When you read the ad you see that it's $8,888 PLUS 2% back on your purchase price. For a condo costing $299,900, you get $15,000 back.
Year of the Snake? - it's an apt reference (click on image to enlarge).
Speaking of snakes, the Wall Street Journal is out with a story that says Home Sales Date Doubted - Realtor Group May Have Overstated Number of Existing Houses Sold Since 2007.
The housing crash may have been more severe than initial estimates have shown.While revisions wouldn't affect reported home-price numbers, they could show that the housing market faces a bigger overhang in inventory, given the weaker demand.
The National Association of Realtors, which produces a widely watched monthly estimate of sales of previously owned homes, is examining the possibility that it over-counted U.S. home sales dating back as far as 2007.
The group reported that there were 4.9 million sales of previously owned homes in 2010, down 5.7% from 5.2 million in 2009. But CoreLogic, a real-estate analytics firm based in Santa Ana, Calif., counted just 3.3 million homes sales last year, a drop of 10.8% from 3.7 million in 2009. CoreLogic says NAR could have overstated home sales by as much as 20%.
Economists say any overstatement is the result of difficulty tracking data during market corrections. "This is an economic data issue, not a gaming-the-numbers issue," said Sam Khater, senior economist at CoreLogic. "Any time you get big shifts in the market, the numbers go haywire for a bit."
Haywire is about the only way to classify the date the BCREA was using in our earlier CTV-BC clip in post #1 today.
Is this why, when a market is falling, we get analysis that says the market it "flat?"
Click 'comments' below to contribute to this post.