Accuracy of Zillow, Trulia listing data under fire again

Summary of ZipRealty study findings

Site	% of listings on the site versus the MLS	% of listings on the site listed as for sale while not listed for sale in the MLS
Zillow	73%	16%
Trulia	78%	17%
ZipRealty	99%	1%

Source: ZipRealty

ZipRealty looked at a control set of 2,981 homes actively listed for sale in the 16 MLSs in the markets above on Oct. 28, 2012. That set of homes was then cross-referenced, using both the properties' addresses and MLS listing identification numbers, with the homes listed for sale on Zillow, Trulia and ZipRealty in those markets.

If an MLS-listed home was not found on one of the three sites, ZipRealty manually double-checked for incorrect information and updated its results as needed.

For homes listed for sale on the three sites that were not listed for sale in the MLS, the properties' historical information in the MLS was looked at.

"In many cases," the report noted, "these 'extra' homes shown within the portals' home listings results reflected listings that had previously expired, sold or otherwise been deactivated within the MLS database while still shown as 'for sale.'"

Last fall, technology-based brokerage Redfin hired a consulting firm, WAV Group, to compare the accuracy of listing data published by Zillow and Trulia in 11 major markets with IDX listing data displayed by Redfin and two other brokerages.

The WAV Group study found that about 36 percent of the listings shown as active on Zillow and Trulia were no longer for sale in the local MLS, while brokerage websites had few or no such errors.

Trulia and Zillow, which have both instituted programs to improve listings accuracy, said the WAV Group study did not tell the whole story.

Both companies said they offer tools that are often now found on broker and MLS sites that allow consumers to research market conditions. Some homes -- such as those being sold by owners, and newly constructed homes -- are not listed in the MLS because they are not represented by a real estate broker.

Trulia spokesman Ken Shuman said ZipRealty didn't detail which ZIP codes were looked at in its report, or why the markets that were studied were chosen.

"I raise an eyebrow at this," Shuman said. "Did they look at all 15 ZIP codes in San Francisco. or just the four where Trulia had the most discordant match with the MLS?"

Shuman said Trulia has "invested heavily in delivering quality data to consumers," pointing out the firm's Trulia Broker Program, which gives brokers incentives for providing a direct listing feed to the portal, and new continuously updated protocol for data it gets directly from MLSs.

Zillow has also been focused on improving listing coverage and accuracy. Itannounced its 49th broker in the Zillow Pro for Brokers program last month and in July it started ramping up its efforts at getting listing feeds directly from MLSs.

"What's more important to understand about a study like this is that there is no gold standard for real estate listings," said Zillow spokeswoman Cynthia Nowak.

Nowak said Zillow has information on many listings -- like for-sale-by-owner, pre-market and new construction homes -- that aren't in MLSs because they aren't represented by real estate brokers.

Nowak also pointed out that home shoppers use Zillow for reasons beyond looking for for-sale homes, but also for "deep information on all homes, the Zestimate, price cuts, communities, rental listings and historical home information."

"If (Zillow and Trulia) are saying this isn't right, God bless them. Let's see the data," ZipRealty CEO Lanny Baker told Inman News. The study looked at the prime ZIP codes in the markets covered, he said.

Baker says he's aware that consumers use real estate sites for different reason. The new ZipRealty tool and study, he said, is an effort to point out where he thinks ZipRealty excels -- providing search for MLS-listed homes.

Baker said many consumers aren't aware that popular portals like Zillow and Trulia don't have all the for-sale listings in some markets. Studies like ZipRealty's are meant to bring the issue to light, he said.

Editor's note: This story has been updated with comments from Zillow and Trulia, and additional details on ZipRealty's study of listings accuracy.

Following in the footsteps of Redfin, ZipRealty Inc. is emphasizing the timeliness and accuracy of the Internet Data Exchange (IDX) listing data it serves up on its website in comparison to the sometimes dated and incomplete information on third-party listing portals like Zillow and Trulia.

ZipRealty is offering a "Listing Check" tool that it says will allow consumers to use its website to double-check whether a home they've seen listed for sale on another site is actually for sale.

The Listing Check tool is available in 34 markets where ZipRealty has access to IDX listings. The company operates as a brokerage in 19 markets, and is also able to display IDX listings in 15 other "Powered by Zip" markets where it provides leads and customer relationship management tools to other brokerages.

Websites operated by real estate brokerages and agents receive listings directly from multiple listing services, which provide IDX listing feeds to members. The feeds include all listings represented by participating brokerages in a given market.

