What both of these organizations need to do — pronto! – is change their models for calculating data.
Yesterday’s existing home sales, and today’s Durable Goods numbers both were awful. But the problem isn’t with the economy — its the econometric models used to calculate these data points.
In case you forgot, the Conference Board decided they didn’t want the LEI’s to be negative — which has been the case for 10 of the past 12 releases. So they "form-fitted" some of the indicators that make up the LEIs. By drawing the highly suspicious conclusion that even a flattening yield curve shows up as economically positive, they were able to stay upbneat about the future, despite the ominious readings of their own indicators.
Even people recently suffering from recent blunt head trauma (and concurrent brain damage) know a flattening yield curve is nit stimulative — indeed, its a big negative — but it was the only way to get a decaying economic situation to appear positive.
ISM and NAR may want to steal that approach. Otherwise, their data may remain useful to those reality-based people who still care about such things . . .
Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.