"Dunno, maybe call Jesse Chadwick and ask him what he meant."

The almost 3,000 homes (approx. $808,000,000) which sold in our county for the 3rd Qtr '06. were selling at 98.5% of asking price with an average of 69 DOM.

Here is a look at 3rd Qtr 04 (our "HOT" market) 3,171 homes sold ($738,000,000), 98.5% of asking price, av. 48 DOM.
Youll be the judge of how bad our market is today.

Berniek, don't bother. Apparently there are some who feel because their market is dead all markets must be dead. It is just not so, but it seems that misery loves company. If their logic applied, the next time there was a housing boom on one of the costs, all markets would be overheated. (Heck I wish mine had been!)

Prices are up in my area, volume is down in my area, more houses sold this year than last year in my area.... it happens. Not all areas are the same. Real estate is regional. Just because the coasts are hurting right now doesn't mean the entire country is not selling.

The 10 year took a huge drop today on core inflation reports. If this is sustained look for traditional mortgage rates to dip lower (30 year fixed is under 6% on average right now (check yahoo financial for verification)).

Yes, now is a good time to buy a house in many areas. No, I am not a realtor, never have been, never will be.

Berniek, DOM and percent of asking price are among the most easily manipulated statistics in residential real estate.

In fact, some states are considering banning the misleading practice of re-setting the DOM by withdrawing a house from the MLS and relisting it. And percent of asking price means little if the house has been repeatedly re-listed at lower and lower prices.

You'll have to do better than that. Show me an increase in number of sales. Show me a decline in the number of houses available on the market.

You can't do either, which is why you fall back on the notoriously unreliable DOM and percent of asking.

I agree that real estate is local. The facts, however, show that in your area, the number of listings is up 40% and the number of sales is down 20%.

mfbenson wrote: I don't understand what is motivating people to rain on berniek's parade...

I would like to understand this too. What motivates people to post so negatively on this Forum? Do you genuinely feel that (in this case) Berniek is posting false information? Do you feel that the rest of us are "in the dark" or grossly misinformed as to the true state of the RE market/economy?

"In fact, some states are considering banning the misleading practice of re-setting the DOM by withdrawing a house from the MLS and relisting it."

You cant relist in our MLS to re-set the DOM. If someone would do that, it will show CDOM (cumulative days on market). Anyone can also pull the properties history report which reflects the total listing history on any listing.
I dont see a conspiracy to mislead anyone here.

"Show me an increase in number of sales. Show me a decline in the number of houses available on the market."
Active, Sales
Oct 2006 5,750, 903
Sep 2006 5,926, 888
Aug 2006 6,045, 1,198
Active, Sales
Oct 2005 4,341 1,124 40%????
There you go. Notice that listings were down in Oct. but sales were up compared to Sep.?
Well see how next year goes, Im sure it will be a better year for everyone.

Cant people disagree or does this place only allow one POV?
Realtors have to keep the confidence in their product going otherwise sales falter and they make less money. My point all along is to realize their bias, and do your own research. You'll be able to sort out the cheerleading from reality then and make a more informed decision. Is this a bad thing?

Heck im still waiting for the research proving median prices are the most accurate that berniek has done. It should be fascinating.

Berniek, by your own statistics, total sales are down 20% (from 1124 to 903) year-over-year and total active listings listings are up 32.5% year-over-year (from 4,341 to 5,750). The figures are worse for existing homes--close to 40% more listings than the same time last year.

DOM has increased by 40%.

That's in your market, according to your Board of Realtors data, which you posted earlier in this thread.

There's no data to suggest, as you say, that next year will be a better year for everyone. Could possibly be worse.

Diva, I say the cup is half full, you say the cup is half empty.
Caro, study up on statistics, or google for average/mean vs. median, you might find the answer there.

Well since you've done your own research and all I was asking you to show how you came to such a conclusion. I would hate to think you were just spouting off.

Posted by infodivamary3 (My Page) on Tue, Nov 14, 06 at 8:07
.........
In my mind, a true "crash" would be the one that's essentially psychological in nature, and would occur if younger Americans start to believe that housing is not a good investment. If a whole generation of 20-somethings starts to believe that, then the residential market as we know it could change permanently.

