{"id":703,"date":"2015-01-23T09:42:31","date_gmt":"2015-01-23T09:42:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/?p=703"},"modified":"2016-05-05T07:57:40","modified_gmt":"2016-05-05T07:57:40","slug":"industrial-production-in-december","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/industrial-production-in-december\/","title":{"rendered":"Industrial production in December"},"content":{"rendered":"

Published on: Jan 23, 2015 @ 9:42<\/b><\/span> am<\/p>\n

US manufacturing output rose modestly in<\/h3>\n

December, slowing
\nfrom the torrid gains registered a month earlier but still
\nsignaling that American industry is weathering the impact of
\na strong dollar and weaker overseas markets.\u00a0 Factory output
\nrose 0.3% last month, the Federal Reserve said on Friday.
\nThat marks the fourth straight month of growth although the
\npace was slower than the revised 1.3% expansion in November.
\nThe output reading is consistent with a survey of factory
\nmanager sentiment released on Jan. 2 that pointed to a
\nweaker pace of growth in activity last month.\u00a0 Economists
\npolled by Reuters had forecast manufacturing output rising
\n0.2% in December.\u00a0 Mining output jumped by 2.2%, reflecting
\nan increase in oil and gas extraction, although a drop in
\ndrilling and well-servicing activity tempered the gains.
\nThe gains in manufacturing and mining were not enough to
\ncompensate for a sharp 7.3% drop in utilities output, and
\noverall industrial production edged down 0.1%, its first
\ndecline in four months.\u00a0 The decline in utilities was driven
\nbe steep falls in sales of electricity and natural gas.<\/p>\n

Zillow – owners\u2019 equivalent rent and the housing bubble:
\nfeature or bug?<\/p>\n

The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its December
\n2014 Consumer Price Index (CPI) data, one of the two main
\ndata series used to measure how prices change in the United
\nStates. CPI data are produced from the results of the BLS
\nConsumer Expenditure Survey (CES). The CPI data include a
\nnumber of sub-indices for particular goods, including
\nestimates of housing prices.\u00a0 For homeowners, the CPI series
\non Owners\u2019 Equivalent Rent (OER) is designed to gauge how
\nmuch homeowners\u2019 shelter costs contribute to changing
\nprices. This is particularly difficult since, unlike other
\ngoods such as groceries or cars, most homeowners\u2019 monthly
\nhousing costs do not change much on a month to month basis
\ndue to the prevalence of fixed-rate mortgages.\u00a0 To get a
\nbetter sense of how much homeowners\u2019 shelter costs are
\nchanging, the CES asks homeowners the following question:
\n\u201cIf someone were to rent your home today, how much do you
\nthink it would rent for monthly, unfurnished and without
\nutilities.\u201d\u00a0 One unique feature of the OER series is that,
\nunlike most housing price or housing value indexes including
\nthe Zillow Home Value Index (ZHVI), during the 2000s the OER
\nseries did not suggest a rapid run-up in shelter costs in
\nadvance of the Great Recession, or a steep drop in shelter
\ncosts during the housing bust. Instead, the OER series grew
\nsteadily from 2000 through 2009 \u2013 roughly in line with the
\ngrowth of all prices \u2013 before flattening out in 2009 and
\n2010. Since 2010, the OER series has resumed its pre-crisis
\ntrend.\u00a0 Part of the difference between OER and most other
\nhousing indices is the formulation of the question. The CES
\nquestion mixes purchase prices and rent prices. Since rents
\ngrew slowly during the housing bubble but grew quickly
\nduring the housing bust, owners may have been focusing more
\non trends in their local rental market rather than trends in
\ntheir local purchase market when responding to the survey.
\nRegardless, the absence of an obvious housing bubble or bust
\nin the OER series, and its differences to most other home
\nprice\/value indices, raises questions about what exactly is
\nbeing measured.<\/p>\n

