patrick.net

Malcom

US Antitrust Law specifically prohibits any use of market power (which is a legally defined and quantifiable term*) to the detriment of consumers.

Natural monopoly, collusive monopoly, oligopoly, even monospony all are subject to this test.

Does the existence of MLS serve to harm consumers by keeping transaction costs high?

Does the MLS "cartel" (group of cooperating entities, if you wish) represent significant market power? What does MLS rank in the HSR index for its industry? This work has been done, and it is available.

Don't just cry "shocking terms", or "you're as bad as the media". Why don't you demonstrate to me to whom the economic benefits of reduced search costs have accrued. The consumer or entities colluding within the MLS system?

Or more simply, answer me this. Why do so many MLS member agreements requires specifically that the member *not* participate in any competitive networks or systems? Justify that for me and you'll be a long way towards convincing me the MLS is benign.

"you don't succeed always trying to get the rules rewritten"

What rules? Who exactly "wrote" these rules? You may be right, (especially when they're written in STONE) and kept that way by special int. groups. NAR Rulez, and there's not a thing anyone can do about it.

Enjoy your visit! :)

Randy, what's your source on the definition?
At least you lay out some tests, other people just throw the terms around like a profanity.

If your definition were true we would not have patents because those keep prices high, so I don't follow your definition out of the gate, but your point has structure so I'll follow along if you can establish a baseline.

By the way, Malcom. The US and Canadian paper industries had a very similar "trade organization" in the 60s and 70s. It served a different purpose, but it sought to create a sort of market clearinghouse for paper, timber and other related products. Members were required to abide by the trade organization's rules in order to participate in the system/market's use. And all the system/market was really was a big marketing machine, not unlike a manual MLS.

That system didn't even directly harm consumers, it only harmed downstream manufacturers who used paper products.

A number of people went to jail over that cartel because they were found to have colluded in the market's creation.

Companies are not allowed to work with each other to the end of controlling or manipulating a market if their goal is erection of barriers to entry.

"Dismantle it, who the hell are you?"

I'm the guy with the f@cking sledge hammer and crow bar! That's who!

Get to work boys!

The rules Dino, that you want rewritten are basically the foundations of the entire free market because someone has come up with something proprietary that doesn't suit your needs so you want to take it away under some very flimsey assertions.

No room for debate, DINO doesn't like it so there is no debate, the point of discussion starts with, how are we going to dismantle this thing?

Malcom

http://www.ftc.gov/bc/hsr/hsr.shtm

The Hart Scott Rodino Act. Originally applied to merger tests (and still mainly used for that), it also is considered by courts as an objective measure of market power.

No, patents are not the same. They are a specifically created form of market barrier by Congressional legislation. Patents are *not* a free market device. They are a *regulatory* device.

What I think you're missing is *innovation* is embraced, protected, and accommodated. Companies can "collude" to innovate. But, once that innovation has been widely adopted, and various patents have wound down, then the game changes. Beyond that point those companies can *not* continue to "collude" to prop up that old "innovation" as a barrier. At that point, it is no longer an innovation at all, but a barrier to entry and a means of keeping the benefits of that innovation from flowing economically to consumers.

Randy, you're dangerous. You actually know some things, but specifically how is a paper mill which is clearly violating antitrust, and an industry 'legally' using a tradegroup resource the same thing?

"foundations of the entire free market"

Oh that's a freaking laugh. If everyone "operated" like NAR you'd have to get pre-qualified and go through a "listing auto agent" before being able to shop for a car. Like Randy H said, show us how members can function within MLS AND use other resources or just give it a rest and come over to the dark side.

Some good research was done in the past couple years by the proponents of the CA Open MLS Act, which has been blocked by the CAR for the past couple years.

Section 2 of the last filing summarize the research well:

http://ag.ca.gov/initiatives/pdf/sa2005rf0145.pdf

-flimsey
+flimsy

Randy? Dangerous?

I've heard enough. Not so much as a "tweaking" needed here boys! Pack up and go home. 6% commission is fine.

Sorry Randy, I'm reading the act right now, and it has nothing to do with your original definition, though your point it taken on patents since I can see your perspective that they are established in regulation.

Are you currently working with an auto agent?

6% is fine as long as the market will bear it. Prices are higher now, 6% is not the norm anymore. MLS had nothing to do with 6%, was around way before and it used to be higher.

Malcom

I already answered that question, once theoretically and once with examples.

You're turn to respond to my points. Otherwise I'm happy to be dangerous if that means discrediting your unsubstantiated arguments. All you keep doing is saying "it's legal". I've given you the framework and tests used to determine that.

Show me.

Hint: You might want to check a 1976 CA Supreme Court ruling vis-a-vis MLS before continuing.

*Your

No... really I'm only too happy to pay it. You're right, we should ALL be glad it isn't higher.

No, and no one is forcing you to work with a real estate agent. Like I said it's a free market, go find a for sale by owner, no one is stopping you.

Seems to me that if Congress really wanted to soften the blow of the housing bubble bursting, they would take Randy's advice and force the NAR to open the MLS system.

Lower commissions would be the natural result. It is easier to accept a 5-10% loss on the sale price of your home if the commission is 2% (total loss of 7-12%) instead of 6% (total loss of 11-16%). In real dollars, this is a savings of $20,000 on the sale of a $500,000 house.

But somehow I think the realtor lobby is stronger than the FB lobby, so I don't see it happening.

Randy, I hope you didn't take me calling you dangerous seriously. It was a compliment, you actually know some things.

You keep providing sources which aren't applicable. A letter from an attorney for instance may make very good points but it is not the law. As for your frustration that I fall back on it being legal, I'm sorry you don't accept that. If you want something made illegal, you do it through law, not attorney's letters which start out with 'they make too much' or misapplying a federal act for your convenience.

You may not like the business practice, but it is legal, and keeps being reaffirmed as legal. You can't have antitrust when everyone keeps saying it is legal.

Malcolm

It's all just good blog debate. The more intense, the more interested I usually am. I'm not one to wave the "let's all just get along" wand, so please don't take my stiffness as a sign of emotional angst.

Oh Malcolm

The HSR act is applied all the time in these types of cases. It was applied in the MSFT antitrust hearings, both criminal and civil cases.

Microsoft is a real monoplistic entity, it is not a cartel of realtors. Microsoft was specifically accused of violating the Clayton Act, you are accusing the realtors of something else. I just don't get the correlation. BTW you're talking to someone who thought Microsoft was being attacked unjustly.

I never understood why putting IE on the desktop or bundling it for free hurt Netscape or the consumer. That was just another Waco Reno stunt.

To me anyway, at the very least NAR/MLS is abusive. Both to members and clients. Arguing about whether or not it's in fact a cartel is like following a trail of empty beer cans to the site of a flaming wreck wrapped around a telephone pole and wondering if "alcohol was involved".

SP? How's that go again? Res Ipsa Loquitor?

Dino, are we arguing if it is abusive, or are we arguing illegal monopoly/cartel? You keep equivocating.

"You can’t have antitrust when everyone keeps saying it is legal. "

"The HSR act is applied all the time in these types of cases. It was applied in the MSFT antitrust hearings, both criminal and civil cases. "

Yes, like the NFL. They did lose a court case about being a monopoly, but were only fined $1.

Immune to quotas, also, No requirement for a certain number of females, etc.

But everyone loves the NFL so they can't be a monopoly. They are popular, not like these horrible money grubbing realtors who aren't worth their weight in shit.

What the NAR does is more like price fixing than anything else. It used to be that the real estate agents had to do some serious leg work, calling, searching central repositories, etc to know what houses were on the market to get their buyers to the houses. Nowadays, it should be perfectly simple for buyers and sellers to connect up without agents, but not suprisingly, the NAR doesn't want that to happen as they have put in place the defacto 'standard' database. Where it becomes dodgy is how if you want to list with a Realtor, that Realtor will not stick your house in any alternative database due to NAR rules against that sort of thing. Nor will they list your house without an exclusive rights contract, which means YOU can't stick it in another database. And they don't want you to be able to stick it into the MLS without going through a realtor. They are using the superior marketshare (probably 95%) to hamper any competing databases. That was how Microsoft fought Netscape originally, making it impossible to not use competing browsers. (Only a roughly similar example.)

The only real use you get out of a Realtor these days is the legwork service you get out of them. They will spend the business day calling the county/town offices about permits, schools, rezoning, etc. They will track down people who did previous inspections and ask them questions about the property. They will let you into lockboxed houses and show you around. They will go around to the neighbors and ask questions about the neighborhood. From a seller's point of view, they will manage the marketing, print out materials, host open houses, help stage and arrange the house for showing. Good agents will do a LOT of work to help you pick out a home or sell your existing home. For people with very little clue about how to go about doing these things, they provide value. If it's 6%, well, that's a judgement call.

Even if MLS went 'public' and they had no way to blackball discount agents, the NAR would still hold a hefty share of the market. They just don't want to cede 30-35% of the market to FSBOs, discount brokerages, and buyers who use a RE lawyer to review contracts. Eventually they will, and I don't think it's going to take actual legislation. Already they have started using Craig's List to advertise properties in the MLS to hit the 'non-agent' represented buyers. Of course, that may be because they hope to double-dip those people, but there is eventually going to enough critical mass at alternative DBs, like ForSaleByOwner.com and Craigslists that they'll HAVE to open the MLS or risk losing traction with that crowd entirely.

Microsoft was scrutinized for some of its M&A activity so of course an act dealing with mergers would apply.

SF, I agree with all your facts, but some things are market driven. Why would an agent not have an exclusive contract? Why would someone invest time and money to not have exclusiveness for that period of time? I know we weren't debating anything but your post then lists a bunch of innovations like Craig's List which are a real threat to the MLS exclusivity. Again, I don't even see MLS being a monopoly in the first place since there are competing and growing innovations elsewhere.

I also thought MSFT was not an abusive Monopoly on the grounds for the criminal case.

But they were accused of something broader in the civil case, which they effectively lost, by the way. That case did not rely upon Clayton, but also harm caused by abuse of market powers. They paid Sun quite a bit as an outcome related to their blockade of Java technology.

SP,

Another case: My wife's cousin and his wife graduated from college and both got jobs in Denver paying $60k each. In Denver, they could easily live on one spouse's salary by renting an apartment in a complex with other 20 somethings, and afford one with a pool and clubhouse. They could bank the other salary and in 5 years pay cash for a $350,000 home. In Denver, that much jack will get you a very nice home. Then one spouse could quit work if desired to start a family and still live well.

Many people in this position choose the McDebtor route.

Discount brokers are a reflection of the changing cost curve in the business. My agent listed my houses for 1% on the MLS, nothing special so I don't even see the price fixing argument. Yes, he got calls from other agents threatening to not show the house and guess what? The free market worked, the houses sold for asking price and those exclusive agents were left holding their dicks.

On previous threads we've talked about what happens when agents try to block or boycott. They lose their value. That's why now you see ads for companies promising to show ALL houses regardless of who lists them. You can't stay in business very long if you don't change with the times.

Malcolm

Are you really arguing that an industry group should be allowed to capture economic benefits for themselves at the expense of consumers? That is precisely what is happening, economically. It's an intermediate level undergraduate econ textbook example of a "dead loss" scenario.

The reason we have free market competition rules is to eliminate dead loss. The existence of dead loss harms both the consumers (who pay higher prices) and the overall economy (inefficiency).

You seem to like parallels. Can you show me any other examples of *transactional* monopolies which have been (a) not regulated and (b) found legal?