(This is the 3rd of a 5-part series about the harm caused to a real estate market by agents and brokers reporting innacurate or misleading real estate statistics... that more often reflect an agenda than true market conditions. See article #4 in this series here, and previous article to this one here.)

 Now for the Two Skew Spew Pooh Examples :
On April 7 of last  year, a real estate agent and broker reported in the Tahoe Daily Tribune that:

•  “Tahoe” home prices were up 20% in the first quarter compared to the year before, 

• The average price of a “Tahoe” home “soared” to $1,400,000 in that same time period.

Even more amusing was the broker who reported this also continued, “I think we going to see it go higher.” (Turn off the brights, please!)

Do you see anything here that looks suspicious? Anything odd, or doesn’t seem right? Anything that might not be relevant? We saw it instantly, but the problem is the public for the most part does not look at things like this through professional real estate eyes.

First lets look at the word “Tahoe” used in the article. You know, the place where homes average $1.4M each. But where is it? We all know there’s a lake named Lake Tahoe, but there is no town or community named “Tahoe”, or “Lake Tahoe” for that matter. In other words, no real estate market exists by that name.

In fact there is no central resource to gather “Lake Tahoe” real estate statistics or information. Real estate around Lake Tahoe is served by 4 different multiple listing services,  those that serve:

• (1) South Lake Tahoe, CA,

• (2) Stateline, NV from Glenbrook to the CA stateline,

• (3) Incline Village and

• (4) the other side of the lake including Truckee, Tahoe City and Tahoma.

The only possible way to get a “Tahoe”, or a “Lake Tahoe” number is to combine, or average the data from all 4 multiple listing services. More importantly though, is real estate market data from each MLS is separate and autonomous, and home values in each one have no bearing, or relevance, to that of any other. In other words, Incline Village home values have no relationship to South Lake Tahoe, CA homes that is meaningful.

So, is the claim that “Tahoe” home values average $1.4M relevant? Does it have any bearing  or helpful information for the South Lake Tahoe, CA home buyer or seller? Hardly, and we’re in a narrow range here, one that starts at “zero” and runs to “none whatsoever.”

Is the claim accurate? Maybe, probably, but what’s the point? More importantly is this question: how do you think information like this affected potential South Lake Tahoe, CA home buyers and sellers last year? Is it possible that the reporting of such a high avenge price, even if it was accurate, was misleading? That it added to buyer’s perceptions that the South Lake Tahoe real estate market remains over inflated? Or added to a Sellers insistence to list a home at a price they will never get?

Lets look at the next bit of information in this piece of real estate improper propaganda, the one that claims that “Tahoe” home prices increased 20% in the first quarter of last year compared to the year before. We’ve already discussed that  “Tahoe” is a market that doesn’t exist, so lets take a look at the first quarter in both South Lake Tahoe, CA and Stateline, NV. (The broker who said it should be ashamed of herself.)

The charts above are the actual sales results in both South Lake Tahoe, CA and Stateline, NV for the first quarters of 2006 and 2007. If one notices, there is no 20% price increase anywhere. Yet your trusted real estate broker reported such... in the South Lake Tahoe newspaper! (There was an actual 4.2% decline in South Lake Tahoe, CA, and a 7.8% increase in Stateline, NV in the first quarter of last year, which was a direct result of two exceptionally high-end  NV sales... that would never have any relevance to mainstream South Lake Tahoe buyers and sellers in the slightest.

As the chart below indicates, there was a 2.2% median sold price increase in Staetline, NV in 2007. (Seems like it didn't go "higher" as the broker predicted after all.) As one will notice, we've had a 9.2% decline in the 180 days. (Which is very good for buyers.)

So where does this kind of reporting leave us?   Well, the broker can claim that the number is accurate because it includes everything around Lake Tahoe, or focus on just a few sales over a select period, or whatever way they want to spin the numbers as they would like. But it is incredibly misleading to the public. (Spin is acceptable in politics, one supposes, but not here.)

So why would a respected broker report something like this? To get more business for their brokerage, remember? Yes, it’s an agenda! (gosh, I love rocket science.) Their business plan is to attract the highest priced listings possible all around the Lake. It makes sense then, that reporting the highest possible number might best serve their business model (we’re sure they thought of that). What’s most unfortunate is it’s at the expensive risk of creating false impression to buyers, and to sellers, which consequently has a negative effect on the overall health and well being of the South Lake Tahoe Real estate market as a whole

(See article #4 in this series here, and previous article to this one here.)