Barbanel gives up Manhattan sales data in NY Times, grudgingly

stingy reporter!
I referred in Wednesday’s data point in a sideways market / closing at 32 West 18 Street to "Josh Barbanel’s latest frustrating review of market data from Sunday’s New York Times (A Mixed Picture)" as an intro to that discussion about one recent Manhattan loft closing as indicative of a "sideways market". Let me take some time to address what Barbanel reported, then what he wrote.

In a world hungry for real-time data, Barbanel’s occasional articles referencing "last month’s" sales data as recorded with the City’s Department of Finance provide just a smidgen of a hint of a taste. In his June 8 piece he looked at May closing data and reported

Good stuff, all. But — as usual — he leaves out the detail, the raw numbers that some people want (OK, this person needs).

a reporter, not a blogger
This is not a criticism so much as it is a lament. Oh how I wish he would give up his raw numbers. No one else I know tracks the monthly Finance Department filings; no one I know publishes monthly sales data. He digs in the monthly numbers for these occasional articles, in which he uses what fits his purposes and does not bother to (does not need to) reveal the details. If he gave the raw numbers, we could build up over time a set of data closer to The Holy Grail of real-time Manhattan real estate reports. But he holds the raw data close, and highlights different data points at different times.

It’s his column; he can do what he wants, but I am jealous about the data he sees that I can’t see.

Maybe I just need to step back and appreciate what he gives us, rather than rue what he could give if only he took direction from me. I have been down this road before, such as in December 17’s more actual data / November sales in Manhattan more or less steady , where I quoted him (in his vague glory) from a December 16 article Manhattan Market Remains Stable:

reading the tea leaves
To scramble food metaphors here, let’s look at the crumbs in last Sunday’s article about what happened in May.

(1) With both average and median prices up, the May closings imply that sellers are holding and that buyers are willing. (I use the weasel word "imply" because the gross data of average or median price can mask a lot, as we do not know the mix of large vs. small or resale vs. new development transactions.)

(2) With more May sales than in any month since August, that is a ton of sales, since Miller Samuel reported 3,499 Manhattan coop and condo sales in the Third Quart of 2007 (the second highest quarterly total ever), some good part ofwhich must have come from a healthy September, and 2,514 in the Fourth Quarter (more than any quarter in 2006; indeed, more than any other quarter but two going back ten years; see my January 3 Q4 reports coming in / demand continues ).  How many sales in "a ton"? Dunno. Arrggghhh.

(3) If May 2008 had 20% fewer sales than the best-month-ever-for-sales-in-Manhattan, May 2007, that ain’t bad at all (year over year, 2007 beat 2006 by about 35%). Again, that implies that sellers are holding and that buyers are meeting them, in gross terms.

hopin‘ and wishin‘
If I were Barbanel’s editor I would have him dump his raw data into a hyperlink, the way David Leonhardt sometimes does with his economics columns, or Frank Rich always does with his Sunday screeds. But I don’t think I am qualified for that job. And I don’t think they are hiring. Sigh.