Hi Madhaus - that's great detailed work! 

I can't speak to formatting errors or presentation decisions in the Forbes piece, but I can answer a few of the specific questions for you. 

Yes there were methodology changes year to year. We try to capture the most representative markets and have to establish some guidelines for doing so. We'll certainly change approach If we think we can get a better view. It's not an exact science. For example as you point out, condo pricing is a big factor in this output, potentially bigger than years past. What does it actually mean to have a blended average across property types anyway? It's one way to look at a market, though I personally prefer to keep property types distinct. 

For this piece we try to control for small markets. All the rankings on this list are based on active inventory not closed transactions. We had a minimum threshold of homes for sale in a 90-day rolling average. We did not count transactions. 

Ultimately, this type of piece is not academic work, it's designed to inform and entertain and create some conversation. I think the Forbes folks were quite successful on this front. 

Thanks again for the interesting take on it. Good luck with your site!

M

Always nuanced, ain't it, Ed? ;-)

Interestingly, the math in your example shows why good housing data uses median pricing rather than average (mean). In your scenario, the median price is $300k all the way through. So, no, prices didn't rise.

You bet, Troy. We couldn't agree more. Thats precisely what our clients pay us for. Local, real time data and the apps to understand what is actually happening out there.

oops. of course you're right. I've updated the post thanks.

Hi Michael - I think you misread the post. I never said the ONLY solution is to kick people out of their homes. There are options for people in temporary situations. As I mentioned, loan mods, short sales, etc. are indeed valid options. No one is saying don't do those.

Rather, I'm pointing out the unintended consequence of removing foreclosure as an option for resolving these situations.
Think about the moral hazard caused when an underwater, delinquent homeowner says, "I can try to renegotiate this loan for lower payments and STILL be $150,000 in the red. Or what's going to happen? If they can't foreclose, then nothing is going to happen. I will live in my house without paying anything." or walk away and let someone else deal with it.

Foreclosure, while scary and horrible for the people going through it, is a vital part of the resolution. Like it or not, it has to happen - to some. A moratorium only delays the inevitable.

Nice juxtaposition of Bolt's "astonishingly" unlikely performance and the Tour's reversion of 20 years of astonishingly unlikely performance. Let's just drop the pretense, shall we?

That's right Osman. The Case Shiller is a useful number. We just like to point out that there is lots of data that leads the Case Shiller, and it's so highly correlated that you don't need to be surprised by the CS headlines.

Hi Louis - the scientific answer is "probably 10 years worth." ;-)

Nathan - that is the dramatically lower inventory. A big deal in phx this year.

Sheesh. Give 'em an inch, they ask for a mile ;-)