The NAR press release says the "seasonally adjusted" pending home sales were up .2 % and down 20.4% from last year.
But when you look at NOT seasonally adjusted, you get a better picture of what is going on. The index fell from 94.6 in Augujst to 77.9 in September! That is a drop of 17.7% and 22.7% from last year.
You think you are going to hear that number in MSM? Probably not.
But when you look at NOT seasonally adjusted, you get a better picture of what is going on. The index fell from 94.6 in Augujst to 77.9 in September! That is a drop of 17.7% and 22.7% from last year.
You think you are going to hear that number in MSM? Probably not.
4 comments:
why would you want to look at non-seasonally adjusted data when it is very clear that home buying is a very seasonal business? People mainly buy in the summer when its warmer and kids are done with school.
Would you also look at non-seasonally adjusted toy sales in June and compare that to what goes on at Christmas time?
Kudos to you for showing the NAR's report to be one more piece of fraudulent waste.
I used to be a reporter who covered the Federal Reserve and the economy for a national financial newspaper. I was intimately acquainted with the issue of seasonally-adjusted vs. seasonally unadjusted numbers.
I very much preferred to use seasonally unadjusted numbers when I could, comparing unadjusted to unadjusted on a year to year basis.
There are a couple reasons for this. One is the cheesy, dishonest kind of crapola that the NAR pulled. Year-over-year comps of unadjusted numbers screens out that sort of thing. The other is that month-to-month fluctuations can be really misleading, even if the numbers are accurate.
There are times when month-to-month data can be valuable. For instance, on my blog I'm going to publish a graph of listings and sales in my Seattle neighborhood. It vividly shows that panic set in after July, and listings went through the roof. (So much for Seattle being "immune" from the crash, as so many "authorities" have been saying.)
More often than not, though, you're better to look at year-over-year trends, seen month by month. How much did August 2007 change over August 2006, and then how much did September 2007 change over September 2006, and so on. That usually gives you a sense of the second derivative, i.e., the change of the change. That's what the professionals look at.
The NAR's seasonanally adjusted month-to-month numbers are just one in a long series of lies from people whose business it is to tell them. What gets to me is that the mainstream media is almost certain to broadcast the NAR's propaganda as fact.
I could go on and on about why they'll do that, but I don't want to blow a gasket so I'll stop right now. Anyway, people who are interested in what's happening in Seattle should stop by my blog in another day or so for some interesting stuff.
Hi Anonymous,
Contrary to what it sounds like, the number is not just an adjustment that is month to month.
If it was consistent every year, that would be fine with me.
But why would you apply a different factor from 2006 to 2007? That is my bigger problem.
If you look at 2006 data vs. 2007, the seasonal adjustment is way different.
I hope to look at this data in near future.
Sandy
Hi Economic Crisis,
Thanks. I agree with you. All you need to do is compare Year over Year.
If you look at the Seasonally adjusted, YOY drop is 20%. Not seasonally adjusted it is 22%. This is what bothers me. The numbers should not be different YOY, but they are. And that's what bother me.
I also agree with you about MSM. You had Pisani on CNBC saying this are great numbers!
Sandy
Post a Comment