If the MLS is an advertisement...
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'd like to continue Friday's conversation about the re-listed house on Avondale.
Thanks to yet another reply by Ms. Reed as well as a series of replies from Ardell, it has finally gotten through my thick skull that "cancel and relist" is different from "let expire and relist." Ms. Reed is guilty only of the latter, which is technically not a violation of NWMLS rules.
Although I now understand the difference, it seems to me like a trivial distinction. Ardell claims that a seller's agent that uses a short listing agreement in order to be able to re-list an unsold property "takes the risk of being replaced as the seller's agent by having short contracts." However, it seems to me that once the benefits of re-listing (falsely appearing to be a "fresh" listing) are explained to the seller, they would be more than happy to keep the agent on board, knowing that this is an agent that is willing to pull whatever kind of tricks are necessary to sell their house.
In fact, Ardell had an awful lot to say on the matter. Here are a few quotes that I found most interesting:
The general public's perception [of the MLS], the one most focused on here...is really the least of our concerns.If the publicly-accessible portion of the MLS is an "advertisement," shouldn't it be held to truth in advertising standards? When a property appears as "new on market" despite having languished non-stop on the market for months upon months, how is that not a deceptive practice? To simply brush off such concerns by saying that the MLS is "not meant for the public" seems a bit cavalier to me.
I am sorry that no one wants to understand that the mls system is not meant for the public to use as a means for purchasing property without an agent.
The public's view [of the MLS] is an "advertisement" for the most part, and not a "sharing of the agent tool". ... It is just a small view of the big picture and one to give the public an "idea" of what is out there...not the whole story.
Ms. Reed's tactic, which Ardell describes as both something that "we [agents] hate" and "an excellent job" appears to have paid off. As Ardell pointed out, the listing has gone to "subject to inspection," presumably meaning a twenty-five to thirty-five thousand dollar payday is in the beleaguered Ms. Reed's near future. When the transaction shows up in the public records, I'll post the last update on this house.
14 comments:
Zip tracks price drops.
What a pile of horseshit.
There's absolutely no reason, technical or otherwise, that the MLS couldn't be a "public" tool. It isn't public, because Realtors (tm, pat. pend.) don't want anyone to see the contortions of the little man behind the curtain.
Fraudulent manipulations like these (however dubiously justified) are a strong argument for making the full MLS available to the public. As they say, daylight is the best disinfectant.
Why should I care about the Realtors' point of view?
Hey Richard -
Not Zillow. ZipRealty.
If you have an account, (which is free, but you have to fill out their form which is well worth it), log in and go to search for a home, click on the box which requests only homes with price reductions. You will get plenty of examples on the map.
Click on one, and under the description it will tell you something like:
Price Reduced: 08/04/06 -- $429,995 to $425,000
Price Reduced: 08/25/06 -- $425,000 to $412,888
Price Reduced: 12/20/06 -- $412,888 to $406,000
Days on Market: 192
Enjoy!
I should note that ZIP doesn't make anything less opaque if the the listing agent has "done a Reed" and not been "lazy" - make it a 90 day listing (or perhaps even further a-field from the rules; we can't know) and then re-listing, which appears to be what happened with your example on 103rd.
12 days on the market, no reduction.
The mls in toto is not an advertisement. The portion of it that you see is an advertisement.
We can see expired listings, cancelled listings, agent change outs, security alarms to people's homes, security codes to gated communities. When the seller goes on vacation, if there are dogs and cats in the homes. There are many, many things in the mls, that are not part of the public view sites.
I do not understand why the public thinks they are seeing "the mls" in full? Clearly their are agent communications within the mls system that are not available to the public.
The question isn't what aren't you seeing, the question is why would you think that you would get to see everything in the mls system? Why should all of that be public knowledge?
Ardell,
I don't speak for other commenters here, but personally the point I'm making isn't that the MLS should be completely open to the public, but rather that the "portion of it that [the general public] see" should at least be completely honest. As it is right now, it's highly manipulated.
The Tim,
Yes I do think truth in advertising standards apply. That is why most sites do not show days on market.
I think you will see the few that have this feature dropping it. And I think that most companies that have been around a very long time, major brokerages, do not have this feature.
Link to my blog about Chicago RE.
Urban pioneers settle in, hoping their investment pays off
The MLS should be public information because it would benefit the consumer. Period.
Realtors don't want it to be public because it would hurt their business (representing sellers). It has nothing to do with "agent communications" or how many dogs a seller owns -- it has to do with keeping homebuyers in the dark, and forcing them to obtain their market knowledge through an insular priesthood of "professionals."
In other words, today's real-estate market is just like the stock market before the advent of online brokerage houses. Remember how smug, self-satisfied, "professional" brokers were convinced that individuals could never manage their own money? Oops!
Redfin and Zillow are the new E-Trade and TD Waterhouse; consumers are going to find out that Realtors (tm) aren't a necessity. If the MLS doesn't become more open and honest, it won't survive the change.
"Yes I do think truth in advertising standards apply. That is why most sites do not show days on market."
Ardell, I have two questions for you:
1) What are you smoking?
2) Can I have some?
There have got to be some Realtors out there who have the ability to see the obvious future that is coming; that will adapt and thrive.
Until this recent exchange, I had thought you might be one, Ardell.
biliruben,
Sorry to disappoint. At least I don't simply say what I know you want to hear :)
Any buyer can clearly buy any house without an agent. What they can't do is wish for the seller to not want an agent either. Clearly the seller is best off when he is represented and the buyer is not.
Be careful what you wish for.
"The Asians love to save money but even they would rather pay someone to do the legals and paperwork."
I thought the paperwork/legals was done by the title company.
Does an agent really get involved in this work? The only paperwork I thought an agent took care of was the offer.
No?
Post a Comment