...the whole city of Toronto.

However I would suggest the last 10 years have been very good with continued improvement and I do believe there are submarkets. I think what he is trying to accomplish is to look at the recent trends and inflection points trying to see what is just happening recently and pick up the trend before it becomes apparent on the Guava stats. I could however be wrong.

@CN Tower: the crap is in the eyes of the beholder
The latest maps posted on my site focus on Sales

Guava's maps focuses on Asking prices..
I hope you see where the crap is.

As for the graphs Guava posted there ...tell to the 2900 sellers in the burbs who got less than the asking price that the average price increases.


@interested:You got it right.
I am looking for local data and trends as they emerge...
From what I could see on Internet the MLS site contains data that is not available to the public.
They can see trends but they do not publish them
The depressed numbers of sales (expect the sales for this month to be no better than the previous month although April is usually better than March most of the years) and increased nervosity manifested by RE agents on various web sites make me believe that they are not seeing anything good on their "secret" stats

 

[CN Tower]

@CN Tower: the crap is in the eyes of the beholder
The latest maps posted on my site focus on Sales

Guava's maps focuses on Asking prices..
I hope you see where the crap is.

No one who seriously follows the housing market gets too jazzed about asking prices- no one but you it seems.

We focus on the graphs and they paint a very clear picture. Your histrionics are no more valuable than an unscrupulous agent puffing up the market instead of being honest.

It is what it is- a rapidly weakening housing market with pockets of strength and still many bidding wars. If your 'heat map' (perhaps I'm getting old but it looks like junk to me quite honestly) narrows in on the action in local areas than great but I find it confusing and I barely have time to read & respond to this thread let alone go searching than decoding to interpret your very clear over dramatizations.

Again, no offense intended but you burst on the scene to this 5 yr old thread with wild proclomation so you can't expect us to roll out the welcome wagon

 

[recharts]

No one who seriously follows the housing market gets too jazzed about asking prices- no one but you it seems.

We focus on the graphs and they paint a very clear picture. Your histrionics are no more valuable than an unscrupulous agent puffing up the market instead of being honest.

It is what it is- a rapidly weakening housing market with pockets of strength and still many bidding wars. If your 'heat map' (perhaps I'm getting old but it looks like junk to me quite honestly) narrows in on the action in local areas than great but I find it confusing and I barely have time to read & respond to this thread let alone go searching than decoding to interpret your very clear over dramatizations.

Again, no offense intended but you burst on the scene to this 5 yr old thread with wild proclomation so you can't expect us to roll out the welcome wagon

I kind of know how you are feeling.
You will need to work with yourself and after some time you will be able to focus on an page longer that a post like this one that I am writing right now or on any page that need 5 minutes of reading or more
It is called information overload, people get swamped in the ocean of information that is inundating their minds due to continuously staying connected.

"Other than not having time" to understand complex representations you did not mention any other reasons why my maps are wrong. Kind of unfair when you declare that something is crap
Perhaps that is because my maps reveal things that you don't like ?!
My site has got 15000 hits so far, not a big deal but yet enough to make you wonder if you, CN tower, are indeed the one right or ...you might be the problem.

That being said here is a preview of the April stats and how they compare with March

http://recharts.blogspot.ca/2013/04/april-sales-stats-preview.html

 

[mettle]

i appreciate it. there is clearly a pattern being revealed. if it truly was crap, it would be a random splattering.

but technical analysis is what it is. not everybody likes it. it should be used in context, one tool of many.

 

[urbandreamer]

recharts: Are you on twitter?

 

[recharts]

recharts: Are you on twitter?

Yes. The same id as here. You can also find the link on my site (at the top of the right column)

 

[Xenosblitz]

I kind of know how you are feeling.
You will need to work with yourself and after some time you will be able to focus on an page longer that a post like this one that I am writing right now or on any page that need 5 minutes of reading or more
It is called information overload, people get swamped in the ocean of information that is inundating their minds due to continuously staying connected.