DataQuick – Southern California home sales and median sale
\nprice rise<\/p>\n

CoreLogic today released its December Southern California
\nhousing market report. The number of homes sold increased
\nsharply from the month of November and rose modestly from
\nthe same time a year earlier, marking one of just two months
\nin 2014 to post a year-over-year gain in sales. The region\u2019s
\nmedian sale price also increased from November and rose year
\nover year for the 33rd consecutive month, although that
\nannual gain was the lowest since the string of price
\nincreases began in spring 2012.\u00a0 A total of 19,205 new and
\nresale houses and condos sold in Los Angeles, Riverside, San
\nDiego, Ventura, San Bernardino and Orange counties in
\nDecember 2014. That was up month over month 22.8% from
\n15,643 sales in November 2014, and up year over year 4.3%
\nfrom 18,415 sales in December 2013, according to CoreLogic
\nDataQuick data.\u00a0 Sales usually increase from November to
\nDecember. On average, Southern California sales have risen
\n13.1% between those two months since 1988, when CoreLogic
\nDataQuick data began. On a year-over-year basis, sales in
\n2014 fell each month except in September (+1.2%) and
\nDecember.\u00a0 The total number of homes sold in Southern
\nCalifornia in all of 2014 fell 8.7% compared with 2013.
\nDecember home sales have ranged from a low of 13,240 in 2007
\nto a high of 36,865 in 2003. December 2014 sales were 20.2%
\nbelow the December average of 24,067 sales since 1988.\u00a0 “One
\nmonth doesn\u2019t make a trend, but December\u2019s uptick in home
\nsales might indicate renewed interest in housing thanks to
\nlower mortgage rates and job growth in recent months,\u201d said
\nAndrew LePage, data analyst for CoreLogic DataQuick. \u201cThe
\ngain came despite a continued decline in the share of homes
\nsold to investors and cash buyers. If demand continues to
\nbuild we’ll need more supply to keep up with it. One of the
\nbig questions hanging over the housing market is whether
\nhigher demand and home values will lead to a lot more people
\nlisting their homes for sale, as well as more new-home
\nconstruction, which remains well below average.\u201d<\/p>\n

The median price paid for all new and resale houses and
\ncondos sold in the six-county region in December 2014 was
\n$415,000, up 0.7% month over month from $412,000 in November
\nand up 5.1% year over year from $395,000 in December 2013.
\nThe median hasn’t moved much since September 2014, when it
\nwas $413,000. The median’s peak for 2014 was $420,000 in
\nAugust.\u00a0 The region’s median sale price has increased on a
\nyear-over-year basis for the past 33 consecutive months, but
\nthe 5.1% annual gain in December 2014 was the smallest since
\nApril 2012, when the $290,000 median rose 3.6% from a year
\nearlier.\u00a0 Southern California’s December median sale price
\nwas 17.8% below the peak median price of $505,000 reached in
\nMarch, April, May and July of 2007. Among the region\u2019s six
\ncounties, the December 2014 median in Orange County
\n($591,000) was the closest \u2013 within about 8% \u2013 to its peak
\nof $645,000 in June 2007.\u00a0 Home prices in Southern
\nCalifornia have been rising at different rates depending on
\nprice segment. In December, the lowest-cost third of the
\nregion’s housing stock experienced a 12.9% year-over-year
\nincrease in the median price paid per square foot for resale
\nsingle-family detached houses. The annual gain was 6.3% for
\nthe middle third of the market and 2.3% for the top,
\nmost-expensive third.\u00a0 The number of homes that sold for
\n$500,000 or more in December 2014 rose 10.1% compared with
\nDecember 2013. Sales below $500,000 rose 3.4% year over
\nyear, and sales below $200,000 dropped by 20.6%.<\/p>\n

Among the other Southern California housing market
\nhighlights from December 2014:<\/p>\n

–\u00a0 Foreclosure resales represented 5.0% of the resale market
\nin December. That was down from a revised 5.5% in November
\n2014 and down from 5.8% in December 2013. In recent months
\nthe foreclosure resale rate has been the lowest since early
\n2007. In the current cycle, foreclosure resales hit a high
\nof 56.7% in February 2009. Foreclosure resales are purchased
\nhomes that have been previously foreclosed upon in the prior
\n12 months.
\n–\u00a0 Short sales made up an estimated 6.2% of resales in
\nDecember, down from a revised 6.4 in November 2014 and down
\nfrom 10.2% in December 2013. Short sales are transactions in
\nwhich the sale price fell short of what was owed on the
\nproperty.
\n–\u00a0 Absentee buyers \u2013 mostly investors \u2013 bought 23.4% of the
\nhomes sold in December. That was down from a revised 23.8%
\nin November 2014 and down from 26.9% in December 2013. The
\nDecember 2014 absentee level ties the October 2014 level as
\nthe lowest for any month since October 2010, when 22.1% of
\nhomes were sold to absentee buyers. The peak absentee share
\nwas 32.4% in January 2013, and the monthly average since
\n2000, when CoreLogic DataQuick absentee data began, is about
\n19%. Absentee buyers include those who purchase vacation
\nhomes or other properties that public property records
\nsuggest are not used as primary residences.
\n–\u00a0 Cash buyers accounted for 23.8% of December home sales,
\ndown from a revised 24.3% in November 2014 and down from
\n28.8% in December 2013. The December 2014 cash level was the
\nlowest for any month since January 2009, when 22.0% of homes
\nwere bought with cash. The peak was 36.9% in February 2013,
\nand the monthly average since 1988 is 16.7%.
\n–\u00a0 Southern California home buyers committed a total of
\n$4.43 billion of their own money in the form of down
\npayments or all-cash purchases in December. That was up from
\na revised $3.47 billion in November 2014. The out-of-pocket
\ntotal peaked in May 2013 at $5.41 billion.
\nJumbo loans, or mortgages above the old conforming limit of
\n$417,000, accounted for 31.3% of purchase lending in
\nDecember, up from a revised 30.5% in November 2014 and up
\nfrom 28.5% in December 2013. The July\/August 2014 level of
\n32.3% was the highest since the credit crunch struck in
\nAugust 2007. Prior to August 2007, jumbo loans accounted for
\naround 40% of the home-loan market. The jumbo level dropped
\nto as low as 9.3% in January 2009.
\n–\u00a0 Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs) represented 12.1% of
\nhome purchase loans in December, up from 12.0% in November
\n2014 and down from 13.0% in December 2013. The ARM share
\ndropped to as low as 1.9% of home purchase loans in May
\n2009. Since 2000, a monthly average of about 30% of purchase
\nloans have been ARMs.
\n–\u00a0 All lenders combined provided a total of $6.19 billion in
\nmortgage money to Southern California home buyers in
\nDecember, up from a revised $4.88 billion in November 2014
\nand up from $5.40 billion in December 2013.
\n–\u00a0 The typical monthly mortgage payment for Southern
\nCalifornia home buyers in December was $1,558, down slightly
\nfrom $1,560 in November 2014 and down from $1,594 in
\nDecember 2013. Adjusted for inflation, the December 2014
\ntypical payment was 35.6% below the typical payment in the
\nspring of 1989, the peak of the prior real estate cycle. It
\nwas also 47.3% below the current cycle\u2019s peak in July 2007.<\/p>\n

