Why does CNBC quote NAR economists?

J

Jayford

CNBC is rapidly losing as much credibility as the NAR. Terrible existing numbers out, but CNBC quotes an economist from the NAR who says he sees signs of a bottom. Of course he does! It is his job to see a bottom.

My point being is that shouldn't CNBC represent the consumer/ investor?

Kinda like how the NY Times is WAY biased to the left politically. CNBC is biased to give rosy outlooks for everything. Always.
 
Economists are OK, just not those that are employed by lobbying groups, which is essentially what the NAR is. They promote RE sales. Their data is a joke.
 
Doesn't CNBC means Cartoon Network Broadcasting Corporation or some such?

Watch CNBC as watching cartoons, entertaining but certainly not for real.
 
Quote from crgarcia:

Doesn't CNBC means Cartoon Network Broadcasting Corporation or some such?

Watch CNBC as watching cartoons, entertaining but certainly not for real.
More...

Oh contriare......watching CNBC is like watching a mensa meeting in progress. :eek: :eek: :eek:
 
Quote from Jayford:

CNBC is rapidly losing as much credibility as the NAR. Terrible existing numbers out, but CNBC quotes an economist from the NAR who says he sees signs of a bottom. Of course he does! It is his job to see a bottom.

My point being is that shouldn't CNBC represent the consumer/ investor?

Kinda like how the NY Times is WAY biased to the left politically. CNBC is biased to give rosy outlooks for everything. Always.
More...

One thing that could be said, is that having the "rosy outlook" has been the profitable outlook most of the time in our history, in both the stock market and the real estate market. Think about it...we're at record highs now in most stock market indices. The real estate market has had almost no price drops in the last 50 years, although now it appears to be dropping in most parts of the country.

So maybe what you should have said was, why does CNBC quote NAR economists rather than me? LOL! Obviously you know better than any economist who holds a "rosy view".

Let me remind you of the many, many people CNBC had on their network who were predicting a "crash" in the RE market, many making these predictions LONG, LONG before the actual peak. Same was true on these boards. They also had NAR on then too, except at that time they were right, weren't they?

These days I see a mix of opinion on RE on CNBC. So CNBC is not really broadcasting "rosy" opinion. In fact, they seem to bend over backwards to get both sides of any issue.

However, if this is yet another CNBC bashing thread, please carry on. Just attempting to inject a few facts into the thread.

OldTrader
 
Quote from Jayford:

CNBC is rapidly losing as much credibility as the NAR. Terrible existing numbers out, but CNBC quotes an economist from the NAR who says he sees signs of a bottom. Of course he does! It is his job to see a bottom.

My point being is that shouldn't CNBC represent the consumer/ investor?
More...

I see something similar quite regularly up here in Canada - many of our newspapers regularly quote real estate companies regarding the current state of housing. I sort of doubt that I will ever read a "sky is falling in real estate" statement from them...
 
actually realtors would prefer the market falls to where volume picks up, just like pit traders.

And my part of florida lakewood ranch in Bradenton - which was the finally big bubble area just had a tremdous six weeks in terms of volume.

Price is down significantly but volume more than doubled recent months.

The leading brokerage in the area just had their best month ever.

Sarasota also saw a drop in price but a significant increase in volume.
 
You didn't understand the point of my post. I was not making any predictions. My point was why continue to involve the NAR at all? Virtually no one in the industry believes anything they say during downturns. They have been predicting a bottom every month for the past six, regardless of how ugly inventories, subprime loans, vacant properties, etc look. The NAR is a lobbying group. Why quote them at all?

As for the rosy outlook thing, your point is well taken, but CNBC takes it to an extreme. Kudlow was bullish through the ENTIRE tech meltdown. My mother believed everything he said, and lost loads despite what myself and her advisor was telling her. This is just an example. I think they do this to get an audience. Negative? Who wants to hear that. I am not a big bear now, I'm a bit neutral. Has nothing to do with my view. CNBC will NEVER be negative on markets in general for more than a few days though.

I have never been a CNBC basher in general. I have em on till about 10:30 CST each day, at which point they just repeat. Then its music.

Quote from OldTrader:

One thing that could be said, is that having the "rosy outlook" has been the profitable outlook most of the time in our history, in both the stock market and the real estate market. Think about it...we're at record highs now in most stock market indices. The real estate market has had almost no price drops in the last 50 years, although now it appears to be dropping in most parts of the country.

So maybe what you should have said was, why does CNBC quote NAR economists rather than me? LOL! Obviously you know better than any economist who holds a "rosy view".

Let me remind you of the many, many people CNBC had on their network who were predicting a "crash" in the RE market, many making these predictions LONG, LONG before the actual peak. Same was true on these boards. They also had NAR on then too, except at that time they were right, weren't they?

These days I see a mix of opinion on RE on CNBC. So CNBC is not really broadcasting "rosy" opinion. In fact, they seem to bend over backwards to get both sides of any issue.

However, if this is yet another CNBC bashing thread, please carry on. Just attempting to inject a few facts into the thread.

OldTrader
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top