"Other than not having time" to understand complex representations you did not mention any other reasons why my maps are wrong. Kind of unfair when you declare that something is crap
Perhaps that is because my maps reveal things that you don't like ?!
My site has got 15000 hits so far, not a big deal but yet enough to make you wonder if you, CN tower, are indeed the one right or ...you might be the problem.

That being said here is a preview of the April stats and how they compare with March

http://recharts.blogspot.ca/2013/04/april-sales-stats-preview.html

I too glanced at your website, and I get the premise of it - houses are selling less than asking, but I do not agree you can leap to the fact that the market is falling from just this stat. The point CN Tower made is very valid - asking price and selling price differentials mean next to nothing. I can have a house worth $500,000, but thinking I can do better, I can ask for $800,000. Selling it for $510,000 would mean I sold at 64% of asking, but I'm actually selling at 102% of what my house is worth. If I was in this situation, I did very well for myself, despite a dismal 64% asking.

I don't have stats to back up that selling prices are generally less than asking usually, but it makes intuitive sense. Why would you underprice something in general? In addition, why would realtors advertise they got 95% of asking or 99% of asking if this is not an achievement in itself?

The best comparisons are matched pairs in my opinion - similar houses over different periods of time. These are very hard to get in general. The next best is median prices in specific regions over time.

I think you did great work with compiling the stats, Recharts, but I think your conclusions are on shaky ground.

 

[ISYM]

Recharts, you’ve obviously invested a great amount of time on your maps but they do lack the pertinent statistics others have noted and your comment about sales prices declining in the summer months tells me that you’re new to tracking the housing market since that has historically been the case. Your arguments with the posters leaves me wondering if your intentions are to try to understand the market’s direction or to cater to those who foresee a dire market.

By my opinion we have reached the point where whoever wanted and could afford a house got it.

Many on this forum reached this conclusion long ago and some also rightfully discount the average price as being the best price measure.

As has been stated, there is nothing uncommon about sales price being less than list price. The bidding war strategy of under pricing is relegated to a hot market which we’ve known for some time now has cooled as far as sales go, and even then the strategy is never employed by all sellers, I for one never employ the under pricing strategy. So, identifying the percentage of sales price at a particular point in time isn’t providing any information on the more meaningful direction in which prices are or may be heading.

Heat maps on sales prices would only be meaningful if they could show listing terminations, price changes and total days on market. I do comprehensive tracking of the GTA housing market in about 25 ways and produce 4-5 reports each month, none of which ever “hide the statistics.†To give you an idea as to what statistics are relevant, and why your maps are ineffective, I’ll provide a glimpse of two of those spreadsheets:

This first is by area as your map attempts. Because of its size I had to hide the working columns that produced the results shown.
http://i39.tinypic.com/mj8x9h.jpg

This next one was specifically created to track what I believe will be a price correction beginning this year and although you don’t care for aggregates, they are in the end relevant to the overall market and you’ll note how simply the analysis is comparatively tracking that.
http://i41.tinypic.com/5ob0na.jpg

 

[recharts]

I too glanced at your website, and I get the premise of it - houses are selling less than asking, but I do not agree you can leap to the fact that the market is falling from just this stat. The point CN Tower made is very valid - asking price and selling price differentials mean next to nothing. I can have a house worth $500,000, but thinking I can do better, I can ask for $800,000. Selling it for $510,000 would mean I sold at 64% of asking, but I'm actually selling at 102% of what my house is worth. If I was in this situation, I did very well for myself, despite a dismal 64% asking.

so in your opinion is totally acceptable to presume that almost everybody asked for more and they got less
why that doesn't apply to Toronto where my maps show mixed results ??

I don't have stats to back up that selling prices are generally less than asking usually, but it makes intuitive sense. Why would you underprice something in general?

to attract buyers and start a bidding war

In addition, why would realtors advertise they got 95% of asking or 99% of asking if this is not an achievement in itself?

they do not advertise. That is the problem. Some of us have indirect access to their data.
In fact that is the problem here, I am trying to show that the correction is happening but we are not allowed to see it, to have the big picture
It can still be hidden under the average numbers as the ISYM's numbers show us (see his links posted above)

The best comparisons are matched pairs in my opinion - similar houses over different periods of time. These are very hard to get in general. The next best is median prices in specific regions over time.

