Slashdot Mirror
Internet-Based Realtors Win Monster Settlement
coondoggie writes "Until today, most Internet-based real-estate brokers were considered second-class citizens, and their clients were left in the cold. But perhaps that will change with today's news that the Department of Justice has reached a proposed settlement with the National Association of Realtors that requires NAR to let Internet-based residential real estate brokers compete with traditional brokers. NAR has agreed to be bound by a 10-year settlement, under whose terms NAR will repeal its anticompetitive policies and require affiliated multiple listing services to repeal their rules that were based on these policies." Here's the whole settlement document on the DoJ's site.
Now where is the nerd-bit to this article? Apart from the fact that there's the word 'internet-based' in the summary. I mean, not everything on the internet is nerd.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
Protectionist policies usually only protect a handful of businesses. In the case of the Real Estate industry, a high cost to entry bars a lot of business from entering into the market without going into co-hoots with the "big brand" businesses. What this does is allow independent realtors to compete with the big boys, which will in essence force the big boys to be more competitive.
The internet helps small businesses expand as fast as they can handle, and forces big business to stay competitive or lose business. This is really good for everyone. Not a perfect solution, but a good start. Now, if this would only happen for all industries...
20th century Marxism is not progress...
When I saw "Monster Suit" I at first thought the article would be about realtors winning a suit against Monster Cable. What realtors would call themselves monsters?
"Real" realtors will still blacklist listings by online or DIY listings. Non local "real realtor" basically translates into negligible viewings.
Obviously this is pathetic. I happen to have three realtors on my doorstep, and they sing the same song, claiming colleagues will do the same. You cannot break this kind of cartel when grassroots will practice it regardless.
I'm glad to see anti-competative practice and brokers in the same sentence. I don't know if internet brokers are going to have any positive effect on the rental market in major cities though. Right now the only realistic way to get a new apartment in NYC is to pay a fee equivalent to 15% of the annual rent to a broker for the privilege of renting from the landlord who has given them the exclusive right to make the public aware of the apartment's availability. So that's easily $3600, just to be allowed to deal with the apartment management company. I once paid a broker's fee to someone who had an exclusive on all the apartments owned by the broker who shared an office with her. I was in the same room with the landlord, but I couldn't rent from him without paying her first. i would love to use capitalism properly and not give my money to brokers, but they control far to high a percentage of the real estate for that to be a viable option.
We are all just people.
Yes, it's ridiculous.
That's exactly what they're doing. You can almost hear the "(tm)" trademark and the ALL-CAPSness in the word "REALTOR". That's because it is a trademark, and it's NAR's trademark. The generic term is "real estate broker".
Similar cases of trademark dilution have taken place in the past -- do you use a Xerox(tm) or a photocopier? Kleenex(tm) or facial tissue? Likewise, are you doing business with a REALTOR(tm) or just some random real estate broker?
All of which is, as you've surmised, bullshit. Much like used car salesmen, real estate brokers are basically weasels. Because houses aren't identical, they can't be bought and sold like stocks, bonds, or even consumer electronics, so buying a house is more like buying a used car; people have to interact, in meatspace, if for no other reason than to inspect the property, and that invites a whole food chain of people whose only interest in the process is in getting a cut of your transaction.
And as the president of the National Association of Weasels, we'd like to make sure that you do business with one of our WEASELS(tm). Only WEASELS(tm) are members of the National Association of Weasels. Would you risk your family's financial future with mere polecats, skunks, or other poor imitation? Demand professionalism! Settle for nothing less than genuine WEASEL(tm)!
The trademark has worked well for NAW^HR, but this court case is the thin edge of a very big wedge. NAW's de facto monopoly over the WLS data broken, there'll no longer be any advantage to being a Genuine Weasel. Any old weasel can work within the same set of databases, which means that NAW will be denied the fat fees that only WEASELS pay...
Wake me when someone acts against real estate agents who are supposed to be representing the buyers stop getting commissions paid by the sellers. This is an obvious and massive conflict of interest.
I saw an item on TV where agents were saying that sellers wanted to place their houses with agents on the basis that the buyer's agent got a larger commission. Now, why would they do that if they did not think it would influence the AGENT of the buyers? If the seller can influence the buyer's agent, there is something deeply wrong.
Can someone explain to me how this obvious conflict of interest has persisted for so long?
