4 ms·

Sorry, when a headline says "home sales fell 41% in February" I do not assume year over year, I assume month over month. This post's headline is needlessly prov

by ellyagg 18y ago

Sorry, when a headline says "home sales fell 41% in February" I do not assume year over year, I assume month over month. This post's headline is needlessly provocative and misleading. Take it to reddit.

azanar 18y ago
When people quote financial figures, especially anything to do with real estate, I actually assume the opposite unless they explicitly state "month over month." It may be a bit counter-intuitive at first, but it is the convention of financial reporting to be implicit this way. As JacobAldridge points out, it is used to account for seasonal variation; an article that looks to month over month figures would seem anomalous for this same reason. But it takes knowing some of the nuance of the industry and how it is reported to understand the what and why of the convention. I'm not a realtor, nor do I work with realtors; I just find that sector interesting to read about, enough so that some of the nuance rubs off. :-)
- ars 18y ago
  Real estate, same store sales, car sales. Pretty much all purchasing varies year to year, not month to month. I actually can't think of any sales figures that are relevant month to month.
JacobAldridge 18y ago
October news: "Pumpkin Sales up 1000%" November news: "Pumpkin Sales plummet" Month on month tells us nothing (in this extreme example). Year-on-year (ie, Oct 09 v Oct 08) give us an indication of strength or otherwise in a market, without seasonable variations. Having worked with 120+ Real estate agencies (in Australia - US cycle will differ) I can tell you that every year Jan will be 'down' from Dec, Feb will be up, September will always show an increase over August, and Dec will usually be bigger than Nov. Reporting just those figures would look like the 'housing market' was an unpredictable roller coaster - up one month, down the next, when will it end, think of the children!? Sure, in many instances (your business cashflow, for instance) both data points are useful. But year-on-year removes more variables and is therefore more important.
- DougBTX 18y ago
  Was this a reply to karl11's comment? [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=534333 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=534333]
  - azanar 18y ago
    It could be taken as a reply to both. To karl11's comment, it could taken as a caution not to read too much in MoM sales figures. Some of (a lot of?) the variation seen could just be seasonal variation, or even insignificant noise.
  - JacobAldridge 18y ago
    Not directly, though karl11 and ellyagg both made similar points about the author's criticism of month-on-month stats. Ellyagg also said "This post's headline is needlessly provocative and misleading." , which prompted me to respond.
- karl11 18y ago
  I would agree with you completely. I would point out that for a media and public concerned with the current state of our economy, a year over year statistic is useless. Everyone knows that housing prices are down significantly from the same time last year. A month over month increase sparks hope. An argument about whether or not month over month numbers are valid is one I'm not educated enough to make. I am merely stating that it makes perfect sense for the media to report those stats the way they did, and it isn't because they can't read data.
- nathanwdavis 18y ago
  The term 'Seasonally Adjusted' means they even these seasonal tendencies out- thus giving meaning to month-over-month % changes. So it is not the same as your Pumpkin Sales example.
- ellyagg 18y ago
  This doesn't address my criticism in the slightest, and I'm extremely well aware of all of this. My comment did not concern what statistics the press should report in presenting financial data, only the lie of the original headline which suggested that the press incorrectly thought homes sales went up when they actually went down. For the scope that the press intended, the stats they reported were accurate. To reiterate (and not to clarify, because my original comment is clear): When the press reports rises and declines, if they do not explicitly say year over year, they are talking month over month. Indeed, this VERY article contains an example of it, with the press reporting that home sales were up 4.7%. The original title of this submission, before it was edited to include "year over year", specifically played upon this implied and incorrect comparison to provoke a response. Indeed, I'm not the only one who found the headline misleading; my comment had been voted up to at least 5 shortly after I posted, and before the headline was altered and your tangential comment sent people on a wild goose chase.
jonknee 18y ago
Not to mention that this is new home sales we're talking about, a product that has had a huge hit in supply. It would be more interesting to see sales year over year based on percentage of supply sold. Basically any way you slice it you can argue the other person is full of shit. That doesn't mean anyone actually is.
cos 18y ago
Actually, I'm pretty sure year comparisons are more standard than month comparisons, for a lot of financial and economics stats. The press sometimes reports ambiguously, but since year-to-year comparisons tend to be more useful, they also tend to be more often used.