And that would be the ideal time to buy RE as an INVESTMEN T marking the absolute bottom...When everyone laughs at your decision and MSM psychology is that housing will never be a good investment. But when this time arrives only a very very few handful 'braves' will have the courage to invest their hard earned life savings into RE.

In regards to the ongoing debate about where a particular local RE market is headed...the current data provided is not sufficient to identify a trend in neither direction.. just based on two data points (2005 vs 2006 Year over Year stats) one can not identify any trend

What might help characterize the market trend is the Month over Month numbers for the same 2005 to 2006 period and see how the inventory, median/average prices, sales graphs looks like with respect to these 12 data points over the past year...

just my $0.02

Good luck with your debate!

Wait, I was never comparing median to mean, where did that come from? I am talking about median (heck, use mean) as a predictor for real estate values for an area. The amount of money you can get for your house can be going down and the median can be going up. Like I said, sales dropping and median rising is a classic case of a deteriorating market.

Realtors love to use median because it has an upward bias (in regards to real estate) to it. The more affluent provide a "base" of sales which brings the median up, so when a market slows you see medians rise and sales drop. But a realtor will try and convince you that prices for houses are going up.. not true.. its a compositional shift in the houses being bought.

This line comes straight from a realtors press release:
"Movements in sales prices should not be interpreted as changes in the cost of a standard home."

Now why would they say that.....

who is comparing median to mean? All I suggested is it will help characterize trend by plotting the graphs of sales, investories, median ormean price whichever stat you prefer( I should not have used / above sorry for the confusion ) for the past 12 months using month over month numbers rather then just judging the market trend based on only 2 YOY data points

I dont care about median or mean, they are both useless as predictors for the health of a real estate market. Which is the point.

To say "housing prices are going up" just because the median has gone up is ignorant and/or dishonest depending on how much you know about real estate.

"To say "housing prices are going up" just because the median has gone up is ignorant and/or dishonest depending on how much you know about real estate."
It's been doing that here since 1990, going up, and I don't see it going down. I guess it's been a lie all these years.

"Movements in sales prices should not be interpreted as changes in the cost of a standard home. Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and size of homes sold. Due to the low sales volume in some cities or areas, median price changes may exhibit unusual fluctuation."

Like I said, I didnt come up with the paragraph. The California Association of Realtors did. Median is a poor indicator of market health in anything but the most "stable" of markets.

If anyone believes real estate is immune from a downturn just read the data quick archives since 1995:

http://www.dqnews.com/AA1995OFA06.shtm (archive is on the right)

You certainly wont be hearing realtors talking about those numbers. Everything is fine and real estate always goes up.

Or not.

p.s. A challenge for people who might not believe me or want to prove it to yourself. Take a random sampling (50-100 homes) off the MLS and check back 3 months later as to what has happened (using your local county cleark online or zillow.com's capability for showing historic SALES prices, and chances are many of the homes havent sold if you are in a down market, so you can see their current sales prices). You can measure what you find versus what the realtor statistics tell you. Dont have to take a single persons word for it and evaluate your market for yourself. Ziprealty.com has a "my homes" feature that allows you to keep 100 homes and you can have updates (price/status changes) emailed to you. No realtor stats or "bubble head" stats, just a simple reality check for yourself and your market.

Yes, it is simplistic but the more you can do to evaluate the market yourself with the uhh "help" of a realtor, the better off you will be.

In my statistics class, my professor dedicated the entire first class to illustrating how easily statistics can be manipulated. It was eye-opening, to say the least.

"You certainly wont be hearing realtors talking about those numbers. Everything is fine and real estate always goes up."
Or not."

Interesting article in todays newspaper from Robert McDonald (Pikes Peak Council of Governments)
A growth spurt is about to hit the Pikes Peak region
The population in El Paso County (currently 565,582) alone is expected to double in the next 5 years.

I know there will be an increase, but doubling the population? I dont think so, although it seems like they are building enough stores and businesses to accommodate them.
p.s. California stats don't apply here, I know, I have family in San Diego and a Realtor son living in Oceanside.

Here is one actual example in one city showing why the median price is a better way of establishing a more accurate average.
Median is a much better way of calculating the average sale price in a market that has large differences in price since it is not affected by several high or low priced homes which can skew the mean average sale price incorrectly.
The following is an example taken from real sold prices in this "City".
9 Sold prices in May of 2006
$ 7,000
$ 7,500
$ 143,900
$ 260,000
$ 333,000 Median
$ 490,000
$ 750,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,475,000
$ 8,466,400 divided by 9
$ 940,711.11 Average Sale Price
The Average Sale Price would be $940,711 while the median would be $333,000. As you can see there can be a huge difference in the outcome of the statistical average depending on the method you choose to calculate it. In the calculation for average home price however, the median is typically the more correct number.

Great example!

9 Sold prices in May of 2006
$ 7,000
$ 7,500
$ 143,900
$ 260,000
$ 333,000 Median
$ 490,000
$ 750,000
$ 3,000,000
$ 3,475,000

In a time of decline affordability, who still buys.. The affluent, therefore the median has an upward bias. Unless you think the number of 3.5 million houses selling are the same as the number of 7k houses selling.

Also interesting to note, that if the cheapest house didnt sell that month (7k), the median would jump to $411,500. Now do you think housing prices REALLY went up 80k? Every owner would look at the paper and say "Hey I'm 80k richer" but then would face a harsh reality when they actually sell.

Median is useless indicator for real estate value but because it is such a poor indicator of what is really going on and has an upward bias (the more affluent the more likely not to put off a buying decision) it is the perfect tool for the NAR.

The reason why they cant use average is because the jig would be up instantly.

Hmmm, Interesting debate.
I just learned that homes priced under $300,000 in my area have been selling like hotcakes in the past month. Nothing is moving above $450,000.
I don't know how true it is that people with better incomes are not afraid to buy. THOSE people are the most reluctant to buy in my neck of the woods.

Driving through town today, I was surprised to see properties that are plain awful, run down, on busy streets with SOLD signs. I'm happy for those owners, but I don't understand the market...My house is in move-in condition. It's big & priced below comps, but it's not moving being in the $500,000's.

Your assumption is incorrect. There are always more buyers and properties for sale and have sold at the lower end of the market. Remember, this is not California.
The few high end homes sold will certainly bias the median around here.

i see more homes sold above 1 million, and below 300k then anywhere in between

We just don't have that many homes over $1mil here.
It's not a NAR methamatical conspiracy to mislead the public in showing median home values in a given market.
A few high end homes in my market would certainly bias the mean, therefore the median is a better figure.
The above example I gave is fact and any what if's are mental masturbation in trying to justify ones argument.

"Your assumption is incorrect. There are always more buyers and properties for sale and have sold at the lower end of the market. Remember, this is not California. "

Outside of your example which I was specifically picking apart, Im not saying there are more buyers at the high end, but instead that the high end remains relatively constant (especially at the beginning of a downturn) therefore providing an upward bias to the median.

It isnt even million dollar homes, it is the low end of the market is hurt first by affordability so they buy less. Thus you see declining sales and an upward moving median.

"Outside of your example which I was specifically picking apart, Im not saying there are more buyers at the high end, but instead that the high end remains relatively constant (especially at the beginning of a downturn) therefore providing an upward bias to the median.
It isnt even million dollar homes, it is the low end of the market is hurt first by affordability so they buy less. Thus you see declining sales and an upward moving median.

The high end remains constant at the beginning of a downturn? Where are you living, is that whats happening in California? I dont believe it.
Your analysis of my market does not support your statement. (or any market I know)
By eliminating the highs and lows, the median provides a more accurate value, which you accuse, the NAR of distorting.
You are saying that the more expensive homes are selling compared to the least expensive homes, therefore the upward median bias. I dont know where you get your data to support those statements, but in my neighborhood they dont make any sense.
My low to middle priced listings all sold, but my high end is not moving, and neither are its competition. Your assumptions are not correct.
In my area, median prices fluctuate up and down from month to month, however, over a long period of time (where a median price gives a more accurate picture of the market), prices have increased consistently, any other method of calculating the value of homes over these years would not be as realistic.

I was tooling around the internet today and ran across this article from this author regarding median prices.

A choice quote regarding median prices:
"Then, theres the problem of sample bias. When you hear that housing prices in a city have gone up, you assume that all the homes in the city have become more valuable. But the numbers reflect only the homes that were actually sold in a given month, and, if more of those homes happen to be expensive, itll make the market as a whole look strong even if its really quite weak. This is what leads to the curious phenomenon of median prices rising even as the number of sales is plummeting and the backlog of houses on the market is soaring."