And before anyone tells me that a realtor is necessary -- I bought a house in the US (for several hundred thousand dollars) with no agents involved on either side of the deal.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
From previous experience, any home in southern California for sale is not only on the MLS portal, but is also on someone's web site, usually the listing agent. I do not know of ANY listing agent that is going to tell anyone NOT to advertise their listing for free. Given the above, all it means is that the same address will get on the search engines more than once. The impact will be that other properties will be pushed down the list. I do not know if that is a win for the Seller, or Buyer, but this is going to be the outcome. There are going to be some legal problems about the listing, but I figure the folks that won the law suit already know how to side step it. Ya, I am a Realtor, if you have a question about homes ask me, my advice is always free.
Were on-line realtors outselling people standing in the property?
Was the internet better for buyer/seller?
Did the online agent get a better commission?
I thought real estate agents were all about follow the money$$$?
The only thing new in this world is the history that you don't know.[Harry Truman]
The way they phrase it (I'm a real estate licensee, in addition to my primary gig in IT) is awkward/duh, but what they mean is that Realtor is a registered trademark of the NAR, and that only members may call themselves a Realtor.
What, you may ask, is the benefit of that? Basically, it comes down to your rights if an agent screws you over. If that agent is not a member of her/his $STATE Association of Realtors (and by extension, the NAR), you can file a complaint with your state's Real Estate Commissioner and/or go to court. If the agent with whom you have a dispute is a Realtor, you can also file a grievance with your $STATE Association of Realtors and go to their arbitration panel. Those arbitration panels are fair, and the Realtor Code of Ethics is far stricter than what is required by state laws (and at least here in California, those state laws are fairly strict themselves). If a Realtor has violated the Code of Ethics and/or state real estate laws and you have some proof, the Realtor could be suspended and/or expelled as a Realtor, and may also face license suspension and/or revocation.
While more than a few of those reading this may doubt it, the majority of real estate agents, and particularly Realtors, are honest people who seek to do the best job possible for their clients. However, if you do have a legitimate problem with an agent, whether it's through dishonesty or just incompetence (and they are out there; it was through dealing with an incompetent agent when my wife and I bought our first house that I decided to get my own license; after joining a brokerage, I was amazed to find that a large number of my colleagues, including my broker had themselves gone into real estate for that very reason), you have a better chance of redress if your agent is also a Realtor.
Disclosers/disclaimers [1]:
1) I am not a lawyer, and none of the forgoing is intended as, nor should be construed as, legal advice. If you need legal advice, see a lawyer.
2) I hold a real estate agent's license but am currently not affiliated with a broker and so may not practice real estate. None of the forgoing is intended as, nor should be construed as, real estate advice. It is solely my personal opinion, and as such, may be completely wrong. Don't rely on it in any way.
3) I am not a real estate broker, and none of the forgoing is intended as, nor should be construed as, real estate advice. It is solely my personal opinion, and as such, may be completely wrong. Don't rely on it in any way.
[1] Why all the legal stuff? Real estate is very litigious business. If you're a doctor and the likelihood of a malpractice suit bothers you, just be glad you're not a real estate agent.
I don't think that part is ridiculous. There's a distinction between a real estate agent and a Realtor®. One is a person who has a license to sell real estate, and another is a person who pays dues to and is a member of the National Association of Realtors®. It's been that way for many decades, as far as I know.
Why, exactly, is that ridiculous? You can't call yourself a CCIE unless you actually are (well, you could, but you'd be open to getting sued by Cisco and by your clients as well), you can't call yourself and MCSE unless you actually are (well, you could, but you'd be open to getting sued by Microsoft and by your clients as well), you can't call yourself a Sun Certified Solaris admin unless you actually are (well, you could, but you get the idea...).
And you can't call yourself a Realtor unless you actually are, either. There is a difference between a Realtor and someone just licensed to practice real estate.
And of course, if other copier companies put "Xerox" on their copiers, they'd get sued, too. The fact that a brand has become so successful that
many people informally but incorrectly use it to refer to anything in that generic class doesn't mean anything in that generic class should be allowed to call *itself* by that trademark.
Welcome to the 21st Century, Century 21.
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
The fact that a brand has become so successful that
many people informally but incorrectly use it to refer to anything in that generic class doesn't mean anything in that generic class should be allowed to call *itself* by that trademark.
Actually if you let your term fall into generic everyday use without defending it you can lose it. Companies that are in danger of losing a trademark because if common use often mix in their company name in all their ads.
Microsoft Office
Kleenex Brand Tissues
Ziploc Brand Zip-Locs (you never hear the ad say just "Zip-Loc")
BandAid brand Band-aids
The latter variant is the most common. The formula is simply "(company name) Brand (trademark in danger name)" Listen for that pattern and you'll be amazed how much you hear it. That's the sound of a company trying desperately to hang onto their trademark.
Some of them I don't know the status of, and will probably never know who if anyone ever had the trademark for them. "Duct Tape" and the like. I wonder who actually first marketed the magic grey rolls? I'd like to say 3-M but that's just because they're known for stuff like that. Whoever it is lost that round of the trademark game, badly.
Some words got defended heavily and as a result, the "next best thing" market invented name stuck better than the trademark. (sorry, you lose, please try again!) "CD" is my favorite. Who really calls it a Compact Disk(tm) anymore? This is basically the result of the combined marketing campaigns of all your competitors doing a better job of marketing than you.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Someone I work with buys and rents out houses as a side hobby, and in an attempt to save money is on her way to get her brokers license. Along the way she needs her agent license, which is being refused to be given to her until she joins the Texas NAR.
I don't think "rock-bottom" means what you think it means.
I don't think buying a house that is still +60% of '00 values would be considered anywhere near the bottom.
first off, here's the actual proposed final judgement that actually came out today, the actual news part of this, as the links above seem a few months old.
secondly, both the submitter and the linked article seem to have absolutely no clue as to what this settlement means. it is in no way about 'enchancing competition' or 'opening up the industry'. it merely clarifies rules that allow brokerages to limit this data.
specifically, this has to do with VOW (Virtual Office Website) data. if you don't know anything about MLSs (Multiple Listing Services) here's a quick rundown: most regions of the US are served by one or more MLS. real estate brokerages pay to be a part of the MLS, and in return they are granted access to the full database of current property listings.
(now, before some of you go screaming that this database should be simply open to the public, like i initially did when i first learned about the MLS system, please realize that there is information contained in it that people may not exactly what to be in public hands. part of the job of the MLS and the traditional brokerage system is verifying the character of the agents)
for many years, the NAR had a policy allowing brokerages to restrict VOW data. through this, a real estate office could block their listings from appearing on a competitor's web page. the obvious point of this is that the listing brokerage would also like to be the selling brokerage (capturing both ends of the commission.) the not so obvious point is that the MLS prefers to have brokerages in it that contribute listings, not just 'leech' off of it in order to captured leads, and make money off of referrals.
a few years ago, the DOJ ended this practice, calling it anti-competitive. NAR came up with other policies, and contested the original DOJ order. this settlement allows NAR to reinstate VOW practices.
this settlement also has some other interesting pieces, such as giving a seller the right to not have a blog post or home estimate displayed next to the listing data, which will probably hurt sights such as zillow.But, compared to everything else, housing prices fell sharply. Just look at a gallon of gas back in 2000, it was $1.50-$2.00ish if I remember correctly, today it has nearly doubled to $3.50-$4.00
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Here in TN, the NAR just bought a piece of legislation making it illegal (you read that right: illegal) to give a purchaser a rebate. They have a lot of power, and they'll use it.
Do you have ESP?
Internet + sleazeballs. What could possibly go right?
No sig today...
People are usually cheap SOBs looking for the lowest price on food, clothes, toys, computers, cars, etc., yet they all of a sudden got Truly Stupid paying huge prices for homes. Why???
1) Houses were seen as a lifetime investment that would not depreciate.
2) Home ownership in the US is highly subsidized by the Federal Government through the mortgage interest and property tax deductions.
3) A lot of shady operators took advantage of poorer and less well-informed people by writing them mortgages with ridiculous terms (like a late payment increases your interest rate to double digits), waiting for the borrowers to run afoul of those terms, then foreclosing on a house the family had owned for years. It's called "predatory lending" for a reason.
There's been lots of corruption in the "secondary" and "subprime" lending sectors, too. Borrowers were encouraged to hedge, and sometimes lie, about their qualifications because the lenders felt no risk. Lenders found they could sell almost any mortgage into the securities markets where the liabilities were sliced and diced into pieces and repackaged as equity holdings. The Federal Reserve Board also helped fuel the housing bubble by holding down key interest rates and failing to perform any real oversight of its member institutions' lending practices. Many, many people, including many supposedly well-informed financial types, simply believed real estate would continue to rise in value over the years ahead.
Whenever large numbers of people become convinced that the price of a particular item, be it tulip bulbs or homes, can never fall, you have the potential for a pricing "bubble." In this particular instance, public policies and private greed together created the over-valuation of residential property that occurred over the past decade.