Oil prices slip<\/p>\n

Brent crude oil prices fell below $50 a barrel on Monday
\nafter the global economic outlook darkened and Iraq
\nannounced record oil production.\u00a0 The world’s biggest energy
\nconsumer, China, faces significant downward pressure on its
\neconomy, its premier Li Keqiang was quoted by state radio as
\nsaying on Monday.\u00a0 China is expected this week to report
\ngrowth slowing to 7.2% from a year ago, the weakest since
\nthe depths of the last global economic crisis. Data from
\nChina’s National Bureau of Statistics showed on Sunday house
\nprices fell for a fourth straight month.\u00a0 Brent crude traded
\nat $49.42 a barrel by 1445 GMT, down 75 cents. US crude was
\ndown 84 cents at $47.85 a barrel.\u00a0 Oil prices have dropped
\nby more than half since last June as output around the world
\nsoared while demand growth slowed. Although the
\nInternational Energy Agency (IEA) said last week a reversal
\nin the trend was possible this year, it added that prices
\nmay fall further before rising.\u00a0 “There’s still more supply
\nthan demand and that’s a situation that will not change in
\njust a few weeks,” said Hans van Cleef, energy economist at
\nABN Amro.<\/p>\n

DataQuick – Bay Area home sales and prices rise in December
\n2014<\/p>\n

CoreLogic today released its December San Francisco Bay Area
\nhousing market report. Home buying picked up steam late in
\n2014, with December posting strong month-over-month and
\nyear-over-year sales gains. Price appreciation remained
\nlower than it had been earlier in 2014, but the median sale
\nprice, which has moved little since late last summer, was
\nstill nearly 10% higher than it was the same time a year
\nearlier.\u00a0 A total of 7,456 new and resale houses and condos
\nsold in the nine-county Bay Area in December 2014. That was
\nup month over month 24.2% from 6,003 in November 2014 and up
\nyear over year 14.1% from 6,532 in December 2013, according
\nto CoreLogic DataQuick data.\u00a0 A rise in sales from November
\nto December is normal for the season. Bay Area sales have
\nrisen an average of 9.6% between those two months since
\n1988, when CoreLogic DataQuick data began.\u00a0 The region\u2019s
\nmonthly home sales have ranged between 7,000 and 8,000 for
\nseven of the last nine months. Since 1988, December sales
\nhave varied from a low of 5,065 in 2007 to a high of 12,349
\nin 2003, and the December 2014 sales were 12.1% below the
\nDecember average of 8,482.<\/p>\n

