425 1st Street #806
Speaking of refreshed listings, withdrawn from the MLS in July after almost 120 days on the market at $945,000, the resale listing for One Rincon Hill (425 1st Street) #806 returned to the MLS two weeks ago asking $908,000.
Yesterday the list price was reduced to $899,000 for an official “15 days on the market” and a “$9,000″ reduction from its “original” list. The resale of One Rincon Hill #1306 closed escrow in June with a reported contract price of $930,000 (tax records suggest an initial purchase from the developer at just over $975,000 in 2006).
If the sale of 425 1st Street #806 closed escrow tomorrow at its reduced ask, all MLS based aggregate statistics and market reports published by the San Francisco Association of Realtors, or Redfin, or Altos Research, or the likes of The RE Report would reflect a total of “16 days on the market” and a sale at “100% of list price” for this data point.
∙ Listing: 425 1st Street #806 (2/2) – $899,000 [MLS]
An 06 Comp (In More Ways Than One) At One Rincon Hill [SocketSite]
Quantifying The Impact Of Not Allowing Realtors To Reset DOM [SocketSite]

Recent Articles

Comments from “Plugged-In” Readers

  1. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    no comment on the relist tactic (I’m spent), but interesting that they chose to stage with Grandma’s furniture.
    Couldn’t find the grandfather clock in any of the listing photos though.

  2. Posted by anonn

    Why did you put the word, original, in quotes? It’s nowhere in the listing language. In fact, why all the quotes? It’s so funny when people come on here and say there’s no axe to grind. In real life, if you were to ask one of the listing agents whether the property was new to the market, they’d probably say, “At this pricepoint, yes.” You could say, “How long was it listed before previously?” They’d say, “About four months at a pricepoint that wasn’t getting much market traction.” — or similar. So they reduced the price in an advertisement and didn’t say what it was in the first place? So what? It was withdrawn. The reduction is clearly indicated. Lose the snotty quotes already.
    [Editor’s Note: The “issue” is the accuracy of aggregate market reports and statistics, not whether or not an agent could divine an individual property’s history.]

  3. Posted by corntrollio

    We’ve already had this discussion on another thread — a property is not “new to market” just because it has a lower price. But we’ll never agree on this… At least Redfin gives some transparency on listing practices, even if it doesn’t always give a listing price.

  4. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    DOM == Days On Market
    Day == 24 hour period
    On Market == available for sale
    DOM == Days On Market == number of 24 hour periods that the property was seeking a buyer
    Maybe I don’t understand English well enough, but no-where does “price point” (oops, sorry about the snotquotes) figure into the definition.
    Maybe we need a new term : DOMATPPNIPLOTOA

  5. Posted by Trip

    Why did you put the word, original, in quotes? It’s nowhere in the listing language.
    When one puts a word in quotes, it does not necessarily mean that one is quoting verbatim from something else. It can also mean that the word is being used ironically, to signify something that might literally be read to mean the quoted word but should be properly read to mean something different, often the exact opposite. In this case, the “original” list is $908,000 but the actual original list is $945,000, and the “$9000″ reduction is actually a $46,000 reduction, and the “15 days on the market” is actually 135 DOM. See how you can convey all that just by adding little quotation marks?

  6. Posted by anonn

    That’s beside the point. The fake quotes, by the proprietor of the website, create an environment of rancor. Do you want honest exchange of information? Then lose the quotes around words that aren’t even there in the first place.

  7. Posted by dogboy

    Anonn, it seems clear that the editor is just pointing out how huge price reductions don’t show up in RE Reports. I think the quotes imply dishonesty by the RE industry.

  8. Posted by anonn

    No kidding, Trip. “Thanks” for the “lesson” —
    now didn’t that give you some warm fuzzies inside?
    Hey, you know what, fine. Just don’t pretend you don’t have an agenda.

  9. Posted by Trip

    The fake quotes, by the proprietor of the website, create an environment of rancor.
    See my previous post, They are not “fake” quotes. They are not intended to repeat something verbatim from something else (unlike, e.g., my quotes around the word fake). They are intended to create an environment of rancor about the practice at issue — see, it worked!

  10. Posted by anonn

    The quotes don’t imply, they state, editorial agenda. They set a snide tone for all to follow. Yay.

  11. Posted by anonn

    Trip my point is unassailable and you know it. I can call them fake quotes if I like. The day you can teach me anything about writing will be the day that I ask you a question about real estate.

