There are 67 houses for sale priced between $5 and $9 million. Thirty-one houses in that range sold in 2011, suggesting that we have “only” a two-year inventory but the picture may be bleaker than that. Here are the sales for that category for the last quarter of each of the past four years:
2011: 3
2010: 7
2009: 5
2008: 2
2007: 11
For What It's Worth 
Why are you posting the sales from only the last quarters of those years? That does not seem to make sense to me – to judge a market by only the sales from part of the year. Explain.
is it consensus that 2007 was the peak for Greenwich real estate? I thought it was more like 2005/early-2006?
How many of the homes in the inventory are the left over developer spec houses from the bubble?
This is not statistically significant data.
Here’s a suggestion from your logic professor:
Start with your theory of why this might be so.
Then provide dis-positive evidence in the form of sales results to prove your case.
Finally, explain out the results confirm your premise.
GG I believe Chris’ point is that since the Q4 sales are exceptionally close to those of Q4 08, the overall annual volume is a misleading indicator of the present health of the market. Annual volume sees 2 years of inventory while extrapolating from the Q4 run rate sees 5 years, obviously a much less healthy stat.
As to Nathan Hale’s complaints over statistical significance – you really are never going to get that in real estate unless you’re looking at a very long time frame and a very wide geographical area. Not sure you could ever get a statistically valid sample in the given population of homes.