Thanks to its ties to the National Association of Realtors, Realtor.com gets listings directly from most of the nation's more than 900 MLSs.

Other third-party listing portals, like Zillow and Trulia, receive some of their listings directly from MLSs. But brokers have the right to withhold listings they represent from the portals, and in many markets, portals must rely on individual brokerages, agents and third-party syndicators for listing data. Difficulties in managing feeds from multiple sources means that portals sometimes have incomplete or inaccurate listing data.

Brokerages in "Powered by Zip" markets can withhold listings from third-party websites like Zillow and Trulia, but cannot prevent their listings from appearing on ZipRealty.com without withdrawing entirely from IDX agreements.

To emphasize the accuracy of the IDX listing data displayed on ZipRealty.com, the company says it analyzed listings published by Zillow and Trulia in 50 ZIP codes across the following 13 major metropolitan areas: Boston, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Portland, the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, Seattle and Washington, D.C.

In the areas studied, ZipRealty claims that more than 15 percent of homes shown for sale on Zillow and Trulia weren't actually on the market, and up to 30 percent of homes that were listed for sale in an MLS were not identified by the portals as being on the market.

"Finding that perfect home online and then discovering that it's already been sold presents an extremely frustrating scenario to homebuyers," said ZipRealty CEO Lanny Baker in a statement. "Other major online real estate websites continue to show homes listed as 'for sale' for several days -- even weeks -- after they have sold, and no homebuyer wants to waste time chasing after properties that are already off the market."

C.A.R. reports 4th quarter 2012 housing affordability

LOS ANGELES (Feb. 25) – Higher home prices offset lower interest rates to reduce housing affordability in California during the fourth quarter of 2012, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (C.A.R.) reported.

The percentage of home buyers who could afford to purchase a median-priced, existing single-family home in California decreased to 48 percent in the fourth quarter of 2012, down from 49 percent in third-quarter 2012 and from 55 percent in fourth-quarter 2011, according to C.A.R.’s Traditional Housing Affordability Index (HAI). 

C.A.R.’s HAI measures the percentage of all households that can afford to purchase a median-priced, single-family home in California.  C.A.R. also reports affordability indices for regions and select counties within the state.  The Index is considered the most fundamental measure of housing well-being for home buyers in the state.

Home buyers needed to earn a minimum annual income of $66,940 to qualify for the purchase of a $353,190 statewide median-priced, existing single-family home in the fourth quarter of 2012.  The monthly payment, including taxes and insurance on a 30-year fixed-rate loan, would be $1,670, assuming a 20 percent down payment and an effective composite interest rate of 3.49 percent.  The effective composite interest rate in third-quarter 2012 was 3.72 percent and 4.30 percent in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Housing affordability results were mixed at the regional level, with affordability improving from the third quarter of 2012 in Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, Napa, Los Angeles, Ventura, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Fresno, and Kings counties.  However, homes in San Francisco, Solano, Riverside, San Bernardino, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Madera, Sacramento, and Tulare counties were less affordable during fourth quarter 2012.

At an index of 76 percent, San Bernardino and Kings counties were the most affordable counties of the state.  Conversely, San Francisco County was the least affordable, with only 22 percent of the region’s households able to purchase the county’s median-priced home. 

See C.A.R.’s historical housing affordability data.

See first-time buyer housing affordability data.

Leading the way…® in California real estate for more than 100 years, the CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States with 155,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
Traditional Housing Affordability Index

STATE/REGION/COUNTY	Q4 2012	Q3 2012		Q4 2011
Calif. Single-family home	48	49		55
Calfi. Condo/Townhomes	59	60		63
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area	50	51		56
Inland Empire	67	68		71
San Francisco Bay Area	34	35		42
U.S.	69	67		70
San Francisco Bay Area
Alameda	36	34		39
Contra-Costa (Central County)	31	28		37
Marin	28	27		29
Napa	48	45		50
San Francisco	22	25		26
San Mateo	24	24		29
Santa Clara	32	32		40
Solano	73	77		76
Sonoma	46	46		51
Southern California
Los Angeles	44	42		48
Orange County	34	34		38
Riverside County	62	63		66
San Bernardino	76	77		78
San Diego	43	43		46
Ventura	48	47		49
Central Coast
Monterey	50	52		56
San Luis Obispo	40	37		41
Santa Barbara	27	31		41
Santa Cruz	34	30		37
Central Valley
Fresno	70	69		71	r
Kings County	76	74	r	75
Madera	74	76		75
Merced	74	74		77
Placer County	64	64		67
Sacramento	71	73		74
Tulare	71	73		73

r = revised

CALIFORNIA ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
Traditional Housing Affordability Index

C.A.R. Region	Housing  Affordability Index	Median Home  Price	Monthly Payment Including Taxes & Insurance	Minimum  Qualifying Income
Calif. Single-family home	48	$         353,190	$              1,670	$           66,940
Calif. Condo/Townhomes	59	$         272,760	$              1,290	$           51,690
Los Angeles Metropolitan Area	50	$           326,470	$               1,550	$             61,870
Inland Empire	67	$           209,260	$                   990	$             39,660
San Francisco Bay Area	34	$           593,220	$               2,810	$           112,420
U.S.	69	$           178,900	$                   850	$             33,900
San Francisco Bay Area
Alameda	36	$           522,890	$               2,480	$             99,100
Contra-Costa (Central County)	31	$           631,530	$               2,990	$           119,680
Marin	28	$           812,490	$               3,850	$           153,980
Napa	48	$           385,200	$               1,830	$             73,000
San Francisco	22	$           777,090	$               3,680	$           147,270
San Mateo	24	$           782,500	$               3,710	$           148,300
Santa Clara	32	$           685,000	$               3,250	$           129,820
Solano	73	$           225,540	$               1,070	$             42,740
Sonoma	46	$           382,560	$               1,810	$             72,500
Southern California
Los Angeles	44	$           350,080	$               1,660	$             66,350
Orange County	34	$           568,600	$               2,690	$           107,760
Riverside County	62	$           240,840	$               1,140	$             45,640
San Bernardino	76	$           152,860	$                   720	$             28,970
San Diego	43	$           405,360	$               1,920	$             76,820
Ventura	48	$           440,250	$               2,090	$             83,430
Central Coast		0
Monterey	50	$           329,000	$               1,560	$             62,350
San Luis Obispo	40	$           399,310	$               1,890	$             75,680
Santa Barbara	27	$           546,510	$               2,590	$           103,570
Santa Cruz	34	$           520,000	$               2,460	$             98,550
Central Valley		0
Fresno	70	$           152,360	$                   720	$             28,870
Kings County	76	$           146,210	$                   690	$             27,710
Madera	74	$           133,750	$                   630	$             25,350
Merced	74	$           133,450	$                   630	$             25,290
Placer County	64	$           302,630	$               1,430	$             57,350
Sacramento	71	$           193,190	$                   920	$             36,610
Tulare	71	$           141,810	$                   670	$             26,880

Low-ball offers decline in some housing markets

Realty agents say low-ball offers on homes for sale, typically those that are 25% or more below list price, are disappearing in high-demand markets.

By Kenneth R. Harney

April 22, 2012

WASHINGTON — It's not something that economists routinely track, but it provides a rough sense of what's happening in local real estate markets. Call it the low-ball index.

A year ago, according to researchers at the National Assn. of Realtors, 1 out of 10 members surveyed in a monthly poll complained about low-ball offers on houses listed for sale. In the latest survey — conducted during March among a sample of 4,500 agents and brokers across the country and not yet released — there were hardly any. Instead, the focus of volunteered comments has shifted to declining inventory levels — fewer houses available to sell — and multiple offers on well-priced listings.

A low-ball offer typically involves a contract submitted to a seller where the price proposed by the purchaser is 25% or more below list. Low-ball offers increase sharply when there's a glut of properties available, asking prices are out of sync with local economic realities and values are depressed or uncertain. Buyers figure: Hey, why not? Maybe I'll get lucky.

Based on the latest survey results, that sort of strategy is not a winning move in many communities this spring. In fact, in local markets where inventories are tight and competition for homes rising, realty agents say that buyers looking to steal houses by low-balling their offers are ending up at the back of the line — their contracts either rejected out of hand or countered close to the original asking price.

In high-demand, high-cost markets that have rebounded from recession slumps, sellers are now firmly in control; they pay scant attention to low-ball offers. Jayne Esposito, an agent with Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage in Los Gatos, Calif., said multiple offers are "the rule, not the exception," in her area, and many transactions end up with final contract prices higher than the listing.

"Sure, I've had a few buyers try to low-ball and they wouldn't listen," she said, "but that didn't work out well for them."

Similar trends are underway in more moderately priced markets. Wes Neal, an agent at Prudential Olympia in Olympia, Wash., said, "Low-ball offers are down a lot because we're seeing more homes come on the market that are more realistically priced" — sellers have absorbed the hard lessons of the recession years about what the market can bear.