  12. Posted by corntrollio

    And your editorial agenda, anonn, would be to say that this condo “sold at list price in only 16 days” if it sells at $899K tomorrow? Your suggestion isn’t any more objective than the editor’s, so I’m not really sure why you complain so much. I’ll take snide over dishonest any day.

  13. Posted by lolcat_94123

    it’s gonna build up its DOM at that “price point” too because it’s not going to sell at $899k either.

  14. Posted by anonn

    And your editorial agenda, anonn, would be to say that this condo “sold at list price in only 16 days” if it sells at $899K tomorrow? Your suggestion isn’t any more objective than the editor’s, so I’m not really sure why you complain so much. I’ll take snide over dishonest any day.
    Let’s examine what you just wrote.
    1. My editorial agenda — Me? Mine?
    2. To say — to whom? with words that you’ve created and put in my mouth? Not a chance.
    3. My suggestion — that the editor not use quotes to set a rancorous tone?
    4. Objective? Oh, my point is quite objective. It’s not really debatable that a tone is set by the use of that editorial device.
    5. Snide over dishonest — “dishonest,” eh? Not really. You’d take snide though. Of course you would.

  15. Posted by christopherson

    While it’s true that Realtors are “honest” “professionals” providing a “service”.
    I must say thank goodness that Redfin is also honestly & professionally providing a service.
    After witnessing what the internet has done to travel agents and stock brokers, why don’t these people adapt to reality rather than fight the unstoppable tide? Shocking.
    Here’s a clue: guarding and obscuring otherwise available pricing data does not count as providing a service.

  16. Posted by Trip

    The day you can teach me anything about writing will be the day that I ask you a question about real estate.
    Hee, hee, that made me smile. I’m not going to out myself, but if you only knew who you were receiving basic English advice from! I’ve published two books and two dozen articles in publications ranging from general trade magazines to law journals. And I did set you straight on your patent misunderstanding of the editor’s use of quotation marks (“Why did you put the word, original, in quotes? It’s nowhere in the listing language.”) So go ahead, I’ll give you a free one. Ask me any question you want about real estate!

  17. Posted by anonn

    You set me straight about nothing Trip. I knew perfectly well why he used quotes, obviously? The fact that you actually *answered* a pointed *rhetorical* question isn’t doing much to support your English mastery claims. You are the lawyer who speaks in hyperbole when it comes to all things negative + real estate. Nothing more.

  18. Posted by chuckie

    Anonn, your clitonesque parsing would be funny if it wasn’t about ripping off unsuspecting consumers. You are doing yourself no favors by making these ridiculous arguments. I know that you have engaged in this type of obfuscation while selling your properties, but it would behoove you and all real estate “professionals” to advocate and work for more openness and transparency in the industry. Or, at least “appear” to be doing so in public forums.

  19. Posted by anonn

    Chuckie, explain how the 899K number, in green, with an inverted arrow, clearly indicating a price reduction, is ripping off unsuspecting consumers.

  20. Posted by nnona

    Yo flujio, why so bitter and combative? Isn’t it a great time to be a Realtor with home prices and the economy on the up and up? Shouldn’t you be out partying it up and making it rain on strippers with your commission windfalls instead of picking fights on SS?

  21. Posted by anonn

    I’m not bitter. I have a point and I made it.
    Why do you, a pseudonym that’s my name spelled backward, ask me about my personal career in a common, little, MTV-bred, unimaginative and deragatory manner?
    Don’t answer. I will. Because the editor intentionally creates an environment of rancor. Cretins like you flock to it, name spelled backward guy.

  22. Posted by Mr. E.

    Hi – I’m a relatively intelligent young professional that one day sees himself purchasing a home. I have studied law, economics, and business, and thus have a fair grasp on most of these things. I have also worked in sales.
    Anonn, I just thought you should know that, primarily due to your posts, I will absolutely never trust a realator. Ever. Thanks.

  23. Posted by anon$random

    yawn…again.
    i’m not sure who the stager is for this unit, but they should never be allowed to work in this town again.
    once something is sold that price is the sale price, whether it took 20 days or 200. if someone was willing to pay it…then thats market value.
    redfin is great though, you guys should all use them when you buy your homes…oh, thats right, you’re not going to buy one anyway. oh well.

  24. Posted by BobN

    Is the furniture all huddled in the corner for heat?