I think you did great work with compiling the stats, Recharts, but I think your conclusions are on shaky ground.

If you have data refering strictly to your street why would you care about average or even median???
That is were my map is very good and nothing else can show you that.
I would be glad to learn about another way to do it.

 

[daveto]

I'll admit. I am thoroughly confused over what information/conculsions Recharts is trying to present.

The TREB monthly Market Watch report already shows the % of sale price/asking price, segmented by real estate district (C1,C2, etc). So the added value for these maps seems to be segmenting the data down to the street level, and showing the # of bids? Is that correct?

I'm all in favour of more information, and appreciate the effort the author has expended, but I'm not understanding the relevance of the information being presented.

 

[recharts]

Recharts, you’ve obviously invested a great amount of time on your maps but they do lack the pertinent statistics others have noted and your comment about sales prices declining in the summer months tells me that you’re new to tracking the housing market since that has historically been the case. Your arguments with the posters leaves me wondering if your intentions are to try to understand the market’s direction or to cater to those who foresee a dire market.

yeap I am fairly new but I am learning quickly

I am not sure what "pertinent" stats you are referring to.

Many on this forum reached this conclusion long ago and some also rightfully discount the average price as being the best price measure.

Glad to hear that but some seem to still be using that as argument

As has been stated, there is nothing uncommon about sales price being less than list price. The bidding war strategy of under pricing is relegated to a hot market which we’ve known for some time now has cooled as far as sales go, and even then the strategy is never employed by all sellers, I for one never employ the under pricing strategy. So, identifying the percentage of sales price at a particular point in time isn’t providing any information on the more meaningful direction in which prices are or may be heading.

let's wait and see, I do not have the data that I need to prove you wrong, I just started looking outside of To
All I am saying is that this is a trend, it is hard to believe that these numbers are pure coincidence

Sold under:2253
Sold over: 376
Sold for asking: 379

75% of the sales sold under the asking price!
If you think that that is pure coincidence then you are never going to see the inflection point in time to take advantage of that.
Looking at average and even median prices region wide does help economists and long term (2-3-5 years) strategist but not the ordinary guy who need to buy this year.
If our guy sees what I posted he might hold his decision.
Based on spreadsheets like the one you posted there is nothing imminently wrong with the market.
I dare to say that it is.
I repeat 75% is too much to be coincidence
I will soon have contextual data (DOM and average prices calculated via HeatMaps) and then we will see.

Heat maps on sales prices would only be meaningful if they could show listing terminations,

I can probably calculate how many are terminated based on the difference between curent inventory between two days and taking into account the sales
I don't see the point in doing that

price changes and total days on market.

I have that sort of data but I decided it is not important

I do comprehensive tracking of the GTA housing market in about 25 ways and produce 4-5 reports each month, none of which ever “hide the statistics.” To give you an idea as to what statistics are relevant, and why your maps are ineffective, I’ll provide a glimpse of two of those spreadsheets:

This first is by area as your map attempts. Because of its size I had to hide the working columns that produced the results shown.
http://i39.tinypic.com/mj8x9h.jpg

Sorry but I think yours are irrelevant
You can not see trends and local data in your tables
You can not look at a sale and see if that was above the street price or not and if it was sold under or over asking price
A real bidding war would mean (on my maps) both a change in color compared with the area around that point and a positive percentage over the asking price

This next one was specifically created to track what I believe will be a price correction beginning this year and although you don’t care for aggregates, they are in the end relevant to the overall market and you’ll note how simply the analysis is comparatively tracking that.
http://i41.tinypic.com/5ob0na.jpg

I don't see why this is particular useful and it looks pretty much like the TREB data, aggregated data useful for economists and analysts but USELESS for the regular JOE.


PS: one more thing, do you actually publish your data ?
If not I don't think that we can discuss any further because that is the very issue that I am trying to reveal. There is data but there is no transparency from whoever has access to this data.