I've read everyone's posts. I've read how you think that real estate agent or REALTORS lie. I can't speak for all agents, nor will I try. I know that there are dishonest people out there in every profession. I think everyone uses the statistics they have available to them. I would love to know who here has never been wrong or said something that at the time was true but turned out to later be incorrect? I know I am guilty. It doesn't matter how hard we try, it happens. I don't think anyone can predict the future. It doesn't do any good to think so negatively as well. The negativity affects people who in turn don't buy that house they were looking at. Then the inventory starts rising and buyers become scarce. The market has slowed down. Bottom line: You can't predict the future and regardless of title, people are just people.

"...and, if more of those homes happen to be expensive,..."
This would be a very faulty observation in my market.
To use a median price to project a short term statistic as valuable, is also misguided. The median becomes more valuable over a longer period. But I'm repeating myself.

The NAR is made up of thousands of Realtors who PAY to belong. I think that they would be pretty pissed off if the NAR was putting out press releases/ads that the RE market sucks. Obviously they are going to spin the stats to help increase their business, that's what they are paid to do.

We have become inured to the terms "spin", "misrepresentation", "mislead", etc. The media is full of it, the politicians use them all the time, Hollywood, bigbiz, you name it. Appallingly, it's part of the modern-day lexicon that hides behind the skirts of political correctness but actually has nothing to with PC.

The psychic scars to society left behind by these terms and the willingness of those in power to look the other way when these things happen have done a lot to rob America, and the world, of its trust and, dare I say it, innocence. I suppose it could be argued it all started with Nixon or in that general era.

I for one, really bristle when I hear the word "misrepresentation". WTH is that? Why can't one just say "LIE"? And "spin" is in the same family of virus that led to this intellectual plague we are all victims of.

Sorry for the rant. But think about it... does this stuff bother anyone else?

A related story- just so happens this was the next thing I read after posting the above.

This was an AD, not a news story.

Read this!

"We have become inured to the terms "spin", "misrepresentation", "mislead", etc. The media is full of it, the politicians use them all the time, Hollywood, bigbiz, you name it. Appallingly, it's part of the modern-day lexicon that hides behind the skirts of political correctness but actually has nothing to with PC.
The psychic scars to society left behind by these terms and the willingness of those in power to look the other way when these things happen have done a lot to rob America, and the world, of its trust and, dare I say it, innocence. I suppose it could be argued it all started with Nixon or in that general era.
I for one, really bristle when I hear the word "misrepresentation". WTH is that? Why can't one just say "LIE"? And "spin" is in the same family of virus that led to this intellectual plague we are all victims of.
Sorry for the rant. But think about it... does this stuff bother anyone else?"

Not nearly as much as it bothers you. I do not believe making a positive spin on a sitatuion is a "LIE" The NAR placed an ad, get over it.
And your "related" story, OT...

It is all a matter of region and perspective. My region has very low inventory, is selling well, and prices have risen to where we are no longer the bottom priced market in the US (now we are five from the bottom. :-P)

The 10-year has gone so low this past month that it is only a matter of time before people pick up on mortgage rates being well below 6% again. Quite honestly in many markets now would be the time to buy! If sales are slow, prices are adjusting and the mortgage rates are low - why wouldn't someone buy now?

Well, I wouldn't buy now because I do think asking prices will be lower in our regional market (San Francisco Bay Area) in early to mid-2007, as more people read the "bubble bursting!" news and realize they can't expect to get 2005 top dollars for their unimproved, poorly maintained homes -- because they did indeed miss the peak of the RE seller's market.

So heres a view of our local market:
Even those overpriced houses will sell eventually, since in this area there are NO large developers putting up several thousand single-family-homes on large tracts of land within 25 miles of the Pacific. Lofts and condos, yes -- and those will see more severe price corrections because builders have 100% profit margins; they will cut them down to 25% or less, if they have to, to clear inventory. The SFHs may see price corrections of 10-15% on starter homes and maybe slightly more on mid-level homes. The RE market on the top end, which here is set at the $2.5M+ market, has seen very little slowing. In that class, homeowners have the money to put in the competitive improvements without a problem, and buyers usually pay CASH.

Why buy at all? Well, because when the housing sales falter, renters decide to stay put. There is less and less rental capacity in our area (rent control on mid and large size units makes it unattractive to developers). So rents go up, and in fact rents have increased 15% over the last 18 months by some calculations. This came from a local paper, so can't vouch for the stats, but it sounds right from what my many renter friends have said. Thus, eventually rents get to the point where renters get fed up with high rent, little parking, no garden or pets allowed, city noise and snarly neighbors, and they start looking for a house.

Whereupon the best houses get snapped up, more buyers start to haunt open houses, competition develops for the "plum" properties, prices start to go up again.....

See the picture? Overall, when you live in this area, RE prices may fall slightly, and even stay level for long periods. It took us 10 years to recover financially from having bought our house at the last "top of the bubble" frenzy in 1989. But in the end house prices recover and go back in the black. If you've owned a home for at least five years, you've made enough money that a small market correction isn't going to hurt you, because you still have to live somewhere and you're paying less for a house than you would if you rented a comparable space.

And that is why, in Mark Glaser's article posted by cpowers21, Toscano points out that "The fact is, housing prices remain stable or continue to appreciate in areas where jobs are plentiful and housing is scarce. There are sound fundamentals in some markets, but you would never know it from reading the bubble blogs."

I think Toscano makes a very good point. Its as good an explanation as any Ive found for why my MILs home, purchased for $45K in 1968, sold quickly and with very little haggling for $1.022M, even in a declining market. If the buyers had waited until next year to buy, they probably could have gotten a similar house for $975K. But they would have also had to spend at least $5K a month renting while they searched, so in the end, they felt it made no sense to wait.

I guess the LA Times is more in step with NAR.

cmarlin20, that you do not believe putting a positive spin WHEN the spinner knows there are negative aspects to the same story is a lie then I think you have compromised morals. When the court system demands that you "tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth", there is a reason for that.

Reason being, telling one part of the truth without telling the rest of it, especially when knowing that completing the truth might work to your disadvantage, is a LIE. Plain and simple.

You do not have to agree. That's fine. As for being OT with the piece, sorry you did not grasp the relation, but it's not surprising given your first statement. The points are, after all, related, and if you do not get the first then you are hardly expected to get the second. It doesn't bother me; I am not on any type of crusade to change you or anyone else here on this forum. It is a forum, which is, among other things, a place to speak your mind.

I guess the Colorado Springs Gazette is more in step with bubbleheads:

"When the court system demands that you "tell the truth, the WHOLE truth and nothing but the truth", there is a reason for that."

For heavens sake, we are talking about an AD, not a court proceeding, an ad is not required, nor expected to disclose every possible negative aspect of their subject product.
Maybe your expectations of advertising varnish your opinion, my morals are just fine.
You are comparing apple to oranges.
BTW, I don't mind you speaking your mind, no need to defend yourself.

"I guess the Colorado Springs Gazette is more in step with bubbleheads:"
Not really. This is what one builder said the next day:
The numbers should be kept in context, some say. Sure, permits are down, but the market hasnt come to a halt. By comparison, 741 single-family permits were issued in 1990, when the local real estate market was in a tailspin.
"To me, 3,500 is a healthy market," said Rhonda Mc-Donald, president of Creek-Stone Homes in the Springs. "We have good interest rates and we have great products, and we still have buyers in the marketplace. Were still selling houses. Id rather it was 6,000, but, you know, Im not going to complain about 3,500."

Also...
The areas foreclosure rate, however, remains relatively low. In the late 1980s, one of every 28 homes was in foreclosure; this year, the number was one of 155.

Todays housing market has become a victim of the success of the past few years, Springs economist David Bamberger said Friday.

"We had two years, 2004 and 2005, of record production, and were paying the price of borrowing buyers from the future," Bamberger said. "I suspect its going to take somewhere in the order of 12 months or so to work through the catch-up phase, where we can start to see some buyers filling up the pipeline."

Jobs are being added to the local economy, but not fast enough to bring buyers and spur building to the level of the past two years, Bamberger said. Thirty-year, fixed-rate mortgages dropped this week to their lowest levels since January, but that will only help a little, he said.

I say, it all depends on who you ask. For some the glass is half full, for others half empty.

More median musings posted just today:

Since coming to Phoenix 1976, I have moved several times. Generally speaking, I have bought too high and sold too low, but all the while I, along with many others, have been fascinated (strictly as an observer and not at all as an investor) by housing price trends.