  25. Posted by anonn

    OK, Mr. E. Good luck with your future of letting individuals on internet boards guide what you decide to do in life. You’ll need it.

  26. Posted by ming

    I like the floors; very warm color.

  27. Posted by tipster

    #1306 didn’t do too badly. Probably had to provide 3 years of HOA and maybe some furnishings, and pay the buyer’s closing costs, so maybe he’s out $150K when all is said and done.
    $150K isn’t chump change, but it could have been a lot worse.
    Regarding the furniture in this unit, I suspect that if you know you are about to lose your shirt, and you are holding out for an unrealistic price, you aren’t going to rack up months and months worth of staging charges. So we have an “unmotivated seller”.

  28. Posted by Mr. E.

    Anonn, why do you try to represent your profession so well?
    With regards to this issue, it is a deceptive practice. A buyer can ferret out the truth, but the information presented is fundamentally disengenuous. Simple fact, and instead of addressing why that is OK, you attack the atmosphere or the structure of what people say. That’s a loser argument.
    Why is it OK to deceive the customer, and why should the customers be OK with that?

  29. Posted by EH

    anonn: as for writing lessons, they’re called scare quotes. HTH. HAND.

  30. Posted by anonn

    I represent my opinions. If you think that a good realtor is supposed to be accommodating, and not analytical, you’re mistaken.
    The property in question is currently clearly depicted and stated as having had a price reduction.
    The words “15 days on the market,” “original,” and “9000” are nowhere in any literature I saw except this website. I think you are of the opinion that they were written by the individual marketing the property? They’re not.
    The property was withdrawn from the market in July. Three months later it returned, with a price reduction, as new. I personally do not have a problem with that. It’s been three months. It’s not only a different quarter, but it’s a different pricepoint. However, if queried, all agents attached should explain the various marketing periods.

  31. Posted by anonn

    Scare quotes — thanks EH.

  32. Posted by Rillion

    anonn: “Do you want honest exchange of information?”
    Yes we do, that is why we complain about the MLS practices so much. They currently do not facilitate an honest exchange of information.

  33. Posted by condoshopper

    “explain how the 899K number, in green, with an inverted arrow, clearly indicating a price reduction, is ripping off unsuspecting consumers”
    The green pointing-down arrow reflects, i believe, the reduction from 908K to 899K, and not the original (no quotes) price of 945K.

  34. Posted by anonn

    I get that. But “exchange” ? The MLS is a one way street.
    Do you get that it’s not for you? For that matter, the photos within it are not for bloggers to take and editorialize elsewhere. Just take it for what it is. The true DOM can be found via a web search and a little math.
    What amount of time would constitute a fair reset of DOM to you, Rillion?

  35. Posted by Trip

    Brings to mind my favorite line from one of my favorite movies: “Well, uh, just because I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean I’m lying.”
    (Strange Brew 1983 — well, I grew up in hockey country)

  36. Posted by anonn

    not the original (no quotes) price of 945K.
    Of three or more months ago.

  37. Posted by anonn

    Brings to mind my favorite line from one of my favorite movies: “Well, uh, just because I don’t know what it is, it doesn’t mean I’m lying.”
    Apropos of little. Remind me never to read one of the trade mags you’ve authored, stirring though I’m sure they might be.

  38. Posted by tipster

    Annon,
    The issue here is not the listing being misleading, it’s the stats being misleading. When this shows up in the stats, it will contribute DOM only from the most recent listing.
    That gives an erroneous view of how long homes are taking to sell. Obviously, a home priced right takes almost no time to sell, and one not priced right takes longer. Homes that are generally overpriced sell for far less than their list price. That’s the purpose of the stats. It helps the buyers understand the market.
    Merely contributing its most recent DOM, and the sale price/listing price of almost always near 100% essentially turns the stats into just a statement that well priced homes quickly sell near their list price.
    The editor’s point, I think, is that the stats are not something that should be interpreted in any way to mean anything at all. When you see stats that indicate that things generally sell quickly and for nearly list price, you should not as a buyer assume that you need to act quickly and pay full price.
    The editor plainly states he is addressing “aggregate statistics” and you have misinterpreted this to be a personal attack on the listing. It’s not; but the stats are completely screwed up and, like many things that come from this largely dishonest “profession”, should be ignored by the buyers, if not completely laughed at.

