Home : Blogs : Bart Wilson : Real Estate Marketing Techniques that Work!

Is it Okay for an MLS to Restrict Your Listings?

Realcomp II, a local Detroit MLS just got spanked pretty hard this week by the FTC.

Apparenly, the FTC slapped them around a bit because they got caught restricting listings from local (discount) brokers who had agency exclusive listings. The FTC simply told Realcomp II to Publish the MLS Listings or else.

It's the same problem we've heard countless times before ranging from our own trade association to CMLS pulling the same stunts. You cannot restrict listings. FSBO's seem to be okay to restrict as they are not REALTOR sponsored and broker carried. But we all know an agent who DOES take a FSBO under their wings and then posts it to Realtor.com. At Bohnen Realty -- we did a few.

But it's NOT okay to restrict your listings just because you happen to own a discount brokerage like HelpUSell or Asssit2Sell.

It's criminal.

We cannot discriminate on who buys a house thanks to the Fair Housing Act, right?

But it's perfectly okay to restrict your listings if you work for a discount broker?

Sorry -- not in America. This cannot be allowed to happen. I applaud the FTC. I'm paying for MLS access. I've paid my NAR annual dues. Therefore I get to post my listings. The fact that they happen to belong to HelpUSell, or Assist2Sell is none of your damned business. You cannot penalize me because my business card doesn't read.; Sotheby's.

And every year it seems, some other smart ass MLS system thinks it's perfectly okay to toss ethics and discrimination out the window. It's pathetic, it's appalling and in today's economy... it's certainly unnecessary. The last thing we need is an MLS dictating to us how we can list our listings or not. We need to see some real leadership from our local MLS to help many of us keep our doors open. The last thing we need is predatory behavior like this.

Dozens of real estate brokerages are closing their doors every month. I've personally chronicled the death of 217 brokerages over the past 14 months. Six alone for Coldwell Banker, the most recent one being the Hunt Kennedy Group who died this past summer in Manhattan. The agents who still wanted to work went over to the Corcoran Group.

Okay, there's my rant. What's YOUR opinion?

Do you think it's okay to allow the local MLS to restrict their listings like that?

-- bart

Bart Wilson | Chief Marketing Officer | SEO Rockstar

Voyager International. The Real Estate Marketing Company

Tel: (505) 466-2483 iPhone: (505) 204-8097

Posted by Bart Wilson on 11/02/2009 04:49 PM

Comments (136)

Is It Okay for an MLS to Restrict Your Listings? in the ActiveRain Channel

realcomp, restrict listings, ftc

Originally posted at: Real Estate Marketing that Really Works. : Is it Okay for an MLS to Restrict Your Listings?

Post is included in group: "Whacked"!!!
Post is included in group: The Ninety-ninth Percentile
Post is included in group: Realtors®
Post is included in group: REALTOR LIFE
Post is included in group: Club Chaos

136 Comments on Is it Okay for an MLS to Restrict Your Listings?

NOV

Wow! it's difficult to understand how this could have come about. We should be way past this!

I read the decision before your "rant". It is a an understandable decision that is appropriate. Discounters have come and gone for a long time. Over time more of them have gone than the ones in your list of closures. (You wrote your blog with the emotion of a discounter. But you business of selling IDX can also be seen as energizing your perspective.)

You probably know this already, but not all listings are in any MLS. In fact, of the over 2 million licensees in the US, less than half belong to any MLS. The best place to find the most listings is on the web site of a professional. IDX can beuseful, but finding the web sites of the pros is still best.

No I do not think it's OK. As long as the Brokers are offering a co-broke and can gaurantee the commission if sold then they shouild be able to place their listings in the MLS. This of course assumes they are members. After all that's what the MLS is all about.

Bart...

I'd give you my opinion but this is going to be a hot topic. I think I'll just check off the box and follow the thread. Call me a coward :)

TLW...ROAR!

Anytime they try and restrict listings like this, it drives up prices for the consumers. Consumers don't understand why any particular house doesn't show up on Realtor.com simply because of some legal mumbo jumbo. The MLS is all about sharing property data in return for a promised compensation. It shouldn't matter what type of listing it is.

No it's not okay and I'm glad you wrote about this. There are rules being broken left and right and if we choose not to self-police, then we're just as bad...

Bart - No, it is not okay. As Bryant stated as long as they offer and pay a co-broke they should be allowed to place their listings in the MLS. It dosen't matter to me how much co-broke they offer because I will have a BBA signed by my buyer.

If you belong to the association and pay for MLS like everyone else, then your listings should be shown. Fairness - It's a simple concept.

Okay I'm with Broker B on this one, too. But can I ask you what Sotheby's has to do with anything? We take listings of all price ranges, etc. Why are you putting discriminatory remarks about Sotheby's in your blog?

No it is not OK to restrict the listings. If you pay the MLS fee you should be able to post your listings, no questions asked. Full service brokerages don't like to compete against the discount brokerages but if you got your game on you should not have any troubles. If your prospect chooses a discount brokerage over full service brokerage then best wishes to them. In this market I feel like I might be paying them a visit again shortly. I agree with Emily, whats up with Sotheby's? I personally feel it is sad to hear so many brokerages are closing.

In our area, the MLS is owned by the Board of Realtors, so does not have the autonomy to enforce "rules"- even as published. Wish they could- it would be FAR, FAR better run, absent the board decisions on what is in the MLS, and what isn't.

Bart: No, I do not think it is okay. If they are members, pay the dues, offer to pay a co-broke, they should be able to list in the MLS.

I guess I just do not feel that I have all of the information necessary to make an informed opinion on this matter. My gut says that all members should have equal acess to the same amenities.

If they're paying to be a part of the MLS, they shouldn't be restricted.

If the brokerage is a paying member of the MLS, they should be able to post their listings that meet the requirements... ie, they have a published co-broke, are exclusive, etc.

I'm going to weigh in on this one! If the listing is a limited-service listing I want to know about it before I show it to my client. I don't want to do both sides of the transaction for 1/2 the pay. I was an agent in Illinois and our MLS required that the broker of the firm show up for an orientation class in person. This was an attempt to keep out Out-of-state discount brokers who were acquiring reciprocal licenses in Illinois and then just dumping listings on the MLS for $299. It didn't work because they flew in and took the class. As long as the brokerage is following the rules, then their listings deserve to be where mine are.

Hey Emily,

I only put Sotheby's as a plug for a full service brokerage. No DIS was intended. I could have used ERA, C21, Exit Realty, John L. Scott, etc.

It just seems like the discount brokers are getting unfairly discriminated against. That is unfair. And it's illegal.

The bottom line is, REALTORS who work at a discount brokerage (in my humble opinion) are just as good as those who work at Sotheby's, Coldwell Banker, Re/MAX... it's always the discount brokers that MLS systems are trying to block out. And I applaud the comments from everybody here. Thank you. the consumer should not suffer and neither should any REALTOR regardless of where you hang your license with.

We're all professionals.

Some work at luxury brokers, some middle of the road. Some are discounters. We all took the same real estate exam and we should all deserve the level of trust, integrity and respect regardless of any MLS association.

-- bart

WoW... Very interesting that the MLS would not allow this. They may be a discount brokerage, but if a member of the board and the MLS, they should be allowed to list in the MLS. It's the buyers decission if they are interested in viewing any particular home listed and if it's not in the MLS, them they have not been given a fair opportunity to choose their new home.

Hi Everybody,

If I was going to SHOW the home, sure the commission might really sucks... but let's do the math.

If I have a discount broker's listing showing up and I show it, we're talking like 2% here being split with the two of us.

Maybe I'll score 1%, or a bit less. So I make $900 bucks. Maybe I make $2,000 or more. But it's still a commission. Make the listing agent do most of the leg work. You just wrap up the paperwork show up at the closing and you score a check.

There are too many brokers closing their doors every month. If I was faced with starvation or showing a home from a discounter... I'll take the discounter and smile for the opportunity and say THANK YOU. When your desk fees are stacking up and your broker says NO to your third commission advance request... trust me... the opportunity of any commission even from a discount broker looks like a king's ransom.

I've seen too many next time home buyers NOT get the house they should have bought simply because the agent refused to show them a home listed with a discount broker.

-- bart

Bart, if they are a member, their listings should be posted. If not, no. It's simple.

I am confused by your statement ...regardless of any MLS association. If they are not a member, they are not entitled to list in the MLS.

Hey Frank and Sharon,

Unless the MLS has changed quite substantially from what I've seen and come to know, the local MLS charges you (us REALTORS) an MLS Access fee + NAR Dues at the same time. It's an annual fee. When we pay for MLS access, we use their server and licensed software (Innovia, Paragon, Rapattoni, etc.) to CREATE an MLS Record when we list properties on the market for sale.

The issues I've seen from time to time from MLS associations who RESTRICT listings from discount brokers are essentially denying a dues paying customer (broker/agent) in good standing, the ability to CREATE an MLS record simply because they are a discount broker. A clear cut case of illegal discrimination.

This is the only point I was driving.

-- bart

Bart - ok thanks for the explanation - I have never thought any less of discounters - I believe that every brokerage and every service level has a place in our market, as long as they are doing business professionally and ethically! : )

I can tell you from up close and personal knowledge that not only can the MLS be fined by the FTC, but they can also be sued for being in violation of Anti-trust and the brokerage who was restricted can walk away with a nifty settlement.

NOV

Free trade should be just that. CMLS just had there buts sued and lost to discount brokerages for instances such as this.