For the past year, newspapers, including the Republic, have run repeated articles that make two points: the housing inventory (supply) has seen a dramatic rise (from 3,000 units to over 35,000 units in Phoenix) while median housing prices have not fallen or even have continued to rise. The front page of the Republics Real Estate Section now has a box that is entitled "How much has your home appreciated?"--and it is shown in median home prices by zip code. Yet, with a couple of minor exceptions, there has been scant attempt to explain this apparent contradiction of the law of supply and demand--that is, prices are supposed to fall, not rise, when supply goes up. This shrugging of shoulders is particularly curious because the explanation is not a difficult one.

It is the lumping together of all houses into "one inventory" that misleadingly hides that housing prices are falling, and perhaps by a substantial amount (and not by the mere 3.5% most recently reported). By way of illustration, assume that: (i) in 2004, 100 houses sold and the median price was $250,000, meaning half sold above that amount and half below; and (ii) then in 2005, again 100 houses sold and the median price was 10% higher or $275,000does that mean housing prices went up? Absolutely not. Heres why: If in 2004, 50 houses sold for $249K and 50 sold for $2 million, the median would be $250K; and then if in 2005, there were 49 houses that sold for $220K, one for $274K, and the other 50 for $1 million, and, assuming the 100 houses in 2004 were comparable in every way to the 100 houses in 2005, the overall median housing prices would rise 10% from $250K to $275K while, in reality, the price of all but one house would have fallen dramatically. Another way to state it is this: As the ratio of expensive homes to lower-priced houses sold increases, median prices over the entirety of the housing stock will rise even if prices on all individual houses are falling.

In sum, the supposed conundrum is a result of using a median housing price measure because it measures only in the aggregate and fails to take account of what happens to any single house or any reasonably close-priced houses. As Justin Lahart put it in the 11/30 Wall Street Journal, the "median price gauge"is "plucked from a large pool of prices based on home sales" that "can be skewed by changes in the composition of the pool." In other words, it is misleading to talk about "the housing market" as if $2M homes were in the same market (interchangeable with) $200K homes, because they are not. The bottom-line is that misleading metrics should be avoided, and it is wrong to use median house sale prices to reach any conclusion about price trends in housing values. And even a zip-code analysis will not remedy the problem, as illustratively seen by the radically different housing-stock mix in 85007 (stretching from the Palmcroft area to below Buckeye Road).

The bad news: Median housing prices likely are understating the severity of the housing slump. The good news: The Fed likely is not looking at median housing prices in assessing the severity of the housing slump.

"Generally speaking, I have bought too high and sold too low, but all the while I, along with many others, have been fascinated (strictly as an observer and not at all as an investor) by housing price trends."
Spoken obviously by someone I would not trust to know what they are doing and whos been losing money in this hot RE market over the last few years.
My market:
Median home prices have dropped $10k between 6/2006 and are $215k on 11/2006. There are 5,399 homes currently on the market, of which 133 (0.0246%) are above $1M. Where is the median price bias caused by these million $ homes?
The example of 50% @ $250k and 50% at $2M in the same neighborhood is totally unrealistic.

You're being obtuse, the numbers are simplified to illustrate the point. The point was made adequately using your example you posted of 9 homes sold above. But I understand you believe the median is the end all be all, and refuse to acknowledge that composition has anything to do with median pricing (again from the C.A.R. " Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and size of homes sold. ").

But for others reading I encourage you to look at what the numbers are telling you by not looking at the aggregates (or listening to realtors) and learning to understand what is going on in your local market on your own. You will be a much better buyer for it.

"But I understand you believe the median is the end all be all, and refuse to acknowledge that composition has anything to do with median pricing (again from the C.A.R. " Median prices can be influenced by changes in cost, as well as changes in the characteristics and size of homes sold. ")."
I give you a real world example and not some simplified illustration to justify their mostly unrealistic argument. I dont know anyone who uses the median value to make a decision to purchase.
The median is only one mathematical tool that is used by the number crunchers to show where home values are and not some kind of NAR conspiracy to give a false value, as is implied.
My above example of 9 homes was to show that the median was a better figure than the mean.

What I know about medians ain't much, but I do know they are hell on tires.

Mean medians are the worst on tires and rims!