by ellyagg 18y ago

azanar 18y ago

When people quote financial figures, especially anything to do with real estate, I actually assume the opposite unless they explicitly state "month over month." It may be a bit counter-intuitive at first, but it is the convention of financial reporting to be implicit this way. As JacobAldridge points out, it is used to account for seasonal variation; an article that looks to month over month figures would seem anomalous for this same reason. But it takes knowing some of the nuance of the industry and how it is reported to understand the what and why of the convention. I'm not a realtor, nor do I work with realtors; I just find that sector interesting to read about, enough so that some of the nuance rubs off. :-)

ars 18y ago
Real estate, same store sales, car sales. Pretty much all purchasing varies year to year, not month to month. I actually can't think of any sales figures that are relevant month to month.

JacobAldridge 18y ago

October news: "Pumpkin Sales up 1000%" November news: "Pumpkin Sales plummet" Month on month tells us nothing (in this extreme example). Year-on-year (ie, Oct 09 v Oct 08) give us an indication of strength or otherwise in a market, without seasonable variations. Having worked with 120+ Real estate agencies (in Australia - US cycle will differ) I can tell you that every year Jan will be 'down' from Dec, Feb will be up, September will always show an increase over August, and Dec will usually be bigger than Nov. Reporting just those figures would look like the 'housing market' was an unpredictable roller coaster - up one month, down the next, when will it end, think of the children!? Sure, in many instances (your business cashflow, for instance) both data points are useful. But year-on-year removes more variables and is therefore more important.

DougBTX 18y ago
Was this a reply to karl11's comment? [http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=534333 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=534333]
- azanar 18y ago
  It could be taken as a reply to both. To karl11's comment, it could taken as a caution not to read too much in MoM sales figures. Some of (a lot of?) the variation seen could just be seasonal variation, or even insignificant noise.
- JacobAldridge 18y ago
  Not directly, though karl11 and ellyagg both made similar points about the author's criticism of month-on-month stats. Ellyagg also said "This post's headline is needlessly provocative and misleading." , which prompted me to respond.
karl11 18y ago
I would agree with you completely. I would point out that for a media and public concerned with the current state of our economy, a year over year statistic is useless. Everyone knows that housing prices are down significantly from the same time last year. A month over month increase sparks hope. An argument about whether or not month over month numbers are valid is one I'm not educated enough to make. I am merely stating that it makes perfect sense for the media to report those stats the way they did, and it isn't because they can't read data.
nathanwdavis 18y ago
The term 'Seasonally Adjusted' means they even these seasonal tendencies out- thus giving meaning to month-over-month % changes. So it is not the same as your Pumpkin Sales example.
ellyagg 18y ago
This doesn't address my criticism in the slightest, and I'm extremely well aware of all of this. My comment did not concern what statistics the press should report in presenting financial data, only the lie of the original headline which suggested that the press incorrectly thought homes sales went up when they actually went down. For the scope that the press intended, the stats they reported were accurate. To reiterate (and not to clarify, because my original comment is clear): When the press reports rises and declines, if they do not explicitly say year over year, they are talking month over month. Indeed, this VERY article contains an example of it, with the press reporting that home sales were up 4.7%. The original title of this submission, before it was edited to include "year over year", specifically played upon this implied and incorrect comparison to provoke a response. Indeed, I'm not the only one who found the headline misleading; my comment had been voted up to at least 5 shortly after I posted, and before the headline was altered and your tangential comment sent people on a wild goose chase.

jonknee 18y ago

Not to mention that this is new home sales we're talking about, a product that has had a huge hit in supply. It would be more interesting to see sales year over year based on percentage of supply sold. Basically any way you slice it you can argue the other person is full of shit. That doesn't mean anyone actually is.

cos 18y ago

Actually, I'm pretty sure year comparisons are more standard than month comparisons, for a lot of financial and economics stats. The press sometimes reports ambiguously, but since year-to-year comparisons tend to be more useful, they also tend to be more often used.