The median price paid for a home in the Bay Area was
\n$603,000 in December 2014. That was up month over month by
\n0.3% from $601,000 in November 2014 and up year over year
\n9.9% from $548,500 in December 2013. December 2014 was the
\n33rd consecutive month with a year-over-year gain in the
\nmedian sale price. However, those annual increases slipped
\nfrom double-digit to single-digit in the last two months of
\n2014. In December 2013 the region\u2019s $548,500 median was
\n23.9% higher than in December 2012.\u00a0 The Bay Area median
\nsale price peaked at $665,000 in June and July 2007 and
\ndropped to a post-boom low of $290,000 in March 2009.\u00a0 \u201cThe
\nBay Area\u2019s residential real estate market ended 2014 on a
\ncautiously optimistic note, with moderate year-over-year
\nincreases in both median price and sales counts,\u201d said John
\nKarevoll, CoreLogic DataQuick analyst. \u201cSupply continues to
\nbe constrained, and the mortgage market remains difficult.
\nAs long-term trends, cash sales and investor purchases are
\ndeclining slowly, but they are still significant market
\nfactors. We know that there is a significant amount of
\npent-up demand lying in wait, and there is a good chance the
\nmarket could see a surge this spring and summer as more
\nhomes are put up for sale.\u201d<\/p>\n

Other December 2014 Bay Area housing market highlights
\ninclude the following:<\/h3>\n

–\u00a0 Adjustable-rate mortgages (ARMs), an important indicator
\nof mortgage availability, accounted for 22.3% of the Bay
\nArea\u2019s home purchase loans in December 2014, down from a
\nrevised 23.6% in November 2014, and up from 22.2% in
\nDecember 2013. ARMs hit a low of 3.0% of purchase loans in
\nJanuary 2009 and reached a post-housing-bust peak of 27.8%
\nin April 2014. Since 2000, ARMs have accounted for 46.2% of
\nall Bay Area purchase loans.
\n–\u00a0 Jumbo loans, or mortgages above the old conforming limit
\nof $417,000, accounted for 54.1% of purchase lending in
\nDecember 2014, down from a revised 56.4% in November 2014,
\nand up from 48.2% in December 2013. Jumbo usage dropped to
\nas low as 17.1% in January 2009. It reached 56.4% in May
\n2014 and has stayed close to that percentage since. Prior to
\nthe August 2007 credit crunch, jumbo loans accounted for
\nmore than 60% of the Bay Area\u2019s home purchase loans.
\n–\u00a0 Foreclosure resales accounted for 3.7% of all resales in
\nDecember 2014, up from 2.8% in November 2014, and down from
\n4.6% in December 2013. Foreclosure resales in the Bay Area
\npeaked at 52.0% in February 2009, while the monthly average
\nover the past 17 years is 9.6%.
\n– Foreclosure resales are purchased homes that have been
\npreviously foreclosed upon in the prior 12 months.
\n–\u00a0 Short sales made up an estimated 4.0% of Bay Area resales
\nin December 2014, up from a revised 3.9% in November 2014
\nand down from 7.9% in December 2013. Short sales are
\ntransactions in which the sale price fell short of what was
\nowed on the property.
\n–\u00a0 Absentee buyers \u2013 mostly investors \u2013 purchased 18.3% of
\nall Bay Area homes in December 2014, up insignificantly from
\na revised 18.2% in November 2014 and down from 22.5% in
\nDecember 2013. The November 2014 absentee level was the
\nlowest for any month since August 2010, when it was 17.8%.
\nThe peak absentee share was 28.7% in February 2013, and the
\nmonthly average since 2000, when CoreLogic DataQuick
\nabsentee data began, is 15.7%.
\n–\u00a0 Cash buyers accounted for 19.0% of home sales in December
\n2014 \u2013 the lowest for any month since the cash buyer level
\nwas 18.5% in October 2008. The December 2014 absentee level
\nwas down slightly from a revised 19.3% in November 2014 and
\ndown from 23.5% in December 2013. The peak was 32.3% in
\nFebruary 2013, and the monthly average since 1988 is 13.7%.
\n–\u00a0 Bay Area home buyers used $2.18 billion of their own
\nmoney in the form of a down payment or as an outright cash
\npurchase in December 2014. They borrowed $3.06 billion in
\nmortgage money from lenders.
\n–\u00a0 The typical monthly mortgage payment for Bay Area home
\nbuyers in December 2014 was $2,264. Adjusted for inflation,
\nthat payment was 21.6% below the typical payment in spring
\n1989, the peak of the prior real estate cycle. It was 42.0%
\nbelow the current cycle’s peak in July 2007 and 77.1% above
\nthe February 2012 bottom of the current cycle.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Published on: Jan 23, 2015 @ 9:42 am US manufacturing output rose modestly in December, slowing from the torrid gains registered a month earlier but still signaling that American industry is weathering the impact of a strong dollar and weaker overseas markets.\u00a0 Factory output rose 0.3% last month, the Federal Reserve said on Friday. That […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[39],"tags":[77,79,55,78,69,76,81,56,59,63,53,64,62,65,66,83,70,58,60,80,75,67,57,71,74,72,82,54,68,73,61],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=703"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":805,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/703\/revisions\/805"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=703"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=703"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/team.simplyfreedom.ws\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=703"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}