It's a business decision. . .after all they are there to make money. As long as they stay within the walls of the law. . they can refuse service to anyone

Bart, I live right next to the RealComp borders and know many of there agents and the EO.

Here is what is on the Realcomp announcements yesterday.

Representing you and our MLS
We continue to believe strongly that, as an organization representative of and supported by our REALTOR members, Realcomp has always operated our Multiple Listing Service (MLS) with the best interests of that constituency-you-in mind. The purpose of our MLS is to facilitate the sale of properties between listing and selling agents and, in turn, ensure compensation for both parties.

Moving forward, our Board will be thoughtfully reviewing and discussing all possible courses of action and/or recourse in order to determine appropriate next steps for the short- and long-term.

The MLS has been a staple of the real estate industry for nearly 100 years, and, as such, is long recognized for encouraging competition by ensuring all brokers have equal access to information and commissions and, moreover, buying and selling consumers have access to a resource of properties as well as the expertise, protection and buying power of a REALTOR.

We continue to stand by the tenets of who we are and what we do in order to represent and assist you to the fullest, each and every day.

The question is does the FTC have authority over private associations of members?

Although I personally can't understand why Realcomp does it.

Should the FTC be allowed to dictate to private associations of individuals.

My area is in the process of joining a new system in the the northern part of VT. They will even allow OPEN lsitings to be posted. If more then one agent has the open listing it is first come first serve.

I thnk that the discount brokerages are floundering a bit in this market anyway...the ones that are here in Phoenix are doing a very small % of the overall transactional business!! The cream always rises to the top...but they should not be restricted to do business in any area! Thanks for posting!

I think if you are a member and pay your dues, then you should be able to submit your listings. It says co-broke, does it not?

Let them all play if they pay. I have seen "discount" houses take cheap shots at full service brokerages but hey, such is life!

It is redundant to ask this question as the answer and the article says it all -- it is illegal. Oh, and on top of that, it is also illegal for the REALTORS to require memebership in their exclusive club to be allowed to have access to using the MLS (same rules). Imagine that!

So what happens when the MLS goes away?

What is the next platform? More and more buyers are doing their own research and finding the information they need (mainly through online sources).

How relevant to you all fee the MLS really is today?

What is needed by you as professionals and what is needed by buyers that is not being addressed under the current system?

Good discussion. Thanks!

No it is not right. I have served on our MLS Board, and we have faced these challenges. The only restrictions we think are fair are the out of state companies that are aggregators who want to just steal the data and become their own MLS. Even with those, if they abide by our rules to list properties, and if they pass the Oklahoma law portion of our Commission test, we let them in. It's the public who should get what they want, and the MLS system that has a responsibility of letting everyone play as long as the guidelines are met.

I'm with Missy...does the FTC have the right to dictate rules to a private group of individuals? Why can't the group that disagrees with the policies of the other group create their own MLS? You don't have to be a Realtor Association to create an MLS. If the discounters would quit fighting the establishment and focus instead on creating their own, national MLS...now that would be HUGE!

Tina in Virginia

Bart, You are exactly RIGHT and on TARGET....I'm just amazed that "Active Rain" featured you....... The MLS"s across the country are hanging on by a thread and so are traditional brokerages.....Those who under estimate the discount broker now will come to realize that they will most certainly be forced to discount their services in order to stay in business. My company lists on the MLS for $450 and we rebate 50% of our commissions to buyers........It's all in the #"S people......what kind of advertising to you think I get when a buyer reeceives a check for $4k at closing?..........The consumer is driving the bus-not brokers nor agents!!!

Hi Bart,

I'm just on the outside looking in, but I definitely think they were in the wrong. Many times what I've seen people call a 'discount brokerage' is nothing more than a 'fee-for-service' business model rather than 'commission' based. And when an MLS starts dictating who can use their services based on how much someone may charge, or how they arrived at that amount - that doesn't seem illegal to me. Thanks for the post.

Bart,

I agree with you 100%. MLS should not restrict the listing of discount or any brokers that are paying the same dues, fess etc. It is Criminal and discriminatory. If they pay, they should all play. Best of luck to you.

Lawrence Bland

Missy: This is all part of that FTC-NAR settlement. Millions were spent on that now irrelevant VOW contrversy and NAR wants to avoid another expenditure of millions arguing this IDX stuff in a time when they are not flush with membership cash.

I thought that was a funny comment about letting the listing broker do all the work and show up to collect your check. Then I realized you were not joking. Maybe it is different where you are, but here when you deal with a discount broker you can expect as the selling agent to do the work of two agents. Perhaps the EBA should be written to be more like a 75% split of what you would normally expect to be from a 50/50 where both agents do their job? I was looking at a listing in the MLS the other day and there it was. $1. And that has to be split with your broker. Hey I just sold a house in 2 weeks that had been listed for 90 days through the "prime" selling season by a discount broker. So I don't really have a problem with discount brokers. It makes my job of getting the listing much easier when it doesn't sell. However because of time on market it tends to lower the value of the house in the buyers eyes.

I am not trying to say that a discount broker should not be allowed to list. Just don't make them out to be Mother Theresa.

What is the new laws allowed FSBO's to directly load to the MLS system

And permitted selling agents to go direct to the vendor without Listing Agents

Thats whats being considered in Ontarion Canada

David Pylyp

Living in Toronto

It just shows that the STRUCTURE is "VERY POOR"....and, with the Banks controlling over

half of the market it is actually worse than described.

What do the Banks pick....the low end Discounters or the High End Brick & Mortar People?

It looks like a Prostitution Business....take your Pick and that is what you GET...

As a member of Realcomp I've certainly had problems with them over the years. Still, I have not heard of them restricting listings of paying members.

You can offer whatever compensation you want. There must be some compensation offered though. Why would I show a house and not get paid? Also I'm not sure what your talking about concerning the discount brokerages. I've shown and closed quite a few deals with Help-U-Sell. I've never had a problem.

Hi Bart,

The reason some agents and MLS systems illegally try to penalize some discount brokers is because under most MLS rules you have to offer a co-broke but there is no minimum % as that would be a violation of antitrust laws. I have seen in my MLS some listings (over $200k) offering $250 total commission to the buyer's agent. These were listings from discounters who charge the seller $200 to $500 to list in the MLS and allow exposure to Realtor.com. The seller's goal is obviously to have all the benefits of a For Sale By Owner with the big plus of Realtor.com exposure and pay close to nothing in commissions. Read my blog on this.

Slime ball agent working for slime ball discount broker entered into the Suncoast mls a listing with a co-broke of $1. (that's correct...one dollar) Here in Tampa bay agents can also add an MLS fee usually around $200 to compensate the selling agent for advertising costs. Now, go ahead and calculate the commission paid the buyer agent. These scum balls should not be allowed to pollute the data stream like short sales, third party approvals and auctions that don't disclose the reserve are doing today and confusing the consumer.

I would like the ability to restrict where my listing go, what data is available if forwarded if I choose to forward to aggregate sites, and with what organizations my listing will appear. Unfortuneately, there is more money involved in reselling my data back to me by these same aggregate sites. This is no longer about "free trade" but about google, yahoo, trulia, active rain and all those advertisers who have the FTC ear and line their pockets with our money using the data we originate. I wish my MLS allowed the the ability to not send my listings to aggregate sites, or any site contaminated with the above slime ball organization.

A little too strong?

The FTC should not be able to dictate or have authority over private associations. Whats Next? A Mandatory Dress Code

As a Realcomp member and a "discount" broker, I think that the initial point of the argument (from Realcomp's stance and one that I support) was this:

A number of brokers were submitting "Exclusive Agency" listings which, you should know, allows the seller of a property to retain the right to sell a property on their own and not pay a commission.

Realcomp believes that the dissemination of these Exclusive Agency listings through the IDX channels to other brokerages (and of course Realtor.com) puts their Realtor members at a distinct disadvantage when trying to sell these homes. These properties appear side-by-side with "Exclusive Right To Sell" listings, even though there is the ability for a seller to bypass an agent altogether on the purchase and deal directly.

It wasn't that the Exclusive Agency listings were not allowed...they were and always have been. It's that as an agent working with prospective buyers, you actually could have been marketing some of these homes on your own web site, having your clients drive by to take a look, finding out that there was a "for Sale By Owner" sign in the yard, and having your clients deal directly with a seller to buy a property.

The FTC believes that by Realcomp choosing not to share these Exclusive Agency Listings with the public that it was a disservice to the seller and to the listing broker. The policy was created to protect the interests of Realtors representing buyers, not to protect "full service" brokers.

Realcomp is owned by several local Realtor Asscoiations; it is not broker-owned as many others are. Its members pay dues for use of the MLS as a tool to gather and share information on behalf of their clients and coopertaing members.

The spirit of the MLS is to enable and encourage cooperation between brokers in promoting homeownership...not to become a public utility where a seller can pay a fee and be advertised alongside listings where professionals earn their livings. Their are plenty of other forums to advertise a FSBO.

I believe the FSBO seller can be listed in the MLS as an available property if they so choose (as long as they are offering to cooperate with a broker), but they should not be marketed to the general public accordingly.

As far as I understand it, the discount brokers that provided testimony couldn't even show that their businesses were harmed by the practice.

I think the administrative law judge that originally ruled in favor of Realcomp understood the issues; the FTC clearly does not. There is nothing that suggests consumers were harmed by the practice, but there is certainly evidence that MLS dues-paying members were harmed by these Exclusive Agency listings appearing on their own websites.

"You get what you pay for" and if that is the level of service the Seller wants then so be it.