 

[recharts]

I'll admit. I am thoroughly confused over what information/conculsions Recharts is trying to present.

The TREB monthly Market Watch report already shows the % of sale price/asking price, segmented by real estate district (C1,C2, etc). So the added value for these maps seems to be segmenting the data down to the street level, and showing the # of bids? Is that correct?

I'm all in favour of more information, and appreciate the effort the author has expended, but I'm not understanding the relevance of the information being presented.

Which map do you need help to understand
Let's pick one ...post the link here

The most relevant ones are sales in the context of the street level average price.
If you see 10-15% over the asking price and the final price is actually in the range of that street's price then 10-15% over is pure fog spread by MLS ...next think you will see a Toronto Star article showing you bidding wars like this one when in fact there is none!

 

[daveto]

Which map do you need help to understand
Let's pick one ...post the link here

The most relevant ones are sales in the context of the street level average price.
If you see 10-15% over the asking price and the final price is actually in the range of that street's price then 10-15% over is pure fog spread by MLS ...next think you will see a Toronto Star article showing you bidding wars like this one when in fact there is none!

I understand the maps. What I don't understand is the added value beyond what is already available within the TREB data. If I can paraphrase you, the main value is that you're going down to the street level rather than reporting at the C1,C2,etc level?

While I appreciate a greater granularity of data, I think the counterpoint is that one will experience a significantly lower credibility of data due to the smaller # data points for the street subsets.

I would point out that the broad strokes of the analysis that you're attempting is already available from the TREB data for C1,C2, etc. Just compare the % Sold/Listing from the past to the present (although it is true that will not capture a possible change in seller's behavior wrt to list prices)


Let me ask you this, have you taken a read over the past 50 pages or so of this thread? I think if you were to do so, you would have a better understanding of your audience here. I think you'll find that most of us in this thread don't pay too much attention to the media's claims of "bidding wars" nor to % Sold/Listing data.

regards
dt

 

[recharts]

I understand the maps. What I don't understand is the added value beyond what is already available within the TREB data. If I can paraphrase you, the main value is that you're going down to the street level rather than reporting at the C1,C2,etc level?

While I appreciate a greater granularity of data, I think the counterpoint is that one will experience a significantly lower credibility of data due to the smaller # data points for the street subsets.

I would point out that the broad strokes of the analysis that you're attempting is already available from the TREB data for C1,C2, etc. Just compare the % Sold/Listing from the past to the present (although it is true that will not capture a possible change in seller's behavior wrt to list prices)


Let me ask you this, have you taken a read over the past 50 pages or so of this thread? I think if you were to do so, you would have a better understanding of your audience here. I think you'll find that most of us in this thread don't pay too much attention to the media's claims of "bidding wars" nor to % Sold/Listing data.

regards
dt

I think that you guys have to agree on what is reasonable/useful and what is not
One is telling me that he can not understand the map another one is telling me that he can ...and so on

I am not too worried about your "macro" views.
You seem too entrenched in the big numbers paradigm and you seem to forget that the average Joe doesn't give a damn about that.
He wants to buy on that street in that hood and that is all he wants and he needs info about that
What he might also want is to know ASAP if the market is changing.

So far none managed to explain why we see consistent price drops (sold under if you like) for the burbs and not so much in T.O.

Your theory should apply to To and to burbs equally. That is, the seller asks 5-10% over the price of that area and he gets just the normal price
I would rather see this like a convenient assumption than like the reality. Again 75% of the sales got less than the asking price

The only valid point you had was that if at local level you have less point the average is not going to be accurate
What you missed is that my algorithm need at least 5 point near by in order to render the color of a point
The points must be in a specific radius.
However as you can see for the burbs I do not post the heat maps before I accumulate enough data to plot decently.
The more data I collect the more accurate the maps become so this is not a valid concern.

You contradict yourself in the same post. You say you do not believe in average numbers but you are pointing out that the same data is available @TREB for C1,C2 etc
As far as I know those are average numbers. So ?

One more point if I may: you all seem to constantly point to MLS/TREB stats. Why can't you point us to a public source that uses TREB data but compile stats independently ?