Comments on: Dataquick Appears to Overstate California Sales

By: Old Mike

Old Mike — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 23:12:03 +0000

I believe Techscan is on the money. Deeds passing from one party to another is probably the best, particularly since all sorts of
“transactions” could be segregated if we start. For example, related party transfers (divorced spouse extinuishing interest of other;family trust to child) create all sorts of different wrinkles in the “arms length” test. And for historical comparisons, the devil you know is better than the new improved devil.

Upgrayed, however, is, I think, confusing the “feelings” of coersion by the debtor in default in a foreclosure from the fact that generally the deed passes(and thus becomes a “sale” )only after an opportunity to redeem and an auction, the later being absolutely the standard for a fair market price. The debtor cannot stop the auction on the court house steps of course, but they can bid, and it is no longer the length of their arm that matters. Rather than a foreclosure being at gun point, it is a far more structured and civil (and expensive)method of legitmiate debt collection than, say, repossing an auto in very similar circumstance.

By: upgrayedd

upgrayedd — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:39:29 +0000

I think techscan is confusing a sale by the bank to a new owner(REO sales) with the foreclosure itself; foreclosures are most certainly done at gunpoint. Just go try to stop the auction at the courthouse steps and see what happens. And there is no ‘sale’ in the market sense. It’s just the bank seizing their collateral.

By: twist

twist — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 22:24:20 +0000

Techscan-

As I indicated in my post, I’ve found trying to figure out transactions at the county recorders office a royal pain. Even if you had the time to have a human being review every transaction, how do you know which sales have huge kickbacks, whose selling to a family member at a huge discount, the list goes on…

As long as you know the faults and foibles in any system you can work around it. I just like to see the discussion out there, so people have a better grasp of what it means.

By: techscan

techscan — Thu, 11 Jan 2007 20:51:51 +0000

I’m much more sanguine. Dataquick reports recorded transactions. They call recorded transactions “sales” and even then aren’t incorrect. Isn’t a sale the transfer of controlling interest? Any attempt to call into question their definition of including nonmarket not arms length transactions leaves open the prospect that things like median and averages also not include the same. When something changes hands and no guns are involved that to my mind is a sale. This isn’t an error or misreporting as long as it is acknowledged.

This differs greatly from the ARMLS exposé. There the methodology is neither transparent nor ultimately supportable. Here the DQ numbers are what they are. Personally, since the absolute value is of little use to me I’d be more upset if they changed and thus destroyed relative continuity of the dataset.

That said, DQ is; damn sloppy, late, random, dogmatic. I’ll take a consistent bedevilment over a random one anyday.