  39. Posted by Tall Guy

    This year I saw a 2009 swimming suit in the spring I really liked for $100, except that’s too expensive for me.
    So I watched it hanging the rack through the summer.
    Until the day it was removed (oh no!), to then appear on the sale rack the next day, yeah!
    So I bought it for $50 that very next day.
    “1 day on the market” and a sale at “50% of list price”?
    OR
    “4 months on the market” and a sale at “50% of list price”?
    BUT CERTAINLY NOT
    “X days/months on the market” and a sale at “100% of list price”
    So I don’t get it. Are we saying that if the swimming suit showed up in the 2010 season on the spring rack that it should be advertised as a 2010 model (even though it is 2009)? Do you think that retailers report statistics like this? Do you think the inventory turn report showed that 2009 suit selling in 2009 even though it didn’t? Why report statistics on things that didn’t happen? Why do that? I’d rather you just list the price that you set with a little red X on the price every time you slashed it (or hell, gree markup every time you did that!). I could care less about the DOM, the pricing will show me your pain or pleasure.
    If you don’t agree, the stop publishing DOM and PRICE data on MLS as that is effectively just a random number assignment process. How useless.

  40. Posted by Rillion

    “What amount of time would constitute a fair reset of DOM to you, Rillion?”
    Since it last had a change of owner or some material change (ie a remodel/renovation that is more significant then a fresh coat of paint or a new dishwasher).
    If I try to sell something for 5 days, then sometime later I try to sell it for 10 days, then later again I try to sell it for 20 days, how many days I have been trying to sell it? How many total days have I had this same item up on the market? Does the fact that I have been taking breaks change the fact that I have had it on the market for 35 days? Not really.
    Personally I think a system that listed in an easy to reference fashion the current and total DOM would be best (as well as the time periods).

  41. Posted by anonn

    I asked that question in the other thread. Whose aggregate? What stats?
    And what time period is fair for a reset, Tipster? What timeset plus repricing? Would a year constitute a new market? Why not three months then?
    The issue is not length of time anyway, but price. Clearly. You guys act as if there isn’t a seller with a specific agenda on the other end.

  42. Posted by Rillion

    “Do you get that it’s not for you?”
    Yes and if stats were not pulled from it and used to market real estate I would not care at all how it tracked the information. But as long as they publish information that is taken from its numbers I think it is fair game to complain about how those numbers are generated.

  43. Posted by anonn

    In the end it is price that matters. Not percent of price. Not days required to obtain price. The price it sells for. In the end that is all you stat lovers really are evaluating. I want Yahoo to develop a better publishing tool. You think they’ll listen to me?

  44. Posted by BORING

    Percentage of list price is irrelevant; days on market is only slightly more relevant (but even more relevant for those wishing to blog and comment about the “idiocy” of property owners in San Francisco). There is no statistical relevancy in someone seeking equilibrium outside the realm of consumer psychology. If 806 sells for $899k it makes an excellent comparable sale for every unit above it.

  45. Posted by sanfrantim

    I don’t get the logic of those who are being so melodramatic about the DOM issue.
    It is not a “deceptive practice” unless there is a duty to disclose the information. But why should a homeowner have a duty to disclose that she tried unsuccessfully to sell her home 6 months or a year or two years before?
    Nothing in the DOM stats suggess that this is the first time out on the market for the property.

  46. Posted by corntrollio

    “And what time period is fair for a reset”
    There’s no such thing as a “reset” when it’s the same seller. If you really think DOM doesn’t hurt the seller or help the buyer, or that people don’t care about it, then why try to hide it?
    As a seller, I would care that the actual median/average selling time is, say, 6 months instead of 3 weeks and that people, on average, have been making $50K in price cuts instead of $9K in cuts.
    This information helps both buyers and sellers in different ways. There seems to be only one group of people helped by hiding this information…….

  47. Posted by anonn

    Days on the market. The market, now, at this price. Not days on what the market was three months ago, at a different price, plus days on the current market. Things change.
    As a seller, I would care that the actual median/average selling time is, say, 6 months instead of 3 weeks and that people, on average, have been making $50K in price cuts
    Sellers do not lack for information such as this.

