What’s old is new again.
To which I say: so what? I have yet to see relevance in their data, and I have never heard one of my clients reference their forecasts or recaps.
If you’re surprised (really?!) the NAR overestimated sales, you haven’t been paying attention for the past decade.#realtors
I think their forecasting model is broken.
NAR presently is benchmarking* existing-home sales, and downward revisions are expected for totals in recent years, although there will be little change to previously reported comparisons based on percentage change. There will be will be no change to median prices or month’s supply of inventory. Publication of the improved measurement methodology is expected in the near future.
I’m no statistician, but how can one pre-conclude that (see the asterisk up there?)
* There will be no change to median prices or months-supply of inventory. Although there will be downward revisions to sales volume and unsold inventory, there will be no notable change to previous characterizations of the market in terms of sales trends, monthly percentage changes, etc.
Earlier this year, I noted that folks paying attention to the national and local real estate markets really need to just ignore the NAR’s numbers.
The National Association of Realtors is a trade organization, whose mission is to help its members. I am grateful for what they do with respect to lobbying; someone’s gotta do it. But they are not an unbiased news (heh. do those exist?) organization. Remember that.Ardell says it extremely well:
My point is people have to stop thinking that “a NAR” is some kind of public interest group. They are a trade association supporting a business, the same as any other commercial.
(click through to read the whole thing)
Update 21 November 2011: Jonathan Miller notes that [NAR] October Existing Home Sales Conclusion Result Is Wildly Misleading … shocking. Still … So what?