3 ms·
I don't know what's really going on, but I know this article is trying to mislead the reader. The headline is about pocket listings, but the only numbers mentio
by kevinpet 5y ago
I don't know what's really going on, but I know this article is trying to mislead the reader. The headline is about pocket listings, but the only numbers mentioned related to that are
> The number of homes that have likely sold without being marketed to the public has grown by 67 percent since November 2019, when the NAR adopted its stricter rules, according to a Redfin analysis tracking MLS listings that were marked “sold” or “pending” the same day they were put on the database.
Was it 1% of homes and now it's 1.7%? The article is leading us to believe this is a large gain, but doesn't present any evidence showing that. "67%" is a suspicious number as well, as if someone said "about two-thirds" and it got translated back to a precise percent.
- mzs 5y ago"grew so prevalent in some parts of the country"
- clairity 5y agoalso, the problem isn't pocket listings per se, but artificial demand induced by the rise-at-all-costs policies of (state and federal) governments and the cartel-like action of the MLS's, combined with long-lasting political pressure to limit housing growth. pocket listings are a tiny additional complication, like a bruise next to a bullet wound. it's nothing next to the real problems we face around real estate and housing.
- mikem170 5y agoThe "grown by 67 percent" phrase in the main article links to another redfin article with the specific figures.
- kevinpet 5y agoThank you. For those not wanting to click through, it was 2.4% to 4.0%. I do wonder if the timeframe could be obscuring any seasonal trend, since it's measured from Nov 2019 to Mar 2021. It's strange to me that sellers put up with this. Why wouldn't you want it listed to get the best possible price?