PDA

View Full Version : New Homes Sales Surge In May Highest In 2 Years!



Gayle in MD
06-25-2012, 06:03 PM
Updated at 12:05 p.m. ET: Americans bought new homes in May at the fastest pace in more than two years, adding to evidence of a slow but steady housing recovery.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Sales of single-family homes jumped 7.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000 units, the highest since April 2010, the Commerce Department said Monday.</span>

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast sales at a 346,000-unit rate last month from April's 343,000-unit pace. March's sales pace was revised up to 347,000 units from the previously reported 332,000 units.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Compared with May 2010, new-home sales were up 19.8 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The housing market is showing signs of life even as the broader economy is weakening, and residential construction is expected to contribute to gross domestic product this year for the first time since 2005.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Overall, we see the May new-homes sale report as yet another data point that supports our view that housing is in a moderate recovery phase," Barclays economist Michael Gapen said in a research note.</span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Data last week showed a jump in home building intentions in May and a fourth straight month of gains in the median price of a previously owned home.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The improving housing market picture was further enhanced by a 5.6 percent rise in the median price of a new home to $234,500 from May last year.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Though new homes represent less than 20 percent of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

"May's sales report is a welcome sign that the market has returned to a more solid growth path following lackluster reports in March and April, and is in keeping with our expectations for continued, steady improvement through the end of this year," NAHB chief economist David Crowe said in a statement.</span>


Still, new-home sales remain extremely low by historical standards. The 306,000 single-family homes sold last year was the lowest annual total in the history of the series, which dates to 1963.

Builders sold from 1 million to 1.3 million homes annually in the boom years of 2003-06.

Crowe said sales are being held back back lack of credit availability for builders, among other factors



http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...-two-years?lite (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398453-new-home-sales-surge-to-fastest-pace-in-two-years?lite)

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 05:14 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
"Overall, we see the May new-homes sale report as yet another data point that supports our view that housing is in a moderate <span style='font-size: 20pt'>recovery</span> phase," Barclays economist Michael Gapen said in a research note.

</div></div>


Shuuuuush, don't tell Mitsey! Don't wake up the righties!


/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

Sev
06-26-2012, 05:29 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Updated at 12:05 p.m. ET: Americans bought new homes in May at the fastest pace in more than two years, adding to evidence of a slow but steady housing recovery.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Sales of single-family homes jumped 7.6 percent to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 369,000 units, the highest since April 2010, the Commerce Department said Monday.</span>

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast sales at a 346,000-unit rate last month from April's 343,000-unit pace. March's sales pace was revised up to 347,000 units from the previously reported 332,000 units.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Compared with May 2010, new-home sales were up 19.8 percent.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The housing market is showing signs of life even as the broader economy is weakening, and residential construction is expected to contribute to gross domestic product this year for the first time since 2005.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"Overall, we see the May new-homes sale report as yet another data point that supports our view that housing is in a moderate recovery phase," Barclays economist Michael Gapen said in a research note.</span>


<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Data last week showed a jump in home building intentions in May and a fourth straight month of gains in the median price of a previously owned home.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>The improving housing market picture was further enhanced by a 5.6 percent rise in the median price of a new home to $234,500 from May last year.</span>

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>Though new homes represent less than 20 percent of the housing market, they have an outsize impact on the economy. Each home built creates an average of three jobs for a year and generates about $90,000 in tax revenue, according to the National Association of Home Builders.

"May's sales report is a welcome sign that the market has returned to a more solid growth path following lackluster reports in March and April, and is in keeping with our expectations for continued, steady improvement through the end of this year," NAHB chief economist David Crowe said in a statement.</span>


<span style="color: #CC0000"><span style='font-size: 26pt'>Still, new-home sales remain extremely low by historical standards. The 306,000 single-family homes sold last year was the lowest annual total in the history of the series, which dates to 1963. </span>
</span>
Builders sold from 1 million to 1.3 million homes annually in the boom years of 2003-06.

Crowe said sales are being held back back lack of credit availability for builders, among other factors



http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...-two-years?lite (http://economywatch.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/25/12398453-new-home-sales-surge-to-fastest-pace-in-two-years?lite)
</div></div>

Still a long way to go. Good to see though.
However foreclosures will continue to flood the market.

eg8r
06-26-2012, 08:23 AM
Oh jeesh. Sofla wake up will you. When we exaggerate what the idiot lefties say it is merely because they like to jump in here and post in big bold letters only to hide when the adjustments come through.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 09:05 AM
When the patient gets up and walks around under his own power after months of enforced bed rest, that shows recovery in process.

He doesn't need to go out an run a personal record time for it to be a recovery. In fact, as he can only shuffle around, he'd not even complete that race, or would run a personal worst record.

Still a recovery beginning to take place, though. Which was to be demonstrated, QED.

Here's a free clue: we will NEVER see the levels of home buying achieved during the bubble unless we re-bubble that market, and will not return even to the trend before the bubble until this excess inventory is worked off, and average income rebounds, and a more typical level of employment returns.

None of that can happen unless the all-time record corporate profits, and the all-time record low wage income, begin to reverse. With the level of corporate power now, with the turbo-charging of their already 1200 horsepower motor by the effects of Citizens United, that may NEVER occur, sans a social revolution.

LWW
06-26-2012, 09:48 AM
Brothers Sev and Eg ... why do you not share the collectivist joy of this glorious news.

In spite of this tragic surge, under the brilliant leadership ... which dear leader, and <span style='font-size: 11pt'>ONLY</span> dear leader ... has given us, the war on prosperity advances.

In spite of advances by the forces of Emmanuel Goldstein and his truly <span style='font-size: 14pt'>EEEVILLL</span> capitalist hordes ... housing starts have been beaten down by over 70% from the highs we endured during the dark ages of the sexist, racist, misogynistic,homophobic, xenophobic, homicidal, suicidal, genocidal, dance recital Bush regime.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>ALL HAIL DEAR LEADER!</span>

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 10:43 AM
When you finally learn about supply and demand, revisit this topic.

Until then, by all means enjoy your linguistic stylings, incoherent though they are.

LWW
06-26-2012, 02:25 PM
Explain us then what is happening that makes supply:demand ratios so different gtween now and 50 years ago.

You can babble to your fellow cult members ... but if you take the high end of annual home building and apply it to each of the last 50 years you would have 50 million new home units, minus home demolitions. That is a highly dubious assumption, but your inane hypothesis needs ll the help it can get.

In any event, the US population in that period has increased by 123M over that same period ... as well as increased in average age, meaning that household growth has exceeded home growth.

This is where you scour the bowels of the moonbat left blogs seeking an excuse for the Obma regime.

The bottom line is that you are so cute when you use words you don't understand in a lame effort to appear to be knowledgeable.

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 02:49 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Oh jeesh. Sofla wake up will you. When we exaggerate what the idiot lefties say it is merely because they like to jump in here and post in big bold letters only to hide when the adjustments come through.

eg8r </div></div>

Adjustments? What adjustments? Nothing to add but another sniper attack, nothing but more snark?

Additionally, why are you constantly bringing Sofla into posts between us? Some kind of imagined competition going on in your mind.

Seems to me Sofla and I agree probably 90% to 95% of the time, or haven't you noticed?

You seem to be the one who is constantly getting snarky with Sofla, not I. I have nothing but respect for his opinions.

Give it up. It's so childish!

G.

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 03:10 PM
Explain us then what is happening that makes supply:demand ratios so different gtween now and 50 years ago.

You are tripping, bro'!

What's different?

Median household income has stagnated as individual wages have stagnated, probably peaking about '78.

For years, the home market demand was pumped up by 30% of them being purchased by speculators that were listening to 'flip this house to become a millionaire.'

As house prices increased by double digit annual rates under this speculative demand, people could only afford them with gimmick financing-- teaser rate ARMs, negative amortization loans, 125% loan to value ratios. Housing prices doubled in a short 10 year period, worsening the affordability.

People were encouraged to sustain unsustainable consumption levels and debt levels through refinancing and home equity loans, which they couldn't afford as their wages flat-lined and their expenses for everything else went up.

What happened next should be well known, even to you. The speculators vanished, leaving the field, dropping demand by 30% off the top. Banks cancelled home equity loans that they'd previously made, further cramping the cash-strapped consumers. Credit cards were cancelled, or had their limits cut back, depleting consumers' purchasing power. Bankruptcy law changes made credit card debt not dischargeable in bankruptcy. One in six single dwelling homes are unoccupied. Some large fraction of home owners are under water.

We have too many houses, and too little ability for people to afford the more orthodox required mortgages, even at very low historical rates, and even as the home prices have substantially rolled back. Even the banks are holding their foreclosures at bay, creating a shadow inventory of homes not now on the market, but eventually to push some millions more units onto the market.

So, way too much supply, far too little demand. We have a glut of housing that cannot be cleared, as even the banks won't pull the triggers to fully liquidate their holdings.

This is econ 101, which does not require anyone to be very knowledgeable at all. Which is why I hope you may now understand my point.

You ask why new housing starts are down? It could not be more obvious, and I didn't even mention the 8% (or as you remind us so often, the 15% or more UE-6) unemployment number.

Once the mushroom effect subsides, re-read this, please.

eg8r
06-26-2012, 05:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Adjustments? What adjustments? Nothing to add but another sniper attack, nothing but more snark? </div></div>LOL, I would ask you why you are playing dumb but then again what else do you have?

eg8r

eg8r
06-26-2012, 05:54 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">When the patient gets up and walks around under his own power after months of enforced bed rest, that shows recovery in process.

He doesn't need to go out an run a personal record time for it to be a recovery. In fact, as he can only shuffle around, he'd not even complete that race, or would run a personal worst record.

