Geotpf - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

I do wonder if much of this “pre-shadow inventory” ever becomes bank owned.  The banks, or the government, or whoever, are really doing a good job keeping kicking it down the road.  I would have thought it would start to trickle out a little by now.

Oh, and good job to our webmaster for posting an actual example of a property that actually was shadow inventory for over a year in today’s blog post.

Good question.
If you want to see an example of what happens in any given week regarding trustee sales, check out www.CotoHousingBlog tomorrow.  Every Saturday, the CHB post the results of the scheduled trustee sales from the week.  This week’s post is fairly typical.

Funny thing about FR, it did not show 8 Hubbard as scheduled for suction until today, one day after the trustee sale was canceled.  8 Manchester was not shown as receiving an NOD until one week after escrow closed and the lender was paid.  Nothing against FR, but no one source is accurate when dealing with all the foreclosures occuring.

I will extend my offer.  If you pm me your zip code, I will send you a FR list of the REOs in your neighborhood, and you can check for yourself to see if there is shadow inventory in your neighborhood, no matter how you care to define it.  I can not help by wonder why you do not want to know first hand.

awgee - 06 November 2009 11:45 PM

Geotpf - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

I do wonder if much of this “pre-shadow inventory” ever becomes bank owned.  The banks, or the government, or whoever, are really doing a good job keeping kicking it down the road.  I would have thought it would start to trickle out a little by now.

Oh, and good job to our webmaster for posting an actual example of a property that actually was shadow inventory for over a year in today’s blog post.

Good question.
If you want to see an example of what happens in any given week regarding trustee sales, check out www.CotoHousingBlog tomorrow.  Every Saturday, the CHB post the results of the scheduled trustee sales from the week.  This week’s post is fairly typical.

Funny thing about FR, it did not show 8 Hubbard as scheduled for suction until today, one day after the trustee sale was canceled.  8 Manchester was not shown as receiving an NOD until one week after escrow closed and the lender was paid.  Nothing against FR, but no one source is accurate when dealing with all the foreclosures occuring.

I will extend my offer.  If you pm me your zip code, I will send you a FR list of the REOs in your neighborhood, and you can check for yourself to see if there is shadow inventory in your neighborhood, no matter how you care to define it.  I can not help by wonder why you do not want to know first hand.

I DID! And, it turned out to be one of the most heated and active threads I’ve seen. And, over 50% of the listings were incorrect.

PM sent.

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

First, the unemployment projections you posted are LUDICROUS. I knoe economics isn’t your thing, but seriously, do you even read the news. If so, you may have caught the huge planned layoff numbers. Keep in mind that we are in the holiday seasons.  January is typically a big month for firing seasonal workers.  Combined with structural problems across multiple sectors (autos, commercial construction, retail), there is no f’ing way unemployment comes down in 2010.

Second, the word id Moot not mute.

Third, how the Hell do you come to the conclusion that corporate america is doing well?  Oh, I guess the net income upside earnings surprised predicated on “productivity gains” (read: layoffs) have you convinced. I would suggest taking a look at top line revenue, than overlay GDP growth minus government stimulus, then run your new earnings projections. Thats how the big boys (Grantham, Gross, Doll etc,) are looking at things, and the future is ugly.

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute.

And I thought the permabulls just weren’t listening. 

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_ - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genius… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Break out the calculator…

What was GDP? What is expected GDP? Stock market have rebounded quite nicely and support continues to hold. Are earnings not a indication of success? Have the reports on the financial sector and now the tech sector not been better than expected?

Professional and business sectors already adding jobs, temporary employment, which generally precedes broader hiring, increased by almost 34,000.

Even calculated risk’s cited article states: “Most economists predict that the rate will in fact begin to fall next year, largely because of the federal government’s aggressive response — fiscal stimulus, interest-rate cuts and a variety of creative steps by the Federal Reserve and Treasury Department. Friday’s report showed that monthly job losses continued to slow recently, though the improvement has been gradual. ” - So that’s give 2, max 3 quarters of slight increases in unemployment.

“The Bureau of Labor Statistics also revised its August and September unemployment numbers to reflect that 91,000 fewer jobs were lost over those two months than first reported.” - I’m confused, is that positive or negative?

The best part about your post is your comment is how your bet has changed to 2 out of the 3 possible forcasts. At first, “I’m graphy, I’m so smart and everyone else is dumb, I bet the RE market will be worse in a year.” NOW!! It’s “I’m still right, but but but… I bet it the market will be worse or the flat…”

Next comment out of this child’s mouth, “I’m smart, and I need to make sure I tell myself that in every post, and I bet the RE market will be worse or flat or slightly better!” HAHAHA

Child Please

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genious… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Oh, the irony.  ROFLMAO.           

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 07:24 AM

RoLar_ - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_ - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genius… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Oh, the irony. ROFLMAO.

Geez, I really need to re-read I guess and spell check… I thought this was just a blog.. But, I guess if that’s all you got, I’m fine with that

And, I’m still confused… Unemployment is still expected to turn around next year and the housing market this year has been able to withstand larger increases in unemployment than are forecast for next year. So.. what’s going to happen to the housing market once unemployment stabilizes, given that the housing market has withstood the increases of unemployment this past year? Let me guess, Shadow Inventory?

Or are we saying that unemployment doesn’t stabilize next year?

ADP reported 10.2% today.

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genious… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Break out the calculator…

I hope you brought your calculater to class, too.  Graph used the wrong % when he wrote out the problem (10.2 instead of 10.1), and he typed .04 instead of .4, but his math was correct.  That is, 10.2 - 9.8 = .4/9.8 = a 4% increase.  You apparently need a lesson in calculating percentages.  10.1 - 9.8 = a .3 change, not a .3 percent increase from month to month.

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 08:11 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_USC - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genious… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Break out the calculator…

I hope you brought your calculater to class, too.  Graph used the wrong % when he wrote out the problem (10.2 instead of 10.1), and he typed .04 instead of .4, but his math was correct.  That is, 10.2 - 9.8 = .4/9.8 = a 4% increase.  You apparently need a lesson in calculating percentages.  10.1 - 9.8 = a .3 change, not a .3 percent increase from month to month.

I was simply stating from the previous numbers an increase from 9.8% to 10.1%, an increase of .3. But, thank you for pointing out graphy’s errors when trying to “correct” my math when it was just a miscommunication. Yes, a change of .3, like I said, I just labeled a value to it.

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 07:53 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 07:24 AM

RoLar_ - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_ - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genius… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Oh, the irony. ROFLMAO.

Geez, I really need to re-read I guess and spell check… I thought this was just a blog.. But, I guess if that’s all you got, I’m fine with that

Actually, I completely missed the misspelled word, which merely adds to the irony.  In your arrogant haste, you failed to see—many times—your inability to exercise basic math skills —the irony I first attempted to point out.

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 08:20 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 07:53 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 07:24 AM

RoLar_ - 07 November 2009 07:14 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

RoLar_ - 06 November 2009 11:36 PM

graphrix - 06 November 2009 09:58 AM

Funny, I show the math month after month that shows the REO sales from the MLS have never kept pace with the foreclosures from DataQuick. I also know that Foreclosure Radar misses quite a few properties. I, like awgee, know of several properties that are sitting as REO from more than six months ago. Someone’s data is not accurate here, and when you are focused on a more micro level vs. a macro level it is easier to study and know a micro area than it is to know a macro area. Of course there might also be some bias in hoping this is true when you have recently purchased a house, because you want this to be true. No one wants to make a mistake. Lets see how the next year pans out… who wants to bet against me?

Got jobs?

I think it’s pretty obvious I bet against you.

How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%? As of right now, the jobs argument for the bears is mute. Corporate America seems to be doing pretty well.

Are you high? 10% is doing pretty well? Are you on crack? That is double what it was in 2005 and we have more housing stock now. Fine you bet against me. One year from now, I bet the housing market will be doing worse or still flat and stagnant as it is now. Under 3000 sales is stagnant. What is your bet $100, or how about $1000? Either way you won’t take it because you know you are wrong. You don’t have the balls to do it because you know that my experience is better than your little over one year but failed economics experience.

Seriously, your chart is laughable. Never, not once in your life time have you ever seen double digit unemployment rates. For you to say that corporate America is doing pretty well just shows how naive you really are. In fact, it really is just ignorant.

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%. Talking about the BPS increase is useless and anyone who has taken statistics/econ knows this. You did take econ 101 at USC, didn’t you?

Looking good Ricky Bobby junior, looking really good.

Hey genius… keep up here… 10.1 - 9.8 = ????

Oh, the irony. ROFLMAO.

