« First « Previous Comments 338 - 377 of 547 Next » Last » Search these comments
What's strange to me is Malcolm's attempt to defend these kind of practices with the argument "that's how business works". Yes, that's how business works. But the way the Justice Department works is to end these anti-competitive behaviours. From a societal point of view, you should be rooting for the Justice Department, not the NAR. This will lead to greater efficiencies for the consumer (by eliminating the dead weight Randy refers to).
Randy,
If the clause really says that listing on other engines violates TOS, it would seem wrong to me.
Boston, I believe that our system flawed and all is better than most places so even if it means presenting a point of view that may seem aligned with NAR and distasteful I can only offer my knowledge to pool with others. I will not though judge a system because I don't like the prices they charge.
Realtors list on MLS and in newspapers routinely that is why I requested clarification.
Boston Transplant,
Yeah uh, great article but until Aaron Farmer makes a victorious court appearance that's all just a bunch of anecdotal gobbledy-gook, right.
Knee capping is always "anecdotal" (until they're yours).
Malcolm
I'm sorry, I thought you meant the formative clause of my argument, not the verbiage from an agreement.
It's business. Sorry if commerce seems unfair, but people challenging an industry who in my opinion is just operating like anything else should be challenged. I believe that it should be a burden to get the government to unravel an industry, you don't want it so easy that every whiner gets reform laws passed.
Malcom, I will concede that anecdotal evidence gets thrown in there, but clearly it has enough merit for the justice department to get involved, per my first article. Does anyone know what the outcome of that lawsuit was?
Malcolm,
Just curious --why do you call DinOR "Dino"? Every time I see that, I think of a certain Stone Age reptilian cartoon pet.
FTC Action, 2006
Demonstrates the type of clause to which I was referring, and the fact that local MLS boards have indeed been found guilty in courts.
MLS agreements can be found on the internet, but you'll note that pretty much all of these are posted in violation of copyright, which the boards hold close to the vest.
July 13, 2006
FTC Charges Austin Board of Realtors with Illegally Restraining Competition
Board of Realtors Required to Eliminate 2005 Rule Blocking Internet Searches for Non-Traditional, Low-Cost Brokerage Properties
The Federal Trade Commission today charged the Austin Board of Realtors with violating the antitrust laws by effectively preventing consumers with real estate listing agreements for potentially lower-cost unbundled brokerage services from marketing their listings on important public Web sites. In settling the charges, ABOR is prohibited from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other listing type, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.
Every time I see that, I think of a certain Stone Age reptilian cartoon pet.
Don't laugh, I will not be surprised if dinosaurs reign your virtual neighborhoods soon. They deserve a second life.
I want the existing laws enforced. If MLS illegally prevents listings elsewhere I would have to agree with that point.
Isn't that what "Vinnie" says when he pops somebody in the knee caps?
Hey! It's just business, you understand. Nothin' personal.
Malcom, I can't speak for the 298 million in this country that are *not realtors but given their druthers I imagine most would prefer 1% over 6% if actually given a real choice. But hey what do I know I'm just a JBR?
Again with emphasis added:
July 13, 2006
FTC Charges Austin Board of Realtors with Illegally Restraining Competition
Board of Realtors Required to Eliminate 2005 Rule Blocking Internet Searches for Non-Traditional, Low-Cost Brokerage Properties
The Federal Trade Commission today charged the Austin Board of Realtors with violating the antitrust laws by effectively preventing consumers with real estate listing agreements for potentially lower-cost unbundled brokerage services from marketing their listings on important public Web sites. In settling the charges, ABOR is prohibited from adopting or enforcing any rule that treats one type of real estate listing agreement more advantageously than any other listing type, and from interfering with the ability of its members to enter into any kind of lawful listing agreement with home sellers.
I have no problem with someone filing a lawsuit against a business practice. I just don't hear agents whining about how unfair MLS is to them. Those would be the people who didn't like MLS if in fact it is what you say it is.
Nice debate, folks. Quite an enjoyable brawl.
The MLS may not be the megalith some think. for example:
I have bought homes with no realtor involved.
I have had a real estate agent show me homes "For Sale By Owner", he just wanted me to pay 2% directly, not from proceeds of sale.
I have sold homes on the MLS with a 4% commission.
I have bought a home from a Realtor that was advertised as an "exclusive listing" - not on the MLS. This particular Real Estate company (a Century 21 Affiliate) charged 3% for exclusive listings, and 6% for MLS.
DIN says
Malcom, I can’t speak for the 298 million in this country that are *not realtors but given their druthers I imagine most would prefer 1% over 6% if actually given a real choice. But hey what do I know I’m just a JBR?
THEN LET THEM NEGOTIATE THE COMMISSION IT IS A FREE COUNTRY!
@HARM,
I think it's been misspelled often enough that it's now become the norm? And I want people to know I was outta line when I said I was going to put Malcom's life's work next to the...... That was outta line. I apologize Malcom. That was *not cool. I apologize.
Randy, if your article is true (no reason to question) then what is your problem. The courts said they have to let them list elsewhere so how are they still in your opinion doing what you say they are?
Din, no offense taken. Please don't misunderstand viamently disagreeing with someone as lacking respect on a personal level.
Headset,
I don't want to say that "all" military types fit the bill but G.I's are USED to haggling! It's what they do all day. I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect some single mom in Des Moines to get down and negotiate with some shark realtor that does this stuff for a living? Am I wrong here.
Hi_there,
How am I doing? Any pointers that might help me get my point across like bodgering the language or other helpful tips? O.K, I'll try that. Thanks,
DinOR
Malcolm,
I get the impression you think people who rail against NAR practices are also railing against our form of capitalism. Am I correct?
I think that is it in a way. I believe the court system should determine if particular business practices violates the law. If they do you will find me right along side of you, but I'm not going to sit back and nitpick businesses I don't care for because I don't see value in their servie. I think most of them are useless and the market cleans them up.
DinOr (aka dino) says:
"And I want people to know I was outta line when I said I was going to put Malcom’s life’s work next to the…"
Gee, I thought you meant it would be in the "Library," as to read when nature calls. You know, next to the Tom Clancy novel and the Playboy.
No Boston, not at all. Some of their logic though does seem to lead down that path. My hackles instantly go up when people for instance imply that the state or society can just waltz in and start tearing down people's IP.
Boston, thanks for actually asking instead of telling me what I believe.
You know, next to the Tom Clancy novel and the Playboy.
You know, you can always listen to the Tom Clancy audio book while reading the Playboy and at the same time watching CNBC for the next investment idea.
Malcolm
Because the MLS is organized as a consortium of local boards, which "collaborate" (or collude depending upon your judgment of the legality) to continually skirt rulings like the one I just posted. Whenever a ruling like this hits it targets a single MLS board, not all of them in aggregate. Any attempt to address the larger organization is politically defeated by lobbies. So case-law is difficult to bring to bear in these cases, which are most often settled (as this one was).
Meanwhile many hundreds of other MLS boards out there continue on business as usual.
And agents do break MLS board covenants all the time. They will do whatever it takes to get their commission. So long as they keep a low profile, they can just violate the MLS board agreement and get away with it. But they also don't mind the anti-competitive MLS because it's a source of high-commission transactions where they are assured their counterparties will "play by the same rules".
Without IP I say we have no free market, and innovation comes to a grinding halt.
"You know, you can always listen to the Tom Clancy audio book while reading the Playboy and at the same time watching CNBC for the next investment idea. "
Would that be on the big screen in your bathroom? No sushi bar in there, too?
I only read magazines in the bathroom. No electronics other than laptops.
I can't wait for LCD paint. Your whole bathroom wall can be a photogallery.
