Omitted variable bias arises when a variable that affects price is excluded from a model and has a nonzero coefficient on an included regressor in the auxiliary regression --- partial, not merely marginal, correlation; the included regressor's coefficient then absorbs part of the omitted effect. Both conditions are necessary, and the widely held belief that any important missing variable biases a model is false as stated: an omitted variable uncorrelated with the regressors costs precision, not accuracy. This entry develops Theil's formula for the bias and verifies it exactly against a sixteen-property extension of the Pacifica dataset in which the renovation flag, disclosed in issue 1 but not recorded there, is now measured. Omitting it inflates the condition coefficient from $40,000 to $69,631 per step and deflates the view coefficient from $100,000 to $79,178 --- shifts that equal the product of the omitted coefficient and the auxiliary regression slopes to the cent. The example is used to make three defensibility points: the bias is invisible in fit statistics, with an R-squared of 0.97 concealing a coefficient off by 74 percent; it does not diminish with sample size; and a biased model can predict accurately while yielding adjustments that are unusable, failing hardest on precisely the atypical properties an appraiser is most often retained to value.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
William Bert Craytor (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: