Uncategorized November 9, 2020

Data share is back, Hoorah!/Oh Crud!

Data share is back between the two local MLS systems, hoorah!  Data share is back between the two local MLS systems, oh crud, there goes my confidence in all of the statistics! Let me start by saying that having the data share back between IRES and REColorado is objectively a wonderful thing for all local real estate brokers and their clients and I thank IRES and RECO for all of the hard work they both put in to get us to this point. Having said that though, there are some things to be aware of as the two systems start showing each other’s data assuming you are mainly using IRES to see RECO data.

We have a mismatch between the two systems in how we describe a property that is under contract. In IRES, most properties are marked A/B to show the property is under contract and accepting backup offers.  In REColorado, there isn’t an A/B status, so under contract properties instead get marked as P to show the property is Pending. The de-duplication algorithm in the IRES system does not remove the duplicate properties from REColorado since the status is different. So, the number of properties showing as under contract in the IRES system just made a dramatic jump if you include the REColorado data. A quick search on Oct. 26th of single family homes in Boulder County found 216 extra properties listed as under contract that were duplicates that shouldn’t have been counted ( I just corrected for differing property statuses and am sure I didn’t catch all of the duplicates that should have been removed). Depending on how you count those extra 216 properties, you can come up with a UC Percentage ranging from 55.8% – 64.2% under contract. So, a possible 8.4% error in the under contract rate, not good.

When we look at Attached Dwellings, we have the same status mismatch issue as well as an additional problem with how addresses are interpreted for both systems. As an example, there is a condo for sale in Country Club Greens. IRES calls that home 7431 Singing Hills Dr D-7431 and REColorado calls that home 7431 Singing Hills Dr D7431. Since the addresses don’t match, because of a hyphen difference, the automated de-duplication systems don’t catch the duplicate and that home would count as two active listings in our stats even though it really is only one home, which again, is not good. I didn’t take the time to see how many address mis-matches there are, but in my experience the address issue is very common.

Be careful when pulling stats. If you pull current stats and include RECO data and compare that to stats from a year ago that only contained IRES data, you’re likely to get indicators of the market that are more reflective of the above issues than any substantive change to the market itself. Eventually these issues will get resolved, either through once again comparing apples to apples (IRES to IRES or IRES+RECO to IRES+RECO) or possibly through further changes to the two systems, possibly an agreed upon set of statuses for both systems and work on the addressing issue.

Even with these issues, data share is a good thing! On Monday, we were now seeing 111 single family listings in Boulder County in IRES that up until data share was turned on could only be found in REColorado. I’m sure some of these glitches will get resolved as both systems work further on the details of the data share systems. Thanks again to getting us to this point!

Be healthy everyone!