  48. Posted by Fish

    Enough with DOM already. Assuming 2706 is fairly priced at $3900/mo, I’d say that 806 should be priced less than $800k, unless you think the price will appreciate a bunch in whatever your time frame is.
    http://sfbay.craigslist.org/sfc/apa/1439975092.html

  49. Posted by location

    “Days on the market. The market, now, at this price. Not days on what the market was three months ago, at a different price, plus days on the current market. Things change.”
    anonn,
    I’d say every day is a new market. Why not reset to 1 DOM every day. Kidding aside, I am curious. Would you say that the way DOM is working on the MLS now is more useful to you. You would find the information less valuable if it were presented in the way that everyone else here would like to see?

  50. Posted by Question

    Do these count as aggregate stats?
    “The median number of days it took to sell a single-family home was 33.6 days in September 2009, compared with 46.2 days (revised) for the same period a year ago.”
    http://www.car.org/newsstand/newsreleases/septsalesandprice/
    “Days on market for homes was flat at 57 days. For condos, days on market gained three days to 85 days.”
    http://www.rereport.com/sf/
    “Median Selling Price for homes that sold within 30 days was 104% of asking price”
    http://www.lubasf.com/blog/san-francisco-real-estate-sales-data-september-2009.php

  51. Posted by anonn

    I don’t look at DOM. I look at price versus my marching orders. What good is DOM if I am a buyer’s agent? All it shows is that there’s a person whose agenda has not been met on the listing side.
    And Question, you’d have them include all the properties that were withdrawn and still have not returned to the marketplace? How to measure those? The point is the sale. The last time around there was no sale.

  52. Posted by asad

    “Do you get that it’s not for you?”
    Then take it offline, it’s not for the public then don’t post it in the public and then complain when you get caught “lying”. Just make it a private site for use by RE agents only. It’s clear that the RE industry thrives by withholding information from would be buyers and sellers.
    Heck stop selling to the public oh wait that’s your entire business model, fleecing would be buyers and sellers who don’t spend their entire life looking at the market and have to trust an “expert” to help them make the biggest financial choice of their lives.
    Just admit it and be done with it.

  53. Posted by anonn

    Fleecing “expert” blah blah. No “straw man,” “delusional,” or similar? I’m disappointed in your netrage today, asad.

  54. Posted by sparky-b

    Sounds like people are in agreement with my point from yesterday to just have DOM taken off the MLS.

  55. Posted by TiagoSF

    $769/mo HOA dues are high. Combine that with property taxes and you’re already at $1,600/mo before even thinking about a mortgage.

  56. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    It is not a “deceptive practice” unless there is a duty to disclose the information.
    Huh ?
    Why is deceit disallowed only when there is a duty to disclose ? Are you saying that it is OK to lie if you’re volunteering information ?
    Why are realtors so against improving the veracity of the information presented ? Homes will still sell, commissions will be awarded, everyone should be happier.
    I’m not trying to be snide, I really want to understand who wins in a market where outright deceit is tolerated. Fake DOM, doctored photos, bogus landscaping, etc.
    Surely the buyer is negatively hampered, but aren’t all buyers eventually sellers (whether personally or their estate) ? Seems like a zero sum game with the exception that the playing field is tilted towards the dishonest.

  57. Posted by Rillion

    Sure, if it is not going to be an accurate representation of how many days that property has actually been on the market then get rid of it.

  58. Posted by Mr. E.

    ‘I don’t look at DOM. I look at price versus my marching orders. What good is DOM if I am a buyer’s agent? All it shows is that there’s a person whose agenda has not been met on the listing side.’
    Really? There is no information that is useful in knowing that the house has not sold in a certain amount of time for the buyer. Nothing about what the seller might be thinking, and this about what you may be able to acheive for your client.
    Or even when looking at the rest of the market – there is nothing good when there are comps at price x that have remained on the market for a few months and others that sold quicky at price x-y? Nothing good about how to structure an offer with that type of information. No sir.

  59. Posted by HappyRenter

    @ anon$random,
    “Price is what you pay, value is what you get.”
    -Warren Buffett

  60. Posted by sanfrantim

    Milkshake –
    No, it is not ok to volunteer lies; and that is not what I wrote. I’ll try to put it more carefully.
    A statement is deceptive only if it conveys something important that is not true or if it deliberately fails to disclose something important that is required by law to be disclosed (and so rendering the incomplete statement misleading).
    The “DOM” stat conveys no more than the number of days a property has been continuously listed by the seller. You know that. I know that. Everyone on this board knows that. It conveys nothing as to whether the property was previously listed at the same or a different price and, if so, for how long. That is information that must be pursued, if at all, a different way. But the MLS’ failing to dislose prior listings, is not deceptive, so long as there is no representation that there were no prior listings.
    I call shenanigans on this loose talk about poor deceived home buyers.
    Whether the abssence of information about prior listings “negatively hampers buyers” is probably a matter of opinion. As for me, twice I have purchased real estate in the Bay Area, and neither time did I feel hampered by the failure of realtors to disclose prior unsuccessful listing periods. Once, I did learn during the negotiation that the seller had previously listed the home and it failed to sell, but that did not change my view of the home or its value one way or the other.

