That February NAR report of +5.2% in sales sure looks suspect against the new home sales -10.5% number reported by the Commerce Department or the same month. So dig into the NAR number and methodology a bit more, HP'ers, and report back.
Why we would trust the NAR with ANYTHING at this point is beside me. Given all they have to lose, I don't think their reporting should be given much credence or attention.
Here's some verbiage from the NAR methodology page
The methodology in calculating existing-home sales statistics is really quite simple. The monthly EHS economic indicator is based on a representative sample of 160 Boards/MLSs. The home sales data (raw data) is divided into the four census regions: Northeast, South, Midwest and West. The raw sales volume from the participating Boards/MLSs is carefully evaluated by NAR economists to ensure accuracy. Some of the possible problems with the data could be caused by:
Changes in association/board/MLS physical jurisdiction
Changes in MLS vendors and /or staff
Lack of response by associations/boards
Once the “problematic data” have been extricated from the sample, the aggregated raw volume figures are weighted to accurately represent sales activity for each region of the country. This is also called the non-seasonally-adjusted volume. The weights are benchmarked every 10 years to reflect shifts in regional demand (For more information on NAR’s weighting system refer to rebechmarking procedures at NAR.realtor.com/research). The non-seasonally adjusted volume is then converted into seasonally-adjusted annualized rates. (See section on Seasonal Adjustments)
March 27, 2006
NAR book cookin? Did you know the corrupt and/or incompetent David Lereah is responsible for these numbers?
Posted by blogger at 3/27/2006