Geez, I really need to re-read I guess and spell check… I thought this was just a blog.. But, I guess if that’s all you got, I’m fine with that

Actually, I completely missed the misspelled word, which merely adds to the irony.  In your arrogant haste, you failed to see—many times—your inability to exercise basic math skills, the irony I first attempted to point out.

I guess I’m still not seeing it. I get what you are saying, but 10.1%-9.8%=?

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 08:31 AM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

Let me clarify, I took this month’s unemployment rate of 10.2% and compared it to last month’s rate of 9.8%. Which means the unemployment rate of 10.2% increased from 9.8%, representing a 4% increase from last month.

And the professional services sector is up by a small tick from last month, it is not up YOY. Also, that sector is seeing the same job levels it saw in 2004. Mmmm… I think we need some serious growth for that to actually be a factor. Let me know when we get to the same levels as 2007, but don’t forget to adjust for population growth. Oh yeah… the professional services sector adjusted for population growth would set it back to 1998 levels.

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:36 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 08:31 AM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

Quoting this for historical records.

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%.

Quoting this for historical records

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:44 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%.

Quoting this for historical records

That was a typo. You clearly don’t understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.

Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase

graphrix - 07 November 2009 08:47 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:44 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%.

Quoting this for historical records

That was a typo. You clearly don’t understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.

Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase

.101 = ??.?%

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:50 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 08:47 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:44 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%.

Quoting this for historical records

That was a typo. You clearly don’t understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.

Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase

.101 = ??.?%

Okay, I will go slow here since you are not getting it. We are talking about the percentage increase from last month. This month the rate is 10.2 and you subtract that from last month’s rate of 9.8, which equals 0.4. Now to calculate the percentage increase you divide that 0.4 by 9.8 which equals .0408, and by rounding up that means it increased by 4.1%.

Here lets try it with some different numbers. The unemployment rate in 2005 was 4.9% and today it is 10.2%. 10.2 - 4.9 = 5.3. Does that mean that the rate increased 5.3% or even 53%, or… did it increase by 108.2%?

graphrix - 07 November 2009 09:00 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:50 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 08:47 AM

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:44 AM

graphrix - 07 November 2009 05:36 AM

And your math is bad. 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.04/9.8 = a 4% increase, it is not .3%.

Quoting this for historical records

That was a typo. You clearly don’t understand basic percentage calculations. Big difference there.

Let me correct that for you: 9.8 - 10.2 = 0.4/9.8 = a 4% increase

.101 = ??.?%

Okay, I will go slow here since you are not getting it. We are talking about the percentage increase from last month. This month the rate is 10.2 and you subtract that from last month’s rate of 9.8, which equals 0.4. Now to calculate the percentage increase you divide that 0.4 by 9.8 which equals .0408, and by rounding up that means it increased by 4.1%.

Here lets try it with some different numbers. The unemployment rate in 2005 was 4.9% and today it is 10.2%. 10.2 - 4.9 = 5.3. Does that mean that the rate increased 5.3% or even 53%, or… did it increase by 108.2%?

YES! Again! I get that! But, AGAIN! I am not talking that! I am trying to visually explain to you now what i was saying because you are clearly not listening. I obviously understand how to find the percentage difference between two numbers, like when I corrected your market activity numbers between 2009 and 2005. I used the percentage difference to explain that there is a 20% difference.

For future reference, how would you explain in words what I posted from the google calculator so that this miscommunication is not made again.

RoLar_USC - 07 November 2009 08:36 AM

Sunshine - 07 November 2009 08:31 AM

= approximately a 3% increase, not a .3% increase.  Seriously, write down the problem on paper.

Okay… again.. I get what you’re saying but that wasn’t what I was saying… I simply said percent to assign a unit value to that number. You are stating the percentage increase. Let’s try it this way.

10.1 - 9.8 =
9.8% + 3% = 12.8%

9.8% + .3% = 10.1%
or
.098 + .03 = .101

If you have 9.8 and you increase it by .3, you have 10.1

I guess i just did not fully articulate what I was saying

RoLar,

I provided the correct percentage increase because, in your original post, you asked, “How much will that .3% increase in unemployment hurt housing prices compared to the turn around and decrease of .5%?” 

Seriously, stop.  I think you have great potential to add value to this Forum, and I’m not kidding.  You provide a contrarian perspective that many people are interested in reading.  Please go to bed and wake up in the morning and review all of your math.  Then come back in the morning, and we can laugh it off and move on.