Even when buyers submit shockingly low bids, sellers no longer are so insulted that they send the contract back without a counteroffer. Now they negotiate aggressively and the final number ends up close to the original asking price. For example, Neal said, a buyer recently came in with a bottom-fishing offer of $150,000 on a house listed for $250,000. 

 Although the seller was irritated, after a series of negotiations the low-ball buyer settled for a final price of $230,000.

OutsideWashington, D.C., in the Northern Virginia suburbs, well-priced houses in good locations move fast, sometimes pulling in multiple offers within 48 hours of listing, said Chris Ann Cleland, an agent with Long & Foster Realtors. Sellers who encounter the occasional outrageous low-ball offer reminiscent of the recession years tell listing agents "don't even bother" with them. After all, there's an excellent chance there will be a realistic offer shortly — maybe more than one.

In the suburbs south of Chicago, Judy Orr, an agent with Classic Realty Group in Orland Park, Ill., said low-ball frequency and efficacy depend on the specific neighborhood or town. "We still see them, and we try to work with them" in communities where prices are soft and the effects of tough economic times persist, she said.

Elsewhere, although low-ball offers are down, Orr urges sellers to stick with it and negotiate. Recently a low-baller came in $40,000 below the asking price. Through negotiations with the buyer, Orr managed to close the gap to just $2,000 below asking.

Marnie Matarese, an agent with J Wood Realty in Sarasota, Fla., said that while low-ball offers are far fewer this spring, some out-of-town buyers still appear to be under the impression that all Florida real estate remains depressed. They insist on submitting offers that make no sense in today's environment. But Matarese has no problem with this — "you can't blame a buyer for trying to get a good deal," she said, but the fact remains: They usually risk losing the house.

The take-away here: Rolling low-balls at sellers may have been an effective approach between 2008 and early 2011. But in 2012's environment — at least in rebounding markets — it could be counterproductive if you truly want to buy.

kenharney@earthlink.net

Distributed by Washington Post Writers Group.

 

 

Report: Sellers’ Asking Prices Rose in March

• April 17, 2012, 6:00 AM

• By Nick Timiraos

  Here’s a sign that sellers are feeling more optimistic about their prospects this spring: median asking prices in March jumped by 5.6% from a year ago, and were up 1% from February, according to a report released Tuesday.
  
  The jump in median asking prices comes amid a sharp drop in the number of homes listed for sale from one year ago. While listing inventories in March rose by 1.5% from February, they were still 21.5% below last year’s levels.
  
  

  

  Click for interactive with metro-level data.

   

  Inventories of homes listed for sale tend to go up in the spring, and the 1.8 million listings in March represented the second straight increase for the year. Over the past 27 years, the average increase in for-sale listings in March has been 1.8% from February, according to research firm Zelman & Associates.
  
  The Realtor.com figures include sale listings from more than 900 multiple-listing services across the country. They don’t cover all homes for sale, including those that are “for sale by owner” and newly constructed homes that aren’t always listed by the services.
  Compared with February, inventories declined in roughly less than half of the top 30 metros tracked by Realtor.com during March, with the biggest declines in Phoenix (-6.4%), Seattle (-4.8%) and Orlando, Fla. (-4.2%).
  
  Northeastern cities showed the largest inventory gains — a finding that shouldn’t surprise given that sellers are more likely to list their homes when the weather improves. Washington, D.C., saw a 9.5% gain, followed by Philadelphia (8.1%) and Boston (7.4%).
  
  But compared with one year ago, inventories are still down sharply in almost all of the 145 markets tracked by Realtor.com. Just two, Philadelphia and Hartford, Conn., have seen any annual inventory increases. Listings are down by more than half in Oakland and Bakersfield, Calif.
  
  Where are prices rising? Median asking prices were up from one year ago or unchanged in the vast majority of markets, with whopping increases of 23% in Phoenix, 22% in Miami, 17% in Washington, D.C.
  
  The biggest monthly price gains were reported in San Francisco (6.1%), Seattle (5%) and Washington, D.C. (4.1%).
  
  Where are prices falling? Chicago topped the list, with median asking prices down by 9.5% from last year’s levels. Orange County, Calif., saw a 5.4% decline and Los Angeles posted a 3% drop.
  
  Compared with February, asking prices turned up in all but one of the cities, with Minneapolis posting a 2.2% drop in median listing prices from February.
  
  Follow Nick @NickTimiraos