Bart:

The last time I looked, the MLS in Detroit, and everywhere else, is a PRIVATE ORGANIZATION which exists solely for the benefit of its MEMBERS. As such, THE MEMBERS decide the rules under which they will SHARE THEIR INFORMATION WITH EACH OTHER. They also decide the QUALIFICATION FOR MEMBERSHIP in their PRIVATE ORGANIZATION. Contrary to your implied point of view, an MLS does NOT exist for the benefit of the GENERAL PUBLIC.

Yes, this is America. But, not the kind that I wish, when the government sticks its nose into the affairs of PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Whether or not a "discount" brokerage is allowed or not allowed to share information with other brokers through the MLS is of no detriment to the general public, as the public is not being denied access to the homes.

To carry your premise further, perhaps all brokerage companies should be REQUIRED to be in an MLS because their lack of participation would "hurt the general public." That's as absurd as your argument.

As the owner of a brokerage, I still have the right to decide whether or not I belong to an MLS, and the MLS certainly has the right to decide who joins their PRIVATE ORGANIZATION.

No way-- you pay for the service you should be able to use the service- end of story. I thought commission and payment for services is negotiable between the agent/firm & client. If they block companies that offer services at a lower price isn't that discriminating against persons who choose a limmited service for financial reasons. Why are they afraid of competition?

"Not on my watch" YOU ARE A COWARD!

Limited service should be disclosed. Heck, it would be nice if agents that work for full-service firms disclosed that, in reality, they only offer limited service because they've taken on more business than they can handle. But that's another topic!

I had no idea this was going on. Thanks for pointing it out. Don't think this is happening in my area. Assist 2 sell and the other discounters are in our MLS.

As long as they pay the same dues and offer a co-broke fee then what is the difference? Sure they should be included. What business is it of anyone else what they choose to work for?

I am still of the opinion that any exclusive listings should be excluded from the MLS Database. If the agent or brokerage is not willing to cooperate with other brokers then why should the other brokers have to market said exclusive listings via IDX or other manor. Discounter or not, I don't want to market listings that I am excluded from selling!!!!!

FTC is not your friend!!!

If you pay the dues you should be able to use the tools!

Hi Bart.....it maybe time to review our own way of using MLS and the business model we use..membership fees at one time could have worked, to keep scalpers out. Now the Governments Sees MLS as a public domain and any one will soon have the right to post Real Estate there...that's right, Are we're heading to a free service such as Craigs list...

Maybe we should be acting like Doctors and Lawyers and other professionals and be charging for our time spend with Clients. i think the Commission model is the Problem.

As for some Realtors charging only $200 for a MLS listing...Some Agents Should Charge Less ! The old saying "you get what you pay for" still holds water. :O))

Bart, you sure know how to wake folks up in the morning. I'd like to see the actual language from the MLS as to why those particular Brokers weren't allowed to post their listings.

To eliminate them just because they are discount Brokers isn't right. However in some cases, that's all they do, and the member who writes the offer deals directly with the seller, plus does all the work that you would expect the listing Broker to do.

Where's the justification in that?

Wasn't the mls created for a coopertive broker, sharing of listing inventory? It seems as if gov't and others outside of our business, most who profit from our listings, are continuing to maniputlate the way we work and represent our clients homes and investments. Let the dues paying broker list his properties.

There is a break in your logic. Not all local or state boards own their MLS. In Massachussetts, the MLSPin is a private company, owned by shareholders, and funded by it's members. You could be a member of the Greater Boston Board of Realtors, the Worcester Real Estate Board, etc, but offes of compensation are valid only between members. If you do not subscribe to our MLS, even though you may be a member of the NAR, you are not entitled to compensation unless you and the listing broker specifically make such arrangements.

Very interesting topic and I'm normally for less government intervention not more. This issue is about having the government do what it was intended to do and that is to uphold the law. In this case it's fair trade and anti-trust. I don't think it's an issue of private vs. public but a legal one.

Hello Bart -

From an appraiser's perspective, this is not good at all.

Although I consider tax record sold sales (for comps) in my appraisal reports, I usually discard them as I do not have all the information necessary to determine whether these were distorted or non-arms length transaction sales.... I cannot tell condition... I do not have contact information to determine if concessions were made, etc

By this MLS picking and choosing companies, it would eliminate a lot of possibly solid comparable properties in the area for each report, which in turn might mean that the appraisal you get down the road for another one of your sales (any Realtor) might not be the best it can be.

MLS databases exist for research as much as they exist for marketing. If your MLS is turning away it's paying clients, I hate to see how irrelevant their database becomes in the future.

The power of the MLS is the cooperation it creates between agents... If Assist2Sell or Help-U-Sell offers a reasonable co-broke commission I am all for choice for the consumer but I absolutely am concerned about the FTC dictating that our MLSs be public aggregators of all sales information... We need to be able to have some control of the system will break down. I have heard about specific brands having their own internal network to list their listings on and NOT cooperating with the MLS unless the client pays a bit more or whatever...

This would not be occurring if we had the ability to control our own data a bit better... The FTC is meddling where they should not. I list and sell a LOT of real estate (high volume) and as this is discussed I am almost to the point where I think we should have our local MLS charge a couple of hundred per listing just to list the properties... I see no other way to get around the draconian imposition of government on our system and have the system continue to work...

Look I am all for competition but the reason the MLS worked when the local newspapers classified section is not where Realtors have traditionally gone to look up listings is that you know what you are getting... what situation you are walking into with MLS listings... If we cannot have some control we may as well move the the system used in South America where 15 Realtors list the house and each has his sign up there and all look for buyers independently. The MLS is a service... It provides us and our client a service and that service is not provided to ME if I walk up to a listing and the seller tries to get my clients number from me in a guest book as we walk in their door. I only work with a contract but that does not mean I am excited about repeatedly trying to justify myself to clients where the seller is on the other side with my buyers number trying to talk them out of using me! It has happened people! Flame ON...

Drew Armstrong, Broker, ABR, GRI, CRS, CSP, ePro, CLHMS

WOW! I can't believe this kind of thing is still going on in our industry. What a shame. As the owner/broker of a small independent brokerage, I think we have finally gotten to the point where most agents realize bigger is not always better, which was the battle we fought for years! I've been fortunate to work at large, medium, and small brokerages over my 30 years, and there's room for everybody. Some do a great job, or some do not, and it has nothing to do with the size of their brokerage.

Now it seems it's the discount brokers that are taking the hit! Good gravy, are people afraid of discount brokers? If not, what's all the fuss about! I agree as stated above, if the listing is limited service, it should be stated on the list card so you know ahead of time, and most agents in our area put it right on there, ex: contact the seller, or present offers directly to the seller; etc., Wonderful. You need to inform your buyer that maybe the seller won't have an agent advising them to the extent they have.

If you are licensed, meet all of your state requirements as a brokerage, then how can anyone think it's alright to eliminate anyone from the MLS based on their size or type of brokerage? Who is going to decide what is a "discount" broker? Do they have to charge a certain amount not to be considered "discount"? Oh ghee, does the term "antiturst" ring any bells?

If you do a good job, you will still be here! If not, sooner or later, you'll be out of here! Let's do what our clients pay us to do, find them the house they want or sell the one they want, and stop worrying about who has it listed and what they are charging!

Maybe it is just in the wording but you said it is an "exclusive listing" which for me means that it is only within the brokerage and by definition not an MLS® listing. On our forms the seller has to sign their choice as to whether they want it to be an MLS® listing or and exclusive listing (which will not be uploaded onto the MLS® system). CREA has recently also been told that they need to make changes in their MLS® rules from the competition board, but we are also obligated to protect clients under our local laws and cannot write ourselves out of those liabilities in our contracts. Since "Agency relationships" can be formed by the mere perception of the client, that you are working for them as their agent, means that you need to give them the fiduciary care required by law. An MLS® listing must be represented by a brokerage and therefore one cannot put a listing on the MLS® system without providing the full care of duty as required by law. Their is some room for interpretation on what counts as the minimum level of care, but you cannot say that you are representing an MLS® listing and then contracting your duties away. If you want to have exclusive listings then advertise them on any other website that will post them but the MLS® is for REALTOR® "represented" listings. It is after all a marketing system owned and operated by REALTORS® and for REALTORS®.

We do not go into our local grocery store with a home made cake and tell them that they have to sell it for no commission or even to put it on their shelves. Are the competition boards going after the big chains for not having space for every product that could possibly fall under the categories of the products that they provide. Should METRO be carrying PC products? Should Bell stores be offering Rogers service contracts?

The MLS® is a service that you can use or not, but if you use it than you needs to follow the rules that are their to protect the integrity of the system and to protect the clients.

While I have my own concerns with MLS's, this restrictive approach didn't happen in a vacuum. For years, discount brokers both used AND abused MLS systems all over the country. They pretty much set their own precedent here. Steps weren't taken to restrict them just to be mean or discriminatory. They were taken because of the abuses at hand. It's kind of like AIG saying.."We're squeaky clean...now."

I think some of the energy used in defense of discount brokerages may be better spent in looking at how to fix the inherent problems within them. Maybe then, ALL the playing fields will be level.

If they are a member in good standing and offer compensation then they should be able to post their listings. The size of your company or business model or whatever is moot.

We continue to see or allow our government to gain more and more control over our lives and business. Now it is escalating at a rate that hard to believe. God willing we will see a change in our government if people will get mad enough and clean house in all government agencies.

@ Missy in # 27: Should the FTC be able to dictate to "private associations ?" If the actions of the "private association" only effect those IN that private association... then NO it should not be allowed to. If the actions of that "private association" affect the public... then YES... they should be able to control policy... or, as you said, to "dictate." Just my two cents.

IF you have met the requirements for membership in MLS and you have paid your fees or dues to MLS - not just local board dues or NAR dues or state license dues.

IF you follow the rules the members have agreed upon.

THEN your access shouldn't be restricted.

The problem I constantly run into in our area - and at a much higher/worse rate from Discount Brokerages - is meeting the MLS rule for presenting their listings (wrong information), and meeting MLS rules for maintaining current information (status changes, financial concessions on closed listings, etc).

So, you don't HAVE to do all the things a full-service brokerage does, but you are required to meet some minimum standards. And if you're willing to value what you do at such a small amount - bully for you. But don't fail to exert the professional minimum and throw the responsibility into the lap of every other agent out there.

Bring it on. I am more upset about the pocket listings that go on; especially when it is an REO or the seller is not aware of what is going on.

I am of two minds about this (which is always ok because I am a Gemini). On the one hand the mls's work well. On the other hand I am licensed in Oregon and Idaho but I sell almost always within my MLS. I pay license fees to Oregon I should be able to sell in Portland or Medford if I want to. Which I can in theory but in actual practice it's nearly impossible because I have no access to the mls at either place. I also think that it works well to have the realtor associations own the mls's but it sure seems "oogy". Because once again I can have a real estate license but without access to the mls in theory I can sell but in practicality it is made nearly impossible. Although people all it would take is numeric lockboxes instead of electronic. As awkward as it would be it would work.

I can't conceive of a MLS that would blacklist a brokerage based on their commission arrangement so surely there was something else going on. MLS should have the right to require membership and payment of dues and they should be able to refuse listings until these are current.

The Toronto Real Estate Board beat the Canadian federal government to the punch, when they removed all commission structure from the members' manual. We knew there would be coming competition legislation that would prevent a real estate board from dictating commission policy. In our board, and probably throughout Canada, any member can post listings. We are only permitted to show the Co-Operating Broker's share on the listing. No one except our back office, the Seller, and I know what the listing amount is. We are permitted to show any amount that we choose to the Broker who provides the Buyer, even if it is only $1.00. Thankfully I have only seen one of those. Further, we would not be permitted not to show that listing. Our Buyer Representation Agreement would therefore provide that we get paid the rate shown in the Agreement by the Buyer, which is usually set up at 2.5%, which is the usual rate shown on MLS listings to the Co-Op Broker.

Membership has it's privileges, and posting listings on your local board's MLS system is one of them, regardless of how you conduct your business, full charge service or discounted, n'est-ce pas?

In my market area, I've had to negotiate with other offices who are in a different MLS location in the same state, on what % commissions are going to be paid irregardless of what is stated in either MLS. So it became a Brokerage to Brokerage thing....

I agree with you, Bart

Bryant Tutas made a good point at his comment:

As long as the Brokers are offering a co-broker and can gaurantee the commission if sold then they shouild be able to place their listings in the MLS.
Those who list at MLS should be its members.

The MLS systems will argue that their information is proprietary and that they should be allowed to limit access in and out for the private information.

Arguments made by the MLS in this FTC action might have been persuasive two or more years ago. But with the changing of times where listing info is available to Google Base and other public access sites, information loses its private nature, and that RealComp MLS at Michigan attempt to limit access is probably futile anyway.

Restricting listings is not right and in now way should be allowed to happen. Thats why we at Canaterra Property Pages have created an online listing service that allows anyone to list, regardless of your position. If your tired of being pushed around by MLS why not check out what we have to offer at www.canaterra.com

I belong to 6 different MLS systems so I have seen a broad range of operation. One of the systems and the board that runs it is out standing or they just make the others look bad. Having said that they still do things that make my head shake. Two of the systems I work require electronic lock boxes which makes showings more difficult for my sellers as some agents in this area do not even belong to MLS, furthermore my corporate sellers require their own coded boxes on the property. I find the requirement of the electronic boxes more tax/fee on my agents.

With regard to limiting access to MLS and what goes on it is taking away from the free market where ideas are born. The more we restrict the more we commit slow suicide and bring about the need for change to something different. If you are going to show a limited sales home why not commit to buyer's agency and increase your commission throught the agency and then write in the offer paid by seller? All is negotiable after all. When I come across a FSBO I do not do a one party listing with the seller, I always contract with the buyer and negotiate the commission. The seller gets a discounted sale and my commission is normally higher than if I get a co-broke thus compensated for the additional work encountered. With discount brokers the sale is much like a FSBO with the exception that some commission is offered through the MLS on a limited basis. Well here is to me the reason to represent the buyer as I will end up doing more work to get it closed and thus representing the buyer's interest in seeing the seller's side is done. It is all free market at play. We do after all have to work to earn our pay. Need to stop being lazy and understand how to use our negotiation abilities to receive our pay. Buyer's agency is not a widely practiced art in all areas of this country.

As the MLS is a great benefit to me as an agent it is the only reason I am a Realtor and if the MLS was separate from the Realtor I would not pay dues as a Realtor and just be an MLS participant. There will come a day when the Realtor organization will lose its ability to maintain the control it has due to technological advances. The cost of holding mass data of sales and such will end up coming under the control under some thrifty capitalist who using the free market will bring strong competition to the Realtors. A system that will give me access to look up FSBO as well as non-realtor agents across the land. As pressure is on price today due to loss of equity and value this system may come sooner rather than later. Discount will become so much more viable. This is just another provocation by the Realtor/MLS system in play today.

Hate to tell you Bart, but I am in the same opinion that the MLS is a private marketing tool to be controlled by those members paying to support it. Each MLS should have the right to restrict any threat they feel would harm the members and/or the product they support.

I agree that your point about Discount Brokers being excluded is un-fair. But with more details coming out regarding Realcomp's position on Exclusive Agency, I fully support their position. Discount Brokers are not the issue at heart, it's allowing sellers who are not bound by paying a commission utilize OUR MLS.

Just like your property listing service Kayyah, you charge a fee to be advertised on your site. Exclusive Agency agreements provide a loophole to allow sellers to avoid paying commissions. If you have a right to charge a fee on your private website, we should be allowed to charge a fee to list on our private website.

PS - I pray for the day that a listing broker for a discount firm does my job to close a sale. Not holding my breath... Great article though!

Good post, I agree that they should not be allowed to discriminate. We have a national / global listings website. Sort of like an MLS except that we do not post to realtor.com. When someone posts on our website http://myrealtytoday.com we feed to over 35 other real estate sites and 39 real estate groups on linkedin automatically. Just post once and your listing goes automatically everyday to sites like Googlebase, Zillow, Trulia, Vast, Frontdoor, Enormo, hotpads, and more then 30 more. We offer great service and convenience for everyone. No one is restricted. We are membership based for only $10.95 a month you can post unlimited listings with up to 15 photos, video, and virtual tours. Check us out at http://myrealtytoday.com .

Good comments, enjoyed reading them..

Have a great day,

Mike

I haven't read all the comments, but #47 above got it right.

I'm a member of Realcomp.

Realcomp members weren't blackballed or anything. Exclusive agency listings were not aggregated to Realtor.com, IDX, MoveinMichigan.com, etc. From my understanding Realcomp was not the only MLS who was doing this but was the only one not to cave to the FTC- and won. The original post and many of the comments I did read do not accurately reflect ANYTHING that happened with Realcomp and the FTC. When we write something as fact we should check those facts first.

We had a bit of a show down with a discount broker in our area a few years back. Yes all listings were posted on the MLS but not on all of the larger broker web sites. A broker's own web site can decide if they wish to feature listings. With a very small payout, a line was drawn in the sand so to speak.

The discount broker did end up closing their doors but there was more to it than the commission issue, they had hired new rookie agents and offered no training. The experienced agents ended up working both ends to get the deal done. Nothing like doing 2 jobs for so little........

It would be easy to say it was wrong to do but once you end up having to work with that list agent and do double work...then check out your pay check, you might have a change of heart.

Now we have some new listings on the MLS which specifies to work directly with the seller and provides the contact information to negos. an offer with ??? OK I understand this out of state company with a local brokers license has worked out a deal to list the home for a flat fee (there is no lockbox or sign, call seller direct so they can unlock the home) but I have mixed feelings on this type of business.

The core of this issue isn't simply about MLS listings and how they're administrated... it's really about the profession's focus shifting away from regionalism and embracing globalism.

It's true that the concerns of the sellers are always going to be local and representation by an agent in the area ultimately makes the most sense, even in today's market. But sellers and especially buyers have been short changed for decades because technology didn't really allow distant buyers practical access to all of the listings available. The defacto regional monopolies held by the local MLS boards completely fragmented the market and limited the easy access to listing information.

We now have a sense of entitlement because we 'procure' the listings. This may be true for now, but the party will end pretty quickly if the seller's find a better way to offer their homes for sale. The emergence of statewide, national, and global databases for listings is inevitable and the MLS boards need to cooperate fully with each other and share all the listings available, including those offered by discount brokerages. If we don't find a way, somebody else will.

Some of still feel that the home buyer can only get GOOD service if they use a full service brokerage. But this just isn't true. Today, the average home owner does NOT have to list their home with a full service brokerage anymore. They have less expensive choices. This is why God made Full service Brokers and Discount Brokers.

Exercise: Do YOU ever shop at Walmart or Costco or Sams? How come you don't always buy your stuff at Neiman Marcus? Some people like to save money on what they buy. And so it goes sometimes with real estate brokers the people that use them.

If you do not want to pay 6% sales commission, you can pay half of that sales commission with HelpUSell or Assist2Sell. There is even a 1% discount brokerage in Austin called OnePercentRealty.com that offers a one percent discount model now.

For some home owners who just don't want to use a REALTOR, they can and have sold their own homes by using a local real estate attorney. I was one of the Co-Founders or the Open MLS movement. As was David Barry and our friend Glen Kelman CEO of Redfin.com. Redfin charges $3,000 or less for any transaction. And if they double end the deal, they even have a rebate for the buyer.

Outlandish some will say. It can't be done say others.

Our market is changing and it will continue to shake out even more. The roller coaster is just starting. The ride is far from being over.

The whole point of my Rant and Blog post here is to make sure that idiots at Realcomp MLS do not create one set of rules for full service brokers and they invent a 2nd set of rules for discount brokers. In America, this is called cheating.

This is why I am calling on all REALTORS to drag these bozos out into the harsh light of day and demand they use one set of fair rules for all REALTORs regardless if you work for a full service broker or a discount broker.

At the end of the day we are REALTORS and we all have to play by the same rules and same set of REALTOR Ethics.

-- bart

Here is just another example of how government involvement (the FTC) in private business hurts everyone. When a property is listed in any MLS it must offer compensation to a cooperating broker for bringing the buyer. In effect it is an job advertisement. As a REALTOR I am looking for the best paying job I can find I will work for the company willing to pay me the most. If a discounter is willing to work for less that's their decision. Just don't try to force your discount on me or I will work for another company willing to pay me a fair commission for bringing them a buyer. If they want me to do the listing agents job as well as the buyers side then they should pay me twice as much.

Discount companies cannot survive on the money made selling their own listings. They make their money selling the listings of full service brokerages offering fair compensation. Don't believe me? Check the selling (buyers) agent companies of sold listings in your MLS. See how many discount listings are sold by their own agents. If all companies were discounters no one would survive and there would be no MLS. What choice would the consumer have then?

Discounters use our code of ethics to force us to do their jobs knowing that full service agents will do whatever it takes to serve our customers and get them to closing. Her is an analogy for you. Say you are in the lawn care business and are working with a slacker. You both agree to mow half of the yard and won't be paid until the job is done. You do your half and the slacker does nothing. You want to get paid so you do the slackers job too. This is the situation when a full service REALTOR gets involved in a transaction with a limited service agent.

Those of you who feel that the public has a right to the information contained in the MLS need to think about where that information comes from and how it got there. Did tax payers fund any portion of the expense of building or maintaining the system or any of your advertising expenses to get the listing? NO. That information is bought and paid for and thereby owned by its members. If we own something then we have the right to share it with whoever follows our rules. And yes, we make the rules. If the rules say that you have to provide a minimum level of service then do it or play another game.

Then there are the lead aggregators. Those are the companies who pay a membership fee to offer MLS data to the public to collect leads and then turn around and sell those leads to us. Obviously they need us to continue to generate listings so they can stay in business. If full service companies and the MLS's they pay for go away then who benefits?

In every industry there are bottom feeders. The real estate industry is the only area where the government props them up to ensure their success. If a business cannot survive on its own merits then that business should fail. What's next. Government run real estate? Andrew Hodge #65 was right on the money with his grocery store analogy. The gov has no business in our business.

Thanks for the information and the rant. Just read through most of the comments and most seem to agree with you, as do I. If you pay the fee, than your lisitngs should be in the MLS. The response given from RealComp as quoted by Missy Caulk was just so much double talk that I didn't know what the issue was, much less how they stood on it.

I'm with comment #17 on this one... I don't think that listings from any particular servicer should be excluded if the lister does indeed plan on doing some work to facilitate the transaction.

There are instances of low fee advertising services that just want to use the MLS and then the procuring cause of the actual transaction runs a very good chance of doing all of the work. (I have suspicions that there is more to the case then being disclosed.)

Have you personally had any issues with posting Low Fee listings on your MLS?

I certainly have no problem if low fee servicers want to do the same amount of work for a fraction of the fee but we know that is not always the case.

On another hand... I don't really think Federal Agencies should be involved in privately owned Associations as long as they are not discriminatory in age, race, sex, etc... (Might as well mandate that Private Country Clubs charge membership fees based on income if we want to take it even further.)

I also wonder what would happen if a handful of the Big Brokerages got together and created their own MLS style service completely free of the so called "public utility" debate. Can the FTC require Big Brokerages with the majority of the listings to be on the MLS? And without the listings.... the MLS would be worthless/aka BK. (As would be Realtor.com, Trulia, Zillow, etc, etc...aka so called "Public Utility" tools on the internet.)

Just some thoughts to an interesting rant....

You make great points about low fee servicers paying into membership and having access...

But something tells me that if it is pushed too hard and abused that you'll soon have access to something pretty much worthless.

Hi Jackie,

Nice to see a member of Realcomp to come in add your voice to the mix here, thank you.

Let me ask you a question.

Do you think it's fair for Realcomp to charge all members the same price, but then create one set of rules for FULL SERVICE agents and one different set for Discount brokers?

You see, here's the fundamental problem. Realcomp charges the SAME price to all brokers all agents I assume, right?

If Broker Bob from Sotheby's pays $900 a year for NAR membership dues and MLS Access, and Bart Wilson from Amazing Realty -- (a dreaded discount broker) also pays Realcomp $900... why is it fair or legal for Realcomp to give additional property syndication to Realtor.com, MoveinMichigan.com etc., and Bart Wilson gets no such service perks but I still paid the same price as Broker Bob?

Someone has to look me in the eye and say this is fair. This is why the FTC came in and spanked Realcomp and I fully demand and expect to see them change their ways.

It is NOT OKAY to discriminate in this country. Period. End of discussion.

If I am a discount broker and I am a dues paying member in good standing, it is 100% illegal (Sherman Anti Trust) to give one set of perks and services to a full service broker and deny me access simply because I'm a discount broker.

Yes I am fully aware that other MLS systems have done the same thing is nothing to be proud about or hide under. CMLS got spanked for the same thing last month (South Carolina MLS) as did our own trade association in 2005 -- the National Association of REALTORS.

Breaking the law, violating Sherman Anti Trust with five MLS systems doesn't make it right or justify what Realcomp did.

That kind of thinking often gets applied to other areas that won't hold any water, either.

Well, the other people were smoking pot, so why can't I?

ANSWER: Because it's STILL against the law. That's why.

-- bart

REALCOMP NEVER EXCLUDED LISTINGS OF REALCOMP MEMBERS FROM THE MLS!!!! They did not put the exclusive agency listingsfrom the MLS to Realtor.com, moveinmichigan.com (Realcomp's consumer web site), etc. Exclusive agency listing being a listing listed with a broker for any buyer brought by THATbroker. No co-broke. Basically a FSBO unless THAT ONE PARTICULAR BROKER brings the buyer. They didn't advertise what is basically a FSBO on Realtor paid for consumer sites.

Bart-

I think we were typing at the same time. We weren't spanked and this is nothing new. The FTC tried and failed. We won.

It has nothing to do with discount brokers. It has to do with advertising what is basically a FSBO on sites paid for by Realtor dollars. If you put an exclusive agency listing in the MLS and it then goes to the IDX on MY site and I bring a buyer you get paid NOTHING. If a potential buyer searches the IDX on MY site and YOUR exclusive agency listing shows up and they drive by and see the FSBO sign and buy from the seller NEITHER you nor I get paid.

If you want to list a house for $500 and pay $250 as a co broke you CAN put it in Realcomp AND Realcomp will aggregate it to Realtor.com, Moveinmichigan.com, IDX, etc. It is all about exclusive agency listings, NOT discount brokers.

I do practice discount brokering but not limited brokering. I do believe in the free market and limted brokers do a dis-service to their clients as they make it difficult for us to sell the property as the seller is rarely coached on what is to come. Showings through sellers are difficult, closing a listing is difficult as the listing company of this type time and again are not providing service leaving all to me. I am not going to restrict or boycott them as they are what they are and the sellers from time to time come to a full service broker because of the lack of service. You get what you pay for. For my part when encountering a limited service listing I engage in buyer's agency with that buyer, increase the commission as earned by the newly required set of work I need to perform as selling agent.

This is America and it is built on free market principles which allows for choices and experiments, who am I to restrict someone else, mine is to compete openly based on the merit. I believe in a discount to offer to my clients a menu of services based on what is provided at the price, rarely does it effect the selling agents commission as an option of that nature is explained to my seller as less competitive representation to the market based on incentive, but I do have it in my menu if the seller so chooses. I also inform my seller that the discount will not include fees asked for by buyer's agents in the sales contract and that a buyer's agent may negotiate part of his/her commission in the transaction. Let the free market work and let the discounters continue to operate as they legitimize the full service. I do agree with the agents who see the limited agents doing nothing in the transacation and have experienced it. It stinks but play your game, show your professionalism and represent your buyer, most likely they will list with you when they sell.

Bart on the openmls system, I will be watching closely the developments with it as I am all for it. Competition sharpens the sword and the more tools and options I have at my disposal the better.

Hey Jackie,

Nice to see you continue the spirited conversation here. :)

I would think that most of us understand the nature of FSBO's. They have to be broker sponsored. Nobody takes Open or NET Listings, but someone here just posted that an MLS is doing that. Taking Open listings. Wow. Talk about times a changin!

But at Bonhen Realty (where I used to work years ago) -- we had a few FSBOs for friends that we sort of bent the rules on and we got them Ghost Listed in the Santa Fe MLS. And of course, they got scooped up by Realtor.com

But this is not the whole story here for Realcomp's big business blunder here.

According the the FTC complaint, Realcomp II was caught red handed in the cookie jar. Realcomp refused to transmit "exclusive agency" property listings listed by discount brokers to public websites. The MLS provides that service to all brokers. Not some. This is the basis of the complaint from the FTC. Two sets of rules. Full service brokers get one set of rules. The discount brokers get another.

The fundamental problem here is the two rules scenario.

One group of brokers were discriminated against. It's 1957 all over again. You're white. I'm black. We both ride the same bus. But in the late 1950's if I'm black, I have to ride "back of the bus." But we both paid the same price.

That was unfair and laws were passed in this country against discrimination.

The FTC was unanimous in their 4 to 0 vote and Realcomp II was found guilty of practicing two sets of rules. The fact that CMLS and NAR did it doesn't make it right or legal.

On top of the poor discount brokers, the public suffers who WANTS to buy homes in Detroit. Restricting "some listings" from Discount Brokers but allowing ALL listings from full service brokers is the real problem here and no amount of white wash is going to make it okay.

I am personally going to recommend to the Board at Kayyah.com that they personally allow FREE hosting of any listing from any discount broker affected by Realcomp's decision. Meaning simply any broker who happens to BE a discount broker and is a member of Realcomp II gets to post your listings, virtual tours and all properties you want for FREE on Kayyah.com

-- bart

I don't believe that it is fair for MLS systems to restrict anyone who is a paying member. I do however believe that there is a very big problem with discount brokers in general. I do find it funny that you said "Maybe I'll score 1%, or a bit less. So I make $900 bucks. Maybe I make $2,000 or more. But it's still a commission. Make the listing agent do most of the leg work. You just wrap up the paperwork show up at the closing and you score a check." First off we all know that you get what you pay for and if sellers really think you are doing all you can for them when you are going to sell their property and only collect a very small flat fee or a 1% commission they are sorely mistaken. Second why would any quality Realtor actually go into escrow and let their buyers trust and take the advice of the listing agent? We all know that the full service agent will be doing the majority of the work. That's why you are a discount broker. Again you get what you pay for and discount brokers on the other hand obviously have no problem collecting 3% when they sell a house listed by a full service brokerage. Somehow the majority of them still don't or won't do the work even when collecting full commission. The only time you hear them complaining is when people question their business practices.

Kevin

Hi Kevin,

Thanks for joining the discussion.

I would never personally work for a discount broker. I like making lots of money in real estate and personally I like the full service model. I was good at it and I still am. Today I buy investment properties and I list them on Kayyah.com and a few other private MLS portals out there.

But the fact is, there ARE other real estate business models out there. Some of them are full service. Some are discount. Some people like working at Neiman Marcus. Some people like working at WalMart or Sam's.

In America, we are not allowed to discriminate against color, sex, religion or age. But Insurance companies can discriminate against you if you get sick. They can raise your rates, or deny you coverage or drop you entirely even after years of you paying thousands of dollars into the policy. You get cancer and boom -- they drop you.

The Obama administration is making that action criminal. Soon with new laws, you cannot be discriminated against by insurance companies.

And the same goes with NAR, CMLS and Realcomp II and the other firms who all think it's okay to practice two sets of rules for brokers. Realcomp II just feels it's okay to screw the discount brokers.

I cannot accept that. We cannot have discrimination in America. We have fair playing rules for all parties.

If the full service brokers are intimidated a little by the competition -- then it's time to get out and do something else.

-- bart

Ignoring the issue that the government (FTC) is putting its fingers everything these day, my big problem is the shockly large percentage of you that are okay with other leeching off of your work. So since times are toguh it is okay for a discount broker to screw you on commission? When someone makes the same amound of money as me for simply doing a bit of data input when I have to handle both the buyer and seller, they can keep their money. I'm not advocating against discount brokers, but there has to be some minimum standard of service. The MLS is endorsed by the "REALTOR" brand and I think it is fine to make sure the MLS doesn't become Zillow. But I guess if you disagree, you can rest easy knowing that Big Brother has your back. Enjoy your $900 check for doing twice the work.

My last comment.

Realcomp was never found guilty of anything. I just called Realcomp to find out the status of the lawsuit. Last I read we had won. We lost on appeal- which basically just means our win was overturned- we were not convicted of anything.

But what you either don't get or don't want to get is that there is no discrimination against discount brokers. I don't think you understand what an exclusive agency listing is. Or you do and just want to argue. Now that you have brought in politics I'm out of here.

I'm done

The FTC got it right this time.

I'm going to have to not agree with you on this one Bart. For one discount brokers I have seen are not full service in my area and claim to be. You say you would be happy to make a $900 dollar pay ck from a discount broker. Well ck this out, Me A fulltime Realtor who feeds his family from realestate is working with a buyer for a $500k home for lets say 6 months. In that six months we go out on 3, 4 maybe 5 times looking at homes then they find the house of there dreams and its listed with a discount broker and I have seen them only offer $100 to the buyer agent but will go with what you said $900 well we split that with are broker and now that's $450 to me then take away gas and time and so on. When I should have been paid a decent amount more to do my job. I am not a discount agent and I am forced to be one because a discount broker is able to take advantage of laws and do this and I can not say or do anything about it because of the laws we have to go by. But everyone in my area knows or feels that discount brokers are a low blow to are local industry. It should be a crime to allow someone to make a joke of are business

Hi Bob,

This is why I love our first amendment rights to Free Speech. We can all share our own opinions without slapping someone for having a different opinion.

We can't erase the Discount Brokers with an edict. They exist. They will be here when we all wake up tomorrow, too. So will Wal-Marts and the Sam's and Costco discount stores. American business is simply based on the Free Enterprise system. If someone else can sell a consumer a product or service for less money -- so be it.

I used to be a rank and file working real estate sales professional too. My sales commissions would be great sometimes. And some months, I'd be asking Michael (my broker) for a commission advance.

The world does not revolve around the single idea that all brokers will continue to be full service and all sales commissions will always be 6%. It's a nice thought... but at the end of the day, it's a fairy tale that always ends the same way. We wake up and depression sets in. We shower, shave and we drive to work hoping the leads we get today will make us smile a little more and make my wallet stop hurting from being empty for so long.

As I pointed out just a few hours ago -- the One Percent brokers are now here and doing very well in Houston and Austin. Does HAR restrict their listings in the MLS? No, they do not.

What discount brokers LOSE in sales commissions they GAIN as they have Title and Mortgage all under one roof. This seems to be a popular and growing model. Many of these one stop shops have a revenue sharing model. So if you didn't make out big on the sale, you make out big once every month when the broker divvies up the spoils of selling 78 more homes than the full service broker down the street did.

Change sucks. Change hurts sometimes. But ignoring it is just not going to make the discount brokers go away. They're here. And whether we like them or not, they are your brothers, sisters and colleagues. We all passed the same REALTOR Exam. Some of us just don't aspire to become another Barbara Corcoran or Donald Trump. Some of us are just happy to be working stiff, rank and file REALTORS.

Our careers are simply a reflection of what we decide we are going to be.

Today, I am a real estate consultant and I have competition from firms that are not barely qualified to be in this business. Do I like doing SEO for a client for $300 a month when last year, I could get $1800 a month? No. It sucks.

But I cheerfully take the job and I smile and do the work just the same. And tomorrow, I wake up. I shower and shave. I drive to work and I hope today will be a better day.

-- bart

Yes, the FTC got it right.

Who said it is supposed to be easy to be in this business, or any other business? It would be simple if every broker offered the same commission, followed the same practices, and had the same business model. Not going to happen! Entrepreneurialism, competition, innovation and capitalism must also be reflected in our MLS systems. If you don't like the coop offered by a discount broker on a listing, educate your buyer to the value that you bring to the transaction (you do bring value, don't you?) and get a buyer/broker agreement signed by your client. Don't expect big brother (the MLS, in this case) to solve your problems for you.

John Juarez, REALTOR

Windermere Properties of the East Bay

John@CarlMedford.com

510-673-0686

After your last comment Bart I can see why you think the way you do you want are country to become socialist. I bet money you voted for Obama and I bet you think he has done a good job? Well in ten years from now will see what you think. Good luck on being apart of destroying the American dream because you want an equal world. Grow some nuts and go live with some lions and see how life is.

How many agents throw unreal splits out the window and never let there buyer see the listing? They could make $500 or $10k come on we all know the answer.

See my comment #47 above. Thanks Jackie for "getting it".

I am a Realcomp member and a non-traditional/discount broker who AGREES WITH REALCOMP and believes the FTC doesn't understand the issue....It seems there are only a handfull of agents here who truly understand what the issue is, and a majority of you that seem to not want to understand the issue....at least as it relates to the Realcomp case specifically.

Keep in mind that the original suit was filed in 2006, way before there was any downturn in the housing market.

I find it difficult to believe that any real estate broker out there wants to advertise FSBO listings on their own personal website, and thinks that it should be permissible under MLS rules....that one of your own prospects should be able to find a FSBO listing placed there by another member broker so that they can drive by, get the seller's number off the FSBO sign in the front yard, and purchase the house directly without your involvement.

Yes...to have the listing be available for agents to search within the MLS...I agree that they should be there...which is how they appear today, and how they always have been.

They were always accessible to other members of the MLS...the MLS that was designed to encourage COOPERATION and permit compensation amongst members.

The MLS isn't supposed to be an advertising portal; it is supposed to be a comprehensive tool utilized by professional real estate licensees and appraisers to share information relating to a geographic real estate market.

At issue here was not commission rates or brokerage models.

The issue is whether a property listed using a contract that allows a seller to pay no commission should be marketed alongside a listing that contains a blanket offer of cooperation and compensation ON SITES OUTSIDE OF THE REALTOR MLS.

The issue is not whether a broker is a member of the MLS or not...it is whether an unrepresented seller should be entitles to the same exposure as a represented seller in the venues that Realtors have spent decades to grow and build, and that NAR has spent millions to promote and defend.

I would suggest that those that do not understand the distinct differences between types of listing agreements take a few minutes to learn...you might be surprised to find you agree with Realcomp on this one.

No it is not OK. If we all pay our dues then we all have equal rights whether discount full or inbetween. How a seller chooses to sell, an owner chooses to operate is up to them. As long as agency law is not broken. How on earth can an MLS decide what is discount when everything is negotiable?

Very well stated Ron #104...

My point exactly in comment #88 but you just came out and flat out wrote it.

Oh, and just to be clear....Exclusive Agency Listing Agreements can be used by any broker, they are not a "discounter-only" listing agreement.

Likewise, "Exclusive Right to Sell" listing agreements are often utilized by discount brokers as well.

Wow - from discount brokerage MLS access to socialist Obama bashing! Nuts and lions?

Back to the subject, our MLS allows the discount brokerage listings as long as they are members, and some sort of compensation is offered. Am I going to show those listings to my buyers? Yes, if they want to see them.

Ron Jasgur, Homesource Based on what you have just said I do not think they should be able to list in are mls system. Why would anyone who selles realty for a job think this should be able to happen. List homes that you can show but you may not get paid for doing your job. to may people posted on this issue with out reading or knowing the issue

Georgina I bet you have a husband at home that is the bread winner and your income is not your only source of income?

Bart,

Are you or have you ever supported yourself as a real estate agent? I'm reasonably new to Active Rain and, other than entertainment, I find blogs like yours somewhat disappointing - it is one of the main reasons I am not crazy about "learning" fromblogs! There is no control on the quantity of inaccuracies flung around.

In reading through your blog and many of the replies (I must have had too much time on my hands today!) I'm struck by the number of people who are willing to adamantly agree or disagree without really knowing what you are talking about. Even after reading up to about #90, I find people are discussing, with great authority, several conflicting points.

So what is it? "Discount brokerages/fee for service", or "Entry only/dealing with the seller from start to finish" brokerages? Exclusive right to sell (meaning no one else can "list" the property) or Exclusive Agent - no compensation offered, just looking for a place to advertise.

I am lucky to work in a market where, in general, people are willing pay for service. And those that aren't can find an agent willing to set up an Entry Only listing. I have never sold one, because Buyers know they are FSBO's in disguise, and whether they pay for MLS or not, they are unrepresented sellers and generally they overprice their homes, don't offer adequate compensation, don't prepare for market properly, provide limited marketing, show it themselves and generally put their foot in their month, and - the scariest thing, don't have a code of ethics to adhere to, or E & O insurance to cover "mistakes". I find that really scary!

Adequately representing my buyer client is of the utmost importance to me. If my Buyer client chooses an "Entry Only" property from MLS, I would never avoid showing it.

All that said, if a licensed brokerage is paying MLS fees and compensation is offered and guaranteed in the MLS listing - I don't care where it comes from - I believe they have the right to post their listings. But if they are using MLS as a low cost advertising vehicle with no offer of compensation? I don't think so.

Just my opinion...

Duncan Real Estate Team, Lexington, MA

Good grief. We just settled a very costly law suit because of shenanigans like this.

Our MLS has number FSBO listings hiding behind the "Exclusive Agency" listing type.

I've been selling them for years. So there's no listing agent. So be it. I don't do twice the work. I do my work and perform custodial duties for the seller.

I do not give the sellers agency level advice and I'm paid by the seller. That's be going on around here since the 1980s.

BTW. I still don't know what a "discount broker" is. I know a lot of brokers who charge different fees for different services, some limited and some full service. Unless one of them has a published fee and "discounts" it for a particular seller, the word "discount" implies a "standard fee" and that is something that just got us into hot and expensive litigation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_WgJ_hAw7o

And, that's really all I've got to say about that. Have a great day.

Hi Duncan,

One more reason to exercise our 1st amendment rights.

Yes, I've made fabulous money in real estate. At the risk of bragging, my annual compensation to me averaged $240,000 on a good year and $340,000 on my very best year. At age 45, I don't have time to BS anybody or white wash what I do. I don't have to "fake til I made it."

Blogs are supposed to be about facts, and to entertain. Why do you read a particular newspaper or magazine? You like the author, or you like the content.

I little bit of humor about our profession is a good thing. It eases the depression of a really crappy and very long buyers market. On the serious side of the fence, we need to know how we screw up our lives and at times when injustices are being done... someone has to call an MLS group out on the carpet.

So having said that, and knowing the facts, let me pose the question back to you.

1.) Do you think it is FAIR to have two sets of rules that the MLS can levy whenever they want? If yes, why?

2.) Do you think it is okay to let any MLS restrict listings from a licensed broker in good standing? If yes, why do you feel this way?

-- bart

I don't want to comment on whether or not I agree with the decision in the lawsuit, I certainly don't know all of the facts to make that determination.

What I will do, since you mentioned it many times, is ask you a question regarding the word "fair". From what I have read, it appears to me that you are mixing the words "equal" and "fair". Do you think that being fair means being equal? I think that the two sometimes go hand in hand, but many times they are very different. Is it fair for one athlete to make more money than another athlete? Is it fair for the wealthy to have a higher tax rate than those in a lower income bracket? Is it fair to make all employees of a company only have access to their pay statements online (versus paper statements) when certain levels of employees are less likely to own a computer? Is it fair to make men and women compete against each other in professional sports? I think there are times when unequal is still fair.

And to answer the question you asked above (#114), no it would't be fair to have 2 sets of rules. I'm guessing that the MLS has one set of rules, and that part of that set of rules is the restrictions that are being discussed.

I'm just glad that even the "discount" brokers and list-for-a-fee brokers in my area offer competitive co-brokes...

Working 3 weeks, showed 35 houses, spend $50 in gas and snacks, making $100.00 --priceless. This may be one of the many reasons that a lot of Realtors are having to leave this business.

NOV

This is the most confused blog I have ever read. I went through more then 1/2 of the comments and it seems like people are talking about more then 1 thing. I think it is because your blog was confusing in the first place.

I stopped reading at comment 49. My true response would of sent as long as the original blog. You can't restrict access. I do believe they should be allowed acess to everything if they pay.

For all the people who are complaining about the I get paid $100. Isin't this problem solved with your buyers agency with your client stating they have to pay whatever rate you set. I write mine that way. I explain that 99.99% of the time the seller pays and it won't cost them a nickel. They will certainly know this by the time of closing. If they don't want to pay out of pocket then we lower the price by the amount of commission they are out of pocket.

Interesting comments here, I look forward to hearing more opinions. Personally I'll keep my mouth shut.

Hi Bart,

First of all, thanks for the personal reply to my #111 comment - I really do appreciate it. When I asked about your real estate experience, I was asking about listing and selling. Still don't know your answer, but sorry if I appeared rude - Guess I'll pull the First amendment out now :-) Having been in sales and marketing my entire adult life and in real estate sales for over 20 years, I know there is a difference between coaching and doing. In reviewing your bio, it appeared your experience was in marketing and coaching agents not representing buyers and sellers. My bad if your experience and success has been in listing and selling homes as an agent.

Regarding facts and entertainment. As I said, I am new to this forum. I guess I just don't see "facts" and "entertainment" being intertwined so cleverly that you can't sift through to see which is which. I've seen some wonderful humor in blogs. Generally they relate to personal situations and perhaps convey experiences that we can all learn from. When you take on a legal issue - you need to be sure you stick with the "fact" side of the coin, and be really clear what is fact and what is interpretation. Just my opinion...

Now to the point of your reply...Here's what I said in my comment:

"if a licensed brokerage is paying MLS fees and compensation is offered and guaranteed in the MLS listing - I don't care where it comes from - I believe they have the right to post their listings. But if they are using MLS as a low cost advertising vehicle with no offer of compensation? I don't think so".

To more specifically answer your questions:

1) No, I don't think having 2 sets of rules is FAIR. What I do think is that rules should be clear. What I didn't get from your blog was what rule was broken. The details were not really clear in your example.

2)I may be wrong, but I believe the purpose of MLS is to share and cooperate. Any listing that is not offering compensation is taking advantage of the spirit of the MLS and don't belong. There are plenty of Internet places for that listing to be posted. So I guess rather than a YES or NO to your second question, the answer is "YES" if that broker is mis-using the vehicle. You can be in "good standing" by paying your bills, but breaking the rules.

That said, if the MLS rules in that area aren't clear - then that is the problem that should be solved and it should be solved by it's voting members - not government agencies.

Regards,

Free market should be just that, free market. There should be no restrictions on anyone who is a paying member of the MLS and they should have full access to the platform. Just because someone has a different business model doesn't mean that they should be treated differently. I work for a full service broker in Jackson Hole and we compete in the market against all other brokerages, discount or ortherwise. In the end its a realtionship business and clients and customers will work with whomever they think provides the best value/service for them in their particular situation.

this goes STRAIGHT to the issue of where the data comes from. we generate the listings...which are the "content" for any database...we input our listings into the MLS and then we lose control. shortly thereafter we get a call from the good folks at realtor dot com wanting to know if we want our listings to be displayed more prominently. THEY SELL US BACK OUR OWN LISTINGS...sweet...you have to love them, they figured out how to get something for nothing and sell it to the guy who gave it to you.

clearly, it appears that someone has learned that being in the MLS is THE most important thing a seller can do. and they built a plan around the fact that ALL listings get published in realtor dot com and syndicated all through the ether into every corner of the internet.

i see no way to avoid their gaming our system without being squarely collusive and risking the wrath of the antitrust regulators.