Still a recovery beginning to take place, though. Which was to be demonstrated, QED.</div></div>LOL, the idiot posts in big bold letters, but hides in the shadows when the adjustments come out. LOL, happens every time. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Here's a free clue: we will NEVER see the levels of home buying achieved during the bubble unless we re-bubble that market, and will not return even to the trend before the bubble until this excess inventory is worked off, and average income rebounds, and a more typical level of employment returns.</div></div>LOL, what is this, your sad attempt at paying forward some sort of knowledge you stumbled upon? LOL, prior to this bubble people were saying the same thing you are saying now. Then this bubble happened and now we have people saying we will never get back to that point until blah blah blah. I guess your "free clue" was meant to prove the old saying, "You get what you pay for."

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 06:31 PM
The typical path of bubbles is that they retrace 50% of the increase downwards, and then do NOT regain their highs for a lifetime or more.

Japanese real estate, and the Nikkei Dow, followed that course, and have still not recovered some 20 or more years later.

Back in the day, when people were selling Florida swampland and it bubbled, I think in the '20s, it regained its NOMINAL value about in the '80s (same dollar price figure but not adjusting for inflation), and still to this day, or at the peak of the more recent bubble, never regained its real value in inflation-adjusted dollars.

You casually insult me for what reason exactly? I try to remain civil, and use a minimum of ad hominem attacks, unless severely tested by a vicious attack on me.

Pay attention and you might learn something, heaven forbid!

I may have forgotten more than you may ever know.

LWW
06-27-2012, 03:06 AM
It is amazing how you can walk through a forest and never see a tree.

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 09:36 AM
Really? How so?

You cite the 70% down in housing starts as Obama's doing.

I obliquely implied it is a supply/demand problem, which you then challenged.

I supplied the details of what I meant. Your response...?

An inane and non sequitur response (what's new?).

So, do you have ANY germane response, or not? Even if only to blame Obama for no average wage increase in 30 years? C'mon, I know you can do it!

eg8r
06-27-2012, 04:57 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You casually insult me for what reason exactly?</div></div>If you cannot handle the responses to your "free clues" might you keep them to yourself next time? Thin skin won't get you anywhere.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 05:12 PM
You might agree, or disagree, with an argument or evidence.

Simply pot-shotting as to what I choose to say is fairly weak, and adds little to the conversation.

Unless your argument is 'shut up!'

eg8r
06-27-2012, 05:22 PM
You like to pick and choose at will, so take your pick. In this conversation I mentioned you mainly to get you to wake up and see what is happening before you jumped in to defend. LOL, you bark at lww constantly for repeating something that wasn't said bu then I explain why it might sometimes happen and you get your panties in a twist.

eg8r

Qtec
06-28-2012, 02:36 AM
At a time when banks are not lending, foreclosures are continuing, MC wages are receding, house prices are going up? I don't believe its a genuine reflection of the situation.
Like SoFla said, its supply and demand. What's happening is that the banks are keeping a huge number of houses off the market in order to raise house prices. They did it in the bubble and they are doing it now.

Q..JMO

LWW
06-28-2012, 04:18 AM
Actually, you failed miserably at answering a very easy question ...

Gayle in MD
06-28-2012, 08:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">At a time when banks are not lending, foreclosures are continuing, MC wages are receding, house prices are going up? I don't believe its a genuine reflection of the situation.
Like SoFla said, its supply and demand. What's happening is that the banks are keeping a huge number of houses off the market in order to raise house prices. They did it in the bubble and they are doing it now.

Q..JMO </div></div>

I think when we see the number of new home sales rising, and builders predicting more building permits, it's good for the economy.

Also, when rental costs go up, which they do in a housing slump, more people who have remained in reasonably decent financial shape, start to look for something they can own, they might just as well own, since regardless of economic predictions, renting is still like flushing away any possibility for equity going forward. Home owndership is still seen as a sign of success, which Americans still value.

Movement is better than stagnation, I think. There are always young couples, starting their families, living in rental apartments, cramped for space, both working, who can pick up pre-owned houses that have become more affordable.

I'm not predicting any big housing boom, any time soon, just saying, nothing is worse than extended stagnation in the housing market, or in the automobile market, both seeing some measurable gains, even if only in the regions where the job market has improved, or remained active.

Here in my neighborhood the turn key, well kept houses, with a lot of curb appeal, don't languish on the market very long, but the location is very disirable, as well, easy access to the Chesapeake Bay, and located conveniently to both Baltimore, and to Washington D.C....location, location, location. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

Just my 2C. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif Although I do agree with your analysis as well.

G.

Soflasnapper
06-28-2012, 08:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Actually, you failed miserably at answering a very easy question ... </div></div>

The question was: Explain us then what is happening that makes supply:demand ratios so different gtween now and 50 years ago.

I covered most of the dynamics, except that 50 years ago, the boomers were becoming adults and getting houses of their own for their families, as well as that THEIR parents had to have houses for their baby boomer kids.

That dynamic went on for quite a while. Now the boomers have their kids out of the house and are downsizing into smaller houses and/or apartments in preparation for retirement.

Anything you care to add?