A monkey named George

User Forum Topic
Submitted by Ex-SD on August 26, 2007 - 5:29am

Submitted by mixxalot on August 26, 2007 - 7:56am.

Chowderhead the Movie

It would be funny to actually have a live on tv debate with good old Georgie and have him eat crow on tv and run off stage ranting with a red face. That would be a hoot!

Submitted by Arraya on August 26, 2007 - 9:32am.

Want to get your blood pressure up more. Check out this seminar from last year that George did talking about negative media bias on housing. Oh, btw did you know children of renters are more likely to get pregnant out of wedlock....


Submitted by HLS on August 26, 2007 - 9:56am.

He's going to be giddy today about the misleading Housing Sales,, will anybody call him on it ?

The +/- 12% margin is a joke.

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 26, 2007 - 10:11am.

The +/- 12% margin is a joke.


HLS - I am confused; is that +/- 12% additive or multiplicative?


i.e. 2.4% +/- 12% = -9.6% to 14.4% or

2.4% * (1+/-0.12) = 2.1% to 2.9%

If it is the first, they should never publish that garbage. My guess is that it is the second.

Submitted by rankandfile on August 26, 2007 - 10:36am.

Isn't Duke Cunningham rotting in a prison right now for doing the same thing? Is it me or is this a serious offense (if it is true)? Have any of the other media outlets been notified of this? Are the people at VoiceOfSanDiego working on it?

Submitted by ocrenter on August 26, 2007 - 11:58am.

I varified the sale price with my usual source. But I would like to see SD realtor, sd realtor, and bugs look into this as well.

Submitted by ocrenter on August 26, 2007 - 12:00pm.

1 526 Sweet Pea Pl Sep 06 $540,000 3/2.5 1268 sqft
3 621 Sweet Pea Pl May 06 $561,000 3/2.5 1268
4 525 Sweet Pea Pl Mar 06 $555,000 3/2.5 1268
6 581 Sweet Pea Pl Aug 05 $705,000 3/2.5 1268 ***
8 646 Sweet Pea Pl Apr 05 $573,000 3/2.5 1268
9 645 Sweet Pea Pl Jan 05 $550,000 3/2.5 1268

Submitted by HLS on August 26, 2007 - 12:41pm.

it is actually the "garbage" first. Here is a link to the report.


Read the "Explanatory Notes" at bottom of page 1.
It is +/- 12.00% not 0.12%

Also,a SALE is defined as a deposit taken or a sales agreement signed. (NOT a closed escrow)
Many of them won't be able to close on a jumbo loan.
The July revised numbers should be pathetic, IF they ever release them.

TABLE 1, On page 2, the top half is "seasonally adjusted" The sales YOY in the "west" are down 19.6%
The bottom half is NOT seasonally adjusted and YTD sales are down 30%.

I do not have a clear understanding on HOW they factor "seasonally adjusted" Do you know ??
Am I correct in seeing NOT seasonally adjusted as the REAL numbers, and the "adjusted" as manipulated ??

The only talk on Friday was SALES UP 22%
Being down 9% would still be accurate with their margin of error. GREAT QUALITY REPORT, eh ??

I've marked September 27th on my calendar. I can't wait to see the margin of error on the August report.
i.e. 2.4% +/- 12% = -9.6% to 14.4% or

2.4% * (1+/-0.12) = 2.1% to 2.9%

If it is the first, they should never publish that garbage. My guess is that it is the second.

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 26, 2007 - 1:11pm.

How can U.S. Census put its name on this nonsense? One needs 10,000 data points to get +/-1% sampling error (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_e... ). Are they too lazy to get accurate data on 10,000 data points? 12% margin suggests they collected less than 100 real data points and reported it as a national statistic. Pathetic.

BTW, I have seen similar nonsense in CPI and unemployment rate. For CPI, they conveniently leave out "volatile" food and energy prices. For unemployment rate, they consider anyone unemployed for more than 6 months as "discouraged workers" and leave them out of statistics.

Submitted by HLS on August 26, 2007 - 1:19pm.

Can you clarify "Seasonally Adjusted" ??

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 26, 2007 - 1:39pm.

Seasonal Adjustment is a statistical process to remove seasonal variations and hence try to report long term trends. Basically they filter out "seasonal noise" and report slow moving trend. (In engineering this would be called a low pass filter). The statistical term is "Time series analysis". You can see an explanation here: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/...

Submitted by HLS on August 26, 2007 - 1:48pm.

So even with a margin of 12%, it's a manipulated estimate on top of that,
While NOT seasonally adjusted is a REAL number ?

Submitted by bsrsharma on August 26, 2007 - 2:02pm.

Seasonal adjustment is more "processed" than manipulated. They want to exclude any influence of people's preference for buying in July and try to report an "unbiased statistic". My guess is, that should lower the trend line below actual since July is a preferred month for home buying (being summer, school holiday etc.,). I think seasonal adjustment is a good thing but the large margin of error invalidates everything.

I remember a joke: A man with his head in an oven and feet in a freezer is on the average comfortable. That is how these housing statistics look like.

Submitted by HLS on August 26, 2007 - 2:49pm.

Reminds me of another joke.....

He was so fat that he had pesos in one pocket and Canadian dollars in the other....
(With the census report he could use US$ on average)

Submitted by patb on August 26, 2007 - 4:46pm.

cunningham violated public law and his oath of office,

geoerge the monkey owes no duty to anyone.
Sad but true, i knew a guy used to bribe reporters all the time,
for good press.

Submitted by sdrealtor on August 26, 2007 - 10:03pm.

In the MLS as 555K but tax records show 705K. My guess is that its a typo or mistake in the tax records. Its happened to clients of mine. There is no f*7Kin way that place could ever sell for 600K let alone 700K. The loan was only 355K on the purchase also.

Submitted by SD Realtor on August 26, 2007 - 10:55pm.

OCR sorry for not responding as I kind of bailed on this thread and stopped reading it before your post. sdr got ya covered.

SD Realtor

Submitted by ocrenter on August 27, 2007 - 8:53am.

one reason why I decided to post the finding is because I was also able to see the county transfer tax of $775, which is of course based on .11% of the purchase price of $705,000. So was that transfer tax an error as well?

Submitted by sdrealtor on August 27, 2007 - 8:56am.

Easily could be.

Submitted by Bugs on August 27, 2007 - 9:19am.

I've heard of buyers paying extra on their tax stamps so that the public record will reflect what appears to be the higher price. I more commonly hear about it happening in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, but I suppose it could happen here, too.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.