BUT, bart, to answer your question posed in post #114...

Do you think it is okay to let any MLS restrict listings from a licensed broker in good standing? If yes, why do you feel this way?

YES, i do feel that if the compensation offered is not defensible, for instance $100, then it can be deemed as not bona fide and frivolous. one needn't be a rocket scientist to see that someone who is entering homes into the MLS database and offering a co-op fee of $100 is doing so simply to have the home in the database that we all maintain for the benefit of our sellers and buyers and as a tool for the benefit of all interested parties. we spend time and money to keep it accurate and up to date and it is not anti competitive to see that such an entry is a not bona fide on its face. just as you are NOT required to devote your professional time to an offer of $1 on a property, neither should we be expected to devote any of our professional efforts to such a property when it is promoted through the MLS.

an alternative that i am surprised that realtor dot com has not rolled out would be a mechanism to allow the sellers to completely circumvent the agents and post up FISBO...

has anyone ever looked into just who is behind realtor dor com? sure doesn't seem like a realtor! they already allow an agent to take control over a page that is on OUR (realtors) domain if they break with the checkbook.

tina, #35...national MLS? wait for the google effort this year. they are gunning for us...will we take a knife to a gunfight?

sorry for the ramble up in #122...

what needs to be remembered here is that while we've all been dealing with open listings and exclusive agency listing for years...the new twist is a listing with no real compensation. those listings are not in good faith but simply an end-around to have the property broadcast through the various media we filter to. we pay for membership in a co-op database and so have the right to determine what constitutes legitimate data.

it is not unreasonable to develop some sort of mechanism to exclude them from our searches and let the clients know that we will not be dealing with them as they do not compensate us. we are not required to serve our clients in the absence of paychecks for for paychecks that do not meet our minimums.

Missy brings up a good point with a private organization. I have a couple of thoughts only prefer to stay in the shadows on this one. Good post Bart, controversial that's for sure. I bet there would be double the comments if people would actually put what they really thought.

My MLS now feeds listings to places that I find offensive and contrary to my professional survival. Like Zillow? We, as listing agents, cannot opt out of certain companies that they feed too. There are others that I find possibly beneficial and they do not feed to those. I'm not sure who decides on this stuff, our MLS board members? I sometimes wonder who they work for! Same bone heads as NAR.

If you are a member of the MLS and pay fees how could they restrict your listings. Sounds crazy to me that this MLS would even THINK about doing this.

Boulder City Steve

OK LET'S SLOW DOWN A MINUTE .."RESTRICTIVE"...sounds so negative and anti-trade BUT....I want to make one point here. MLS is SUPPOSED to be used by REALTORS and we pay for that privilege (a LOT where I live.) the MLS is NOT meant to be a venue where NON-LICENSED FSBOS MARKET THEIR PROPERTIES DIRECTLY TO AGENTS AND THEIR CLIENTS AND THEY ARE THE MAIN POINT OF CONTACT AND NEGOTIATION. IT IS NOT A CONSUMER SITE!!!! Consumers are getting direct access because these brokers (many of them do not even operate offices in the same metropolitan area) have found an "end around" to let sellers market FSBO's and leave the work of both sides to the selling agent to handle. They are merely lending their name and license. They couldn't pick their selling clients out of a police line-up. The listing "brokers" are not around to handle anything! Bottom line is...if consumers have direct access (with their contact info) to our MLS for $299 (paid in advance of course) and the brokers don't even have to have a local business in the MLS territory, why should WE have to pay so much for something where the GENERAL PUBLIC has such an easy access. This is NOT against local discounters who operate businesses and work as exclusive right to sell brokers. What they charge for a listing is their business. The problem is that someone needs to keep NON-LICENSED LISTING CONSUMERS FROM CHEAP, EASY MLS ACCESS WHEN WE ARE PAYING SO MUCH FOR ACCESS AS LICENSED BROKERAGE FIRMS.

NOV

Hey Brian,

This was not about FSBOs. This was Realcomp II restricting rank and file brokers listings, marked as EXCLUSIVE and they were denied service. The FTC found that this was restrictive and illegal. Further, the FTC found that the consumers who were looking for homes would not be receiving the same benefits to FIND these homes. Realcomp II simply played with two sets of rules.

This is the argument. Realcomp II restricted listings from a licensed, dues paying member of Realcomp II.

This was NEVER about FSBOs.

- bart

Wow Bart. I think that they should be posted. However, not the FSBOs (unless they are represented by a Broker)

I have always been ok with the concept of a discount broker even though I am not one myself. I do believe that there is a necessity for a slightly different exclusive agency agreement for limited service brokerages that more clearly spells out what they are going to do vs. not for their client. I also feel that if the client is not getting true representation and is merely being placed in the MLS system that there should be an exception as far as soliciation goes. In other words, full service agents should be allowed to contact FSBOs that have MLS access to solicit them to consider them for full service if the discount thing doesn't work out for them.

We need discount brokers and Exclusive Agency situations to progress the current way we as full service realtors conduct business. I wish for, and need to, get exclusive buyer agency agreements with all of my buyer clients to protect me from situations like these. The more risk I face in running into a discount broker or non-commission paying seller, the more I'm reminded to eliminate this problem from the start. Embrace this little threat for the motivation it provides to become a better and more secure agent.

Great discourse. Bottom line, if someone is accepted as a member and pays their dues as required, they should be allowed to enjoy the benefits of membership without restrictions to the extent that their membership allows. Special "rules & regulations" shouldn't be imposed unless disclosed before hand.

I think real estate agents who offer full brokerage are tired of picking up the slack because "some" discout brokers do not explain to their clients completely what they WILL NOT be doing. These agents work hard for their client and they do not like the added liability that is laid at their door because a client wanted to save a few bucks.

Comment #1 reflects my thinking. Full service brokers should have learned how to deal with this issue by now.

NOV

Why are we using the term "Discount Broker"? These companies have alternative business models and it is up to Realtors not havingthe same business model to explain what they can do for a client that a discounter (?) can not. If you pay your dues and are following the guidelines of your local MLS then you (or your client) should not be punished. I inform my potential clients that as a full service agent our commission rates are higher to help offset the extra mile we go for them. I also leave a comparison sheet of our services with empty columns for our competitors that the customer can check off and then see who delivers more bang for the buck. Realtors are in a service environment and need to remember its value that will decide who survives and who doesn't. Thanks for the post.

NOV

Bart

Great post! What you have described is just one more step towards the demise of the MLS.

Discount Brokers are here to stay. There are no laws that promise any R.E. Agent a full commission. If you think that is your right and privilege, then you need to perhaps find another line of work. This industry is changing, and our job descriptions are too. R.E. Agents-- as we know them today-- may not exist in 5 years. It's the reality of the marketplace. Beside, if you are a true professional, don't work with a Buyer unless you have a Buyer's Broker Agreement and make sure your commission is protected. Then you are doing your client a real service by not restricting them to see only listings you will get X% on. If they refuse, then find Buyers who respect your time and right to get paid.

As regards to the MLS, this unneccessary giant has been throwing ts weight around for way too long as far as I am concerned. THEY work for US. What don't they understand about that? Why do they charge exorbitant dues, when I can get most of what they offer online..and so can the consumer?

The MLS exists because we Realtors exist. What don't they get about that?

NOV

Missy & Tina: The FTC definitely has the authority to regulate private for profit businesses, such as MLS or NAR, when that entity controls market share to such an extent. We call it anti trust law... if an MLS is "discriminating" against a particular group of, or class of brokerages, then the FTC MUST, based on its mandate, intervene... Without this, the market would not in fact be free... it would be biased in favor of a particular group, and against another legitimate group.

As for agents not wanting to pick up the slack when a seller uses a limited service brokerage... I think that is tough noogies, as my kids used to say... the seller is not your client... he purchased an MLS listing from a limited service brokerage. Do you work with FSBO sellers? No? Your loss...

NOV

I see many people here using the term "discrimination" out of context, as least as it applies to protected classes. The last time I checked real estate brokerages were not listed as a protected class. Was the brokerage allowed to join the MLS? Yes. No discrimination there. Not enough has been said about whether the limited service broker was abiding by the rules of his MLS that he voluntarily agreed to when he voluntarily joined. If the brokerage was attempting to circumvent the rules of his MLS then that MLS has an obligation to its other members to enforce those rules. If that enforcement involves restricting certain listings that don't meet the minimum requirements set forth by the MLS bylaws then so be it. The MLS rules are there to foster the spirit of cooperation that currently exists among the majority of its members. I would say that the actions of the limited service broker in question here were not viewed as legitimate cooperation.

I also sense a desire of many people posting here to bring about the demise of our most powerful marketing tool, the MLS. Think about what would happen to your business if the MLS suddenly disappeared. Think about what would happen to the parasites feeding off the MLS data that use it to harvest leads and sell them back to you.

In response to post #138 above, I will work with FSBO's since I am not doing the job of another brokerage that is getting paid from my efforts. If a broker is being paid then they should do the work. If they choose to be paid less thats fine. Just don't try to force your discount on me.

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?