Headset,
people's circumstances differ, and their strategy of taking advantage of the housing downfall may differ too. I bought a year before you did, and I was just out of grad school. If I didn't get assistance from family on dp, I would not have had time to save enough dp to take advantage of that bottom. If I graduated 3 years earlier, and I understood the bubble as well as I do today, I would have jumped in EVEN knowing that the price might go down further, because I might just want to get into a particular neighborhood at a semi-bargain price while I could still borrow, and I expected my pay to rapidly increase afterwards.
Therefore, I don't think there is an one-size-fits-all strategy for everyone. Someone may buy before it bottoms, and he knows it, someone may just wait for the perceived bottom. There are many reasons why one can't come up with a dp, and I don't want to speculate on it. If someone doesn't think for whatever circumstances he can come up with enough dp, then getting in just before the bank closes its door is not a bad thing.
Another consideration is the weakening of the dollar. I have more than enough to pay off my mortgage balance, but I choose not to, because I can make higher return on my savings than sinking it into a dollar-denominated loan that will only get cheaper to pay off as dollar tanks. Therefore, if you know what you are doing, acquiring a dollar-denominated loan and locking the rates down is the right thing to do, provided that you have that amount of money to begin with, and you can shift your own money to more lucrative uses. Money will one day get much more expensive, if there's some way that you can lock down the cheap rates of today and profit from money getting expensive in the future, why not?
I don't think one can universally determine if debt is bad (tax shield, arbitrage, dumb people pricing risk badly so that you get a good deal). Debt is a good thing if you know how to take advantage of it. Apart from FBs, there are also people who strategically get into debt as a financial tool to profit, and right now the window for getting ridiculously cheap debt is still open, that is all I am saying.
I only read magazines in the bathroom. No electronics other than laptops.
Probably smart from an electrocution standpoint.
Excellent debate, BTW to all.
« First « Previous Comments 338 - 377 of 547 Next » Last » Search these comments
Sadistic, Greedy Buyers Toying with Sellers Like Cats with Prey*
Copyright © 2007 UnReality Times®. All Rights Reserved.
by David Lereah, Leslie Appleton-Young and John Karevoll
As the alleged real estate bear market enters its second year of hitting bottom, some buyers out there are clearly enjoying this one-time market aberration --perhaps a little too much. Is deriving sadistic glee from other peoples' suffering a nice thing to do? The Germans have a word for this: schadenfreude (and we all know what cruelty the Germans are capable of!).
According to Donald Parisi, president of the Realtor Association of the Fox Valley (IL), buyer cruelty is reaching grotesque proportions:
This view is further clarified by Jim Fox, manager of Realty One in Canton, Ohio:
Even more to the point than Mr. Parisi, Florida Realtorâ„¢ Becky Troutt gets right to the heart of the matter:
Now, that's telling 'em like it is, Becky!
While the unbridled greed and glee exhibited by these sadistic buyers (and the American Dreamâ„¢-hating press) are stomach-turning awful, they are not the primary causes of this upside-down market. The real culprit for this most unnatural and unhealthy market condition, is well understood in the industry:
Clearly what's needed here is massive government intervention to protect homeowners and rekindle the normal 20%/year appreciation. This might take the form of a distressed homeowner mortgage buy-down, or federal underwriting for all the kindhearted subprime lenders who generously enabled low-income Americans participate in the American Dreamâ„¢ (often mischaracterized by Gloom'n'Doomers as a "bailout").
To proactively tackle this looming crisis, the NAR and CAR have teamed up with the MBAA (Mortgage Bankers Association of America) to sponsor the Save the American Dreamâ„¢ Act of 2007. Says NAR Chief Economist, David Lereah, "We are urging people to sign our online petition, and write, call, email and beg their Senators and Congresspersons to support this badly needed piece of mercy legislation. Home ownership is as American as apple pie --only you (and Uncle Sam) have the power to save it! Please do your patriotic duty and support the SADA. God bless."
[*Note: while the offset quotes and links are real, this 'article' is a parody]
#housing