• English
  • Español
AGENTS: Did you know you can share a personalized version of this post? Learn more!

(English) CoreLogic DID NOT Expose a Conspiracy

Disculpa, pero esta entrada está disponible sólo en Inglés Estadounidense.

Miembros: ¡regístrese ahora y configure su Post Personalizado & empiece a compartirlo hoy!

¿No es un miembro aun? Haga un clic aquí para aprender más acerca de la nueva función de KCM, Post Personalizados.

Have You Set Up Personalized Posts Yet? | Keeping Current Matters
3 comentarios
  1. brad
    brad Dice:

    It’s one thing to make a mistake, but to be off by 20-25% is more than «a degree of sloppiness». These guys have been doing this for a long time, and putting this information together is nothing more than a database program, where information comes in and calculations are made…it’s that simple.

    Where there is a transparency issue, is that the report fails to show exactly where the data came from. Everyone knows that the housing market is local, and even within a particular local there could easily be numerous sub markets, where one is doing well and the other is horrible.

    For a trade association o be accurate and fair, and to avoid any possible conflicts of interest, all the data needs to be made available for all to review.

    I’m sure the NAR’s intentions are good, but they have always been suspect with their numbers. Even when the market was crashing they had a different outlook on things. And if their data is to be trusted, then how couldn’t they see the market crashing years in advance?

    We [Realtors] need to be looked upon by the public beyond reproach. We can’t allow anyone, even the NAR, to put our honesty and integrity into question.

    If the NAR is off by the % indicated by the CoreLogic figures, then shame on them, and heads need to role.

  2. Ryan
    Ryan Dice:

    NAR- you can make some scary comparisons to the Fed. Gov. Both huge bureaucratic machines that are completely out of touch with the people/members they are supposed to serve. Self preservation seems to be of paramount concern for both. Fed and NAR have to deal with national, state, and local markets all with their own agendas.
    The saddest part of this story is than apparently NAR doesn’t have the ability to provide accurate numbers. Are you kidding me? A 40% sampling? Zillow, Trulia, and other portals have more data and provide more compelling information than our NAR.

  3. brad
    brad Dice:

    I need to follow up my own comment.
    I just checked out the WSJ article you pointed to, and found that my comment about the need for us to be beyond reproach is shown with the comments that are being made regarding the article.

    We have a problem, and it’s the NARs fault as well as our own.

    Steve, this goes back to your post about being an expert. But one of the things that goes along with becoming and expert is to be a TRUSTED advisor, and the public doesn’t trust us…and stunts like this with the NAR hurts more than it helps.

    Read what people are saying about us. I understand the reason for the negative comments.

    Steve, this is a BIG deal, and you should be a lot more mad about this than you’re showing. This stuff continues to erode the confidence people have in us, or it fortifies their already negative views.

    We can’t keep taking it on the chin for the NAR


Dejar un comentario

¿Quieres unirte a la conversación?
Siéntete libre de contribuir!

Deja un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *