« First « Previous Comments 327 - 366 of 547 Next » Last » Search these comments
By the way, I fully agree that dead weight is a critical issue. Other than supply and demand, it is the most vivid and useful concept I remember from my undergrad econ minor.
I challenged the initial premise that all monopolies were illegal, and questioned how a tradegroup is a monopoly? I questioned if you actually knew what a monopoly was because it seemed to me that you were using the term for shock value.
JBR is just a term and not meant to anyone personally. It is used third party with me because it denotes a mindset. No offense intended, though claiming to be bubble sitting is basically telling everyone that you want to be a property owner.
Clause = Craigslist.
Some (but not all) MLS board agreements establish grounds whereby the member advertising a home on Craigslist is in violation of their Terms of Use (ToS) and can be removed from the membership and denied rights to access and utilize the MLS.
Clause = Zillow's new buyer&seller market making thingy. Agents attempting to use this will most often find themselves in violation of their MLS board agreement.
(Note, the last in that list is soon to embrace Second Life "virtual real estate" listings. So, they're damned to failure anyway and agents participating there deserve whatever punishment they get.)
Well... partially true. I own several properties, here and abroad but do not currently own my primary residence. One day, when this market runs it's course, reverts to the mean (and seriously cleans up it's act) I'll own my primary residence (again).
In the meantime I live quite comfortably (and bank the difference) thank you.
Here's another article:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/10/26/real_estate/buying_selling/real_estate_waste/
Some excerpts:
As a result, says Susan Creighton, the director of the Bureau of Competition for the FTC, traditional brokers try to maintain an advantage over Internet-based brokers, fee-for-service providers, and discount brokers that threaten to undermine high commission rates.
Here's some of the methods, according to the FTC:
* Don't show discounter's properties. Traditional brokers "boycott" discount-brokers' listings. They refuse to show discount brokers' properties and even refuse to show their own listings to buyers brought in by discounters. This clearly violates the ethics of their profession and the fiduciary duty they have to the sellers, but discounters report that it happens all the time.
Aaron Farmer, founder of Texas Discount Realty, a fee-for-service and discount broker in Texas, says traditional agents harass him, tell clients that he is out of business, even berate his agents in public.
* Seek legislative actions to restrain trade. One panelist, Steve DelBianco, of executive director of NetChoice Coalition, pointed out traditional brokers are not reluctant to seek legislative relief to protect their interests.
I think Randy is a fine debater, I just have a different perspective. I addressed all of his and DINO's points, I don't know what else you would have me do Boston.
I agree with all of it, it is unfair, NAR is a propaganda machine, I agree with it all, but that doesn't mean that they are any different than any other trade group, and they have a right to their proprietary systems.
I have given plenty of first hand proof that they can try in futility to set 6% as the norm but the free market is just to powerful a force.
I haven't seen one point that I disagreed with stick or seem compelling. Sorry.
Clause = Google real estate, when they open up that API and folks start getting creative about how to end run MLS.
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.
« First « Previous Comments 327 - 366 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