  61. Posted by anonn

    Mr.E,
    I told you what DOM shows me the seller is thinking, consicely. You started there and continued on, referring back to the market and price. Did you really disagree? I don’t think so.

  62. Posted by rolfsf

    @annon,
    You state: “The true DOM can be found via a web search and a little math.”
    So if the DOM in the listing isn’t “true”, then what is it?
    Untrue, maybe? False, perhaps? nudge nudge wink wink…

  63. Posted by CameronRex

    When a party with whom you are trying to have a discussion insults you and refuses to acknowledge even the slightest bit of validity to your point of view there is no reason to engage in further discussion. It called banging your head against a wall.

  64. Posted by Mole Man

    This is a rather nice unit. The thoughtful stagers probably crowded the furniture so that it would all stay on the rug and not scuff the nice floors. The lens also makes the area look larger than it is. My guess is that this will sell for closer to $800k than $900k, possibly as late as some time next year.

  65. Posted by mac

    “When a party with whom you are trying to have a discussion insults you and refuses to acknowledge even the slightest bit of validity to your point of view there is no reason to engage in further discussion. It called banging your head against a wall.”
    its called arguing w Fluj. Anyone with a shred of honesty knows that the DOM stats are just lies lies lies. Its perfectly fine and even upstanding for the editor’s agenda to be honesty in RE stats. Good for him/her. However the realtors like the lie-stats cos it gives people the impression that houses are selling more quickly than they are, so therefore we need to get in. um..before we’re priced out.
    @anon$random: do u know how many potential buyers with 7 figure net worth are on this thread? No. Cos u don’t pay attention, do you?

  66. Posted by lolcat_94123

    Don’t feed the trolls.
    This unit is nice, that furniture is awesome!

  67. Posted by steve

    it seems to me like DOM has a specific and consistent definition. there is an additional, related statistic not provided that I wish was as I find it more valuable, but in not calculating it I do not see fraud.

  68. Posted by Outsider

    I am sorry but I have finally come to the conclusion that the 10 to 15 guys and gals left slinging insults on Socketsite are either 1: unemployed and have given up looking 2: employed by a firm that is not doing much business (e.g. selling Chrysler) 3: a realtor not doing much showing 4: married to the CEO’s daughter…

  69. Posted by The Milkshake of Despair

    sanfrantim – I disagree that a house being listed on the MLS is the same as being on the market. Pocket listings are a obvious counterexamples.
    Assume a house lists for 90 days, is withdrawn, and then relisted right after the SFAR mandated minimum time to be unlisted to reset DOM. This happens all of the time. Does anyone here believe that the seller/owner would turn down an offer that arrived in the interim unlisted period ?
    MLS isn’t the only outlet for marketing a property. As we all know Craigslist, agency websites, and the grapevine provide alternate avenues to connect with buyers.
    I s’pose that there might be a seller out there who lists for 3 months, changes their mind for a month and withdraws (even turning down offers), and then changes their mind back again and relists. But I think that most sellers make their mind up to sell and stay the course until the job is done, whether or not their property is technically listed on the MLS.
    If I had a database of “listing events” that had a record containing this information for each event :
    (date, seller, property, price)
    and other records for actual sales :
    (date, property, price)
    then it would be trivial to compute “real DOM”. This is probably what redfin is doing.

  70. Posted by viewlover

    This site is so polarized anymore. Arguements get made that are quite far removed from the “issues”. The use of quotes turns into deception and poisining of the data well, making it useless for “analysis”.
    Maybe there is some value to the metric in the manner it is presented. It does indicate how many days properties in a particular band take to get sold. Whatever the intent, if the analyst here were real, they would come up with a fudge factor for the “inconsistent” reporting of “relevent” events and not just point out inconsistencies in logic to no-where.

  71. Posted by SocketSite

    The listing for 425 1st Street #806 has just been withdrawn from the MLS after 378 258 days on the market without a sale.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *