Comments on: Homes for Sale vs Population Where They’re Located; Miami Leads the way with highest real estate to population ratio

By: Afternoon Quickie 02/25/2009 | Real Estate Blog

Afternoon Quickie 02/25/2009 | Real Estate Blog — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 01:20:05 +0000

[...] Quickie 02/25/2009 Advertise HereA Bird’s Eye View - Homes for Sale vs Population Where They’re Located The Big Picture - Bailout Hearings Deal [...]

By: Afternoon Quickie 02/25/2009

Afternoon Quickie 02/25/2009 — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 00:22:25 +0000

[...] you’re new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!A Bird’s Eye View - Homes for Sale vs Population Where They’re Located The Big Picture - Bailout Hearings Deal [...]

By: Miami Beach condos

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:16:18 +0000

Miami stats are always convoluted because there’s the city of Miami which has that population and then there’s unincorporated Miami-Dade which has a much larger population and different real estate stats.

By: Steve Mattison

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 04:10:06 +0000

D.O. you know if we could get this kind of info out like they do the negative it would nip this fear block right in it’s tracks. Great job of putting things in a proper perspective!!!

By: Joe stampone

Wed, 25 Feb 2009 00:15:07 +0000

This is certainly and interesting and fun way to look at inventory. It obviously ignores a lot of factors, but it’s cool nonetheless. I look forward to your refined follow-up piece.

By: roostblog

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:36:41 +0000

I know John. This started off as just a fun way to look at inventory. But everyone here and on Twitter has brought up some very interesting ideas on how we could actually look at this data. I’m going back to the lab and I’m going to use a couple of favors to try and expand this to be much more realistic and useful. Give me a little time and hopefully I’ll come back with something that might make you go wow.

By: John Buehler

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 23:26:38 +0000

I agree that this is an interesting way of looking at things, but it is a look within a vacuum. Without knowing a few more things, we know nothing. We need to know the following:

1. What were the ratios in 2005, 2006
2. What percentage of people within these areas move for work versus an upgrade/downgrade i.e. reasons to move (neither are fairing well now)
3. What percentage of these populations would qualify for a loan in 2005, 2006 versus now.
4. Number of homes held by Bank owned REITs to keep inventory off the market.

I’m afraid that if we answer these questions, the percentage based upon number of available houses versus number of qualified buyers times the number of reasons to move (ah / qb * rm) looks a whole lot worse no matter how much you dress it up.

By: victor lund

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:22:52 +0000

Great Post – Send it to Washington.

What percentage of the 1% that are available for sale are are in foreclosure?

Depending on who you ask, and where you look, I have seen numbers as high as 30% of homes for sale are in foreclosure.

Our government is about to spend an awful lot of money to protect a very small sliver of our country.

By: roostblog

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:20:37 +0000

Jeremy, I think I’m going to take this data and refine it a bit more. I will also take your suggetions and try to look at this historically. Stay Tuned.

By: roostblog

Tue, 24 Feb 2009 20:19:05 +0000

I know Rick. People can slice and dice the data in millions of ways. This does not take into consideration the affordability index for each city or the amount of the population that are already in homes. But I still thought it was interesting because the numbers were so low. All you here from the media is how much inventory is on the market and I was trying to say in relation, it’s not as high as you would think.