Homeownership Rate in Second Quarter 2008 Rebounds By Largest Increase in Four Years
The chart above is based on the Census Bureau's latest release on home ownership rates, and shows the following:1. The howeownership rate fell below 68% in the last quarter of 2007 (67.8%) and first quarter of 2008 (67.8%) for the first time since early 2002, as part of a four-year downward trend since the 69.2% peak level of homeownership in 2004.
2. The .30% increase in homeownship for the second quarter of 2008 to 68.1% was the first quarterly increase in almost two years (since third quarter 2006), and was the largest quarterly increase in four years (since second quarter 2004).
Bottom Line: If this rebound in homeownership rates continues to reverse the four-year downward trend, it could provide further evidence that we are finally experiencing a bottom to the housing market problems, as suggested by Larry Kudlow (The Media Are Missing the Housing Bottom) and Brian Wesbury ("Pace of existing home sales is very close to a bottom," and "Pace of new home sales has either already hit bottom or is getting very close to the bottom.")
7 Comments:
From the Census Bureau report:
The homeownership rate at 68.1 (+ 0.5) percent for the current quarter was not statistically different from the second quarter 2007 rate (68.2 percent) or the rate last quarter (67.8 percent).
What a joke. Do you guys have any idea what you're talking about or is a blip is a graph (where the data is provided by the Government!) as an event of some note?
If you understood cause and effect (which is key if you're going to be an economist), then you would notice a huge wave of ARM resets coming in the next few months.
Do you understand what that means? Have you not been watching the trends in walk aways growing as people go under water (negative equity)? Do you understand the consequences of that and why the Treasury is now trying to FORCE people not to walk away?
Seriously, this Pollyanna stuff is mind boggling from "free market economists". Do you not see how the whole housing market is one massive government boondoggle?
What a nozzle!
"Seriously, this Pollyanna stuff is mind boggling from "free market economists". Do you not see how the whole housing market is one massive government boondoggle?"...
Doh!
No, why would we see that when there are several previous postings on this site by Professor Mark showing was a nozzle like you now is saying?
Kudlow's good news is illusory. He makes a rookie mistake interpreting the NAR data. Sales are seasonally adjusted at an annual rate (SAAR) but prices are not.
NAR even cautions readers: The only valid comparisons for median prices are with the same period a year earlier due to the seasonality in buying patterns.
Forecasting a bottom in the housing market with near record inventory of 11.1 months' supply is a mug's game.
> What a joke. Do you guys have any idea what you're talking about or is a blip is a graph (where the data is provided by the Government!) as an event of some note?
Just curious. Do you write the same kind of response on lefty blogs and in letters to the MSMs, all of whom constantly misuse -- in fact, blatantly abuse -- the word "recession" to refer to our current economic clime?
Also, for whatever your own pet projects-of-support: do you avoid justifying your positions using statistics "(where the data is provided by the Government!)"
Just curious if you're honest or a hypocrite.
Not claiming anything, just wondering, just asking.
I eagerly await your reply.
.
OhBloodyHell:
Yes, I have the same consistency in writing in response to left wingers. I reject the use of statistics as the basis for economic understanding because I subscribe to Austrian economics.
Students of Austrian economics have a model for what's going on now: it's a credit bust. It's probably the largest credit bust in the last 80 years.
I don't really find it annoying when left wingers are Pollyannas. Those guys have no idea what they're talking about in the first place.
But when a free market economist does not recognize a government created credit bust and acts as if everything is ok, then it's pretty annoying. One wishes the economist would go back and read some more of Von Mises' writings.
> One wishes the economist would go back and read some more of Von Mises' writings.
Is George Mason an Austrian School or a Chicago school? You're assuming he agrees with you. Even if GMU is an Austrian school, Mark may be a fan of Chicago despite that. What is the position of the Monetarists on your assertion?
And as far as the schools go, I'm not so sure any of them have the current situation even vaguely well grasped -- look at some of the other recent entries for my comments about the fact that IP is not the same as Real Property, behaviorally, any more than Ice and Steam are "the same thing" for many purposes. IP is a phase change from Real Property, even though both are "property". I've yet to hear any economists address this issue with even the casual understanding that John Perry Barlow showed 14 years ago, much less address it while showing a technical feel for it, and attempting to incorporate the differences into their models.
I've been working with computers and IP for 30 years: Barlow has it right.
I'm not in the mainstream of economic thought, so I may well have missed it, but I don't think ANY of the economics schools have a handle on the current economy, not by a long shot.
Post a Comment
<< Home