But you might have thought so based on the media reports of the sharp decline in July existing home sales which I characterized as dismal but expected.
Brian Williams at NBC News.
"Housing, the real estate market, it's a disaster, in plain English. The numbers came out for July today. One economist calls them eye watering. Here's the big bad number. Sales of existing homes fell off a cliff last month, down 27 percent. That's the biggest one-month drop on record in our history." Watch the video.
David Streitfeld writing at the NY Times fresh off his recent article suggesting that real estate as an asset class is dead.
"The steep descent surprised nearly every analyst ... The financial markets took the news badly ... Economists said that just as the credit had artificially buoyed the market, the end of the credit was artificially depressing it. 'If you pay them, they will come. But when ya stop paying them, they leave in droves,' the economist Tom Lawler wrote in an e-mail. His conclusion, 'People shouldn't panic'."
He continues, "Mr. Lawler, whose forecast for July was much more accurate than his colleagues' estimates, said housing would truly be healthy only when there was enough employment growth to spur the creation of new households." Read more.
So are you surprised ... by either the news or the reaction. How all these economists got it wrong except for Tom Lawler is beyond me but you know what they say about an economic forecast, it's usually wrong. Most were probably sleeping under a rock which would make them good candidates to buy a home if they still feel like they have any job security after their big misses. The financial markets obviously weren't paying any attention either.
And how did Tom Lawler get it. By paying attention and doing a thorough bottoms up analysis.
Oh, and jobs and job security ultimately matters more than an $8000 tax credit. And if you remember the cash for clunkers program, car sales soared and then crashed. All either program does is pull demand forward so you should expect a sluggish fall for real estate sales and no significant improvement until the economy picks up and business starts hiring again.
Housing isn't really dead according to Andrew Jeffery at Minyanville.
"Buying a house isn't the same thing as investing in the 'housing market' Not even close. The argument relies on the naive, yet now-popular belief that the same factors that make taking a flier on a Vegas condo risky must, by extension, also make buying a starter home in Austin, Texas, a dicey proposition.
Demographic movements, not short-sighted speculation, are behind the creation of real estate wealth in the long run. These shifts explain why rural towns with stagnant populations won't see appreciation for decades (if ever), while regions with expanding job markets and a growing population are ripe for smart investment (yes, such areas exist, even now)."
And as I see it, he makes two very important points.
First and foremost is the real reason that 60 something percent of Americans own a home. It's a place to raise a family and create lasting memories. I have rented and I have owned at different times in my life. And I just don't believe that people grow up wanting to be tenants staring at white walls and paying their landlord's mortgage just to have shelter.
And if I can tout Charleston for just a moment, the Charleston real estate market seems to me to be exactly what Mr. Jeffery is describing, an expanding job market and a growing population.
Photo courtesy of flickr by foundphotoslj