- This topic has 50 replies, 9 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 6 months ago by CMcG.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 6, 2008 at 11:16 AM #12656May 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM #199650patientlywaitingParticipant
I wonder what happened to Lerah’s Florida condo investments.
May 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM #199774patientlywaitingParticipantI wonder what happened to Lerah’s Florida condo investments.
May 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM #199689patientlywaitingParticipantI wonder what happened to Lerah’s Florida condo investments.
May 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM #199713patientlywaitingParticipantI wonder what happened to Lerah’s Florida condo investments.
May 6, 2008 at 11:24 AM #199741patientlywaitingParticipantI wonder what happened to Lerah’s Florida condo investments.
May 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM #199733DanielParticipantI find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.
Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.
May 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM #199795DanielParticipantI find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.
Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.
May 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM #199760DanielParticipantI find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.
Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.
May 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM #199709DanielParticipantI find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.
Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.
May 6, 2008 at 11:38 AM #199668DanielParticipantI find it shocking that media still chooses to rely on numbers and opinions from NAR and NAR “economists” (or former ones). These people have discredited themselves so much. Their forecasts have become the laughing stock of housing economists everywhere. It’s incredible.
Reporters could easily find independent economists that could be interviewed, on the record, about housing issues. And some reputable bloggers, like CR, also talk to the media. It really strikes me as gross incompetence from the part of reporters to have NAR as their primary forecast source.
May 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM #199730DanielParticipantSpeaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.
At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.
What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.
That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.
May 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM #199752DanielParticipantSpeaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.
At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.
What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.
That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.
May 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM #199816DanielParticipantSpeaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.
At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.
What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.
That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.
May 6, 2008 at 12:04 PM #199687DanielParticipantSpeaking of NAR economists, their forecast for 2007 home sales will probably go down in history as the poster child of spin and bad faith.
At the start of 2007, like every year, they forecast the number of sales for that year (as do many other economists). Their number was way higher than everyone else’s, including Fannie, Freddie, Citi, Goldman, Merrill, Economy.com, CR, etc. That, in itself, is not a crime. To err is human.
What they did later, though, made them the laughingstock they are now. Every month, for 12 months, they published cheerful press releases in which they proclaimed that the year started out on a temporary weak note, that the turnaround is just around the corner, and that the estimate would be revised slightly down. They did that all the way through November 2007. They chipped away at that estimate for 12 months, until they finally got it right, by the end of December.
That, my friends, is called bad faith. Their credibility in economic circles is absolutely zero today. As I said, I’m amazed that reporters still talk to them.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.