Special offer

Is MLS a Monopoly That Should Be Broken Up?

By
Real Estate Technology with Realogy Holdings Co

As Realtors® we simply accept MLS as a part of life.  For that matter, the association is part of our day to day business as well.  Brokers are required to join, and are strong armed into requiring their agents to join.

Don't get me wrong.  I think the association plays a valuable role; although, I don't think it is a role that can only be filled by them.  Currently membership in a local association affiliated with the National Association of Realtors® is required for MLS access.  Furthermore, once a candidate becomes a licensed agent and able to sell anywhere in the state in which she is licensed, she must join numerous Multiple Listing Services to be able to do business in that state.

My question is, should licensed Realtors have a choice of using more than one listing service; and, is the MLS a monopoly?  Also, if the listing service stays the way it is currently, should membership be limited, or should I have access to the entire state? Nation?

I'm eager to hear your thoughts.

Posted by

Ray Garrett

Independent Real Estate Recruiting, Training, and Marketing Consultant
ZipRealty
cell:  804.615.4378
www.ZipRealtyCareers.com

Licensed in Virginia

Member: National Association of Realtors, Virginia association of Realtors, Richmond Association of Realtors.

 

Ray Garrett, Jr.
Realogy Holdings Co - Richmond, VA
Director of Productivity and Innovation

@Glenn, Good points, but my question isn't whether to MLS or not MLS.  The question is if MLS, which is a business entity, is a monopoly.  I used to work in the Auto Auction industry.  Manheim had a monopoly and was forced to break up into 3 seperate competing companies.

The real question I'm wondering is wether agents think that NAR and specifically MLS should be broken up as a monopoly.

Apr 26, 2010 05:10 AM
Karen Kruschka
RE/MAX Executives - Woodbridge, VA
- "My Experience Isn't Expensive - It's PRICELESS"

Ray  I believe the MLS provided in Northern Virginia is exceptionally well run.  There may be locales where a competitor might be better  Karen

Apr 26, 2010 06:22 AM
Cathy Polan
Royal LePage ProAlliance Realty,Brokerage - Trenton, ON
Royal Lepage Proalliance Realty Sales Rep.

Oh Ray - this is a very hot topic in Canada right now.  The Competition Bureau is stating that they believe the MLS system is a monopoly.

Lots of articles in The Globe And Mail.

Apr 26, 2010 07:01 AM
Cathy Polan
Royal LePage ProAlliance Realty,Brokerage - Trenton, ON
Royal Lepage Proalliance Realty Sales Rep.

Oh Ray - this is a very hot topic in Canada right now.  The Competition Bureau is stating that they believe the MLS system is a monopoly.

Lots of articles in The Globe And Mail.

Apr 26, 2010 07:01 AM
Glenn Roberts
Retired - Seattle, WA

Hi Ray, thanks for the clarification. There is a point to making all of the listings in one area available to all of the agents of the area. It is to better serve the public, which is what the authorities look for when breaking up monoplies. MLS's don't charge the consumer anything unless you consider yourself the victim of the monopoly.

Our mls the NWMLS is huge and covers most of western Washington, but I know of two othr mls.s in overlappiung areas who have decided not to join. It's their choice.

There was a time when there were no mls's and the consumer had to go from office to office to access all istings in an area and some places still operate that way. If you are trying to make acase that agents are having a bad go of it because we are forced to join the in the area we want to work, you would have a hard time proving it to me. There are a couple of agents in Seattle that I know of who have remained independent and do well. They choose not to share their listings nor sell listings of other agents.

The problem we've talked about here is that we didn't want to let the "low service for a low fee and then not represent you after that" agencies in, but ended up letting them in. The govt looks at them as saving people money and to exclude them would be limiting the consumer of a choice.   

Apr 26, 2010 09:11 AM
Ray Garrett, Jr.
Realogy Holdings Co - Richmond, VA
Director of Productivity and Innovation

@Glenn,

I think what I would like to see is a competing real estate agent listing service that agents could choose to use rather than the brand MLS. Agents are the customers of the MLS brand and we are victims of the monopoly.  Potential competitors are also victims of the monopoly too in that The National Association only supports the MLS brand.  MLS is not a generic name, it is the name of a company that sells a service that has nearly 100% of the market for that service.

I'd like to be part of a service that had a much more intuitive interface, that was cheaper, that charged me per listing rather than a base subscription, and that allowed me to view an entire state regardless of whether I want to sell there or not.

Our current MLS is Bloated, requires additional services to pull industry information, and does not provide the search functions that my companies website does.  This lack of innovation despite customer complaints is a sign of a monopoly.

Apr 27, 2010 05:30 AM
Ray Garrett, Jr.
Realogy Holdings Co - Richmond, VA
Director of Productivity and Innovation

@Catherine,

Thanks foir the heads up on the Canadian dispute.  I will follow it closely.

Apr 27, 2010 05:30 AM
Anonymous
Jason McCampbell

Hi Ray, I just stumbled on your post after frustrations with archaic MLS websites and more innovated apps having outdated MLS data.  Yes, I think MLS is a monopoly but to some degree it's a natural monopoly due to the network effect. Because of this I think there should be a single (or couple) national databases, none local.  However, MLS should _not_ be in the business of being a portal that consumers or agents use, just a clearing house.  The front-end work should be left to companies that are good at it such as Zillow, Google, Yahoo, etc. The added efficiency means agent fees could be slashed and only charged for adding & updating listings; search access would be a nominal charge for any company wanting to provide results.  Google's Map API is one such example, API access fees start at $10k a year based on level of usage. I think with this type of structure we would see a tremendous burst of innovation.

 

Thanks for the post.

Jason

Mar 10, 2011 03:29 AM
#9
Anonymous
John Smith

I specifically searched for this topic today because i am frustrated with NAR, but not only with the MLS. I believe that NAR owns the real estate industry and i think that its hold on the industry should be broken up.

I am forming a brokerage and i prefer not to join NAR. but if i don't i can not get a lockbox card (Sentrilock in owned by NAR), i pay extra for MRIS / MLS becasue the local boards are stockholders of mris, i cannot use the forms and contracts because NAR and NVAR own the contract copyrights.

It does not stop at the MLS.

May 13, 2011 12:26 PM
#10
Anonymous
John Smith

I specifically searched for this topic today because i am frustrated with NAR, but not only with the MLS. I believe that NAR owns the real estate industry and i think that its hold on the industry should be broken up.

I am forming a brokerage and i prefer not to join NAR. but if i don't i can not get a lockbox card (Sentrilock in owned by NAR), i pay extra for MRIS / MLS becasue the local boards are stockholders of mris, i cannot use the forms and contracts because NAR and NVAR own the contract copyrights.

It does not stop at the MLS.

May 13, 2011 12:26 PM
#11
Anonymous
Dan

A monopoly does not mean one company controls 100% of market.  A monopoly is any entity or organization that prevents the growth of a product, service or sector of the economy and impedes the natural competition of the marketplace.  Monopolistic control distorts the marketplace by overcharging clients, members, and putting into place competitive barriers to entry.  While we could argue that since anyone can open a website showing free listings, is proof there are no barriers to entry, it belies the fact that MLS is promoted by the NAR and conversely the NAR is supported by the MLS fees.

This arrangement between professional organizations and a non-mandatory but near impossible to survive without a service, has been used by many organizations to extract (some would say extort)  unusually large fees from its members.  The lockbox and key services only MLS offers well, are mandatory to excel or survive in this industry.  Similar to unions that fight for its members politically, unbeknownst to most a few within the self regulatory organization (SRO) benefit inordinately in a pecuniary fashion.  MLS has partial private ownership of its shares by "investors" - usually NAR family and friends.  This is something that is insidious but common to a unregulated SRO (NAR).   The NAR is usually one of the top three donators to political parties in the country, donatiing over $30mm to both the Democratic and Republican parties.  The NAR's power is near absolute politically and judicially.  No major lawsuit has taken them down more than a notch or two, yet.  They have also stymied the use of REALTOR by any other party - which is as germain as doctor, mechanic, lawyer.  Other trade organizations have not been as successful at protecting their "trademark" as the NAR has - though it has been challenged to a draw, but not yet appealed.

Until a deep pocketed competitior can offer matching key, lockbox and listing services, the NAR-MLS will continue to dominate the field.  In time, other more affordable services will crop up and independent brokers will have more efficient business models that do not involve the outdated, cumbersome and over priced services of MLS.  In the long run, efficiency, efficacy and the perception of fairness wins in the mass market and I am crossing my fingers the sun is setting for the NAR.

Dan

Jul 20, 2011 04:00 AM
#12
Ray Garrett, Jr.
Realogy Holdings Co - Richmond, VA
Director of Productivity and Innovation

@Dan,  Those are great insights.  I think it's only a matter of time before a competitor takes over MLS.  Once they do, they'll be primed to make a move on NAR.

 

Jul 27, 2011 10:11 AM
Kathleen Farrar
Reston, VA

This is a year later but thank you for your discussion.  I feel the MLS is a monopoly, in cahoots with NVAR and NAR.  The fees are outrageous and we all pay them because we must.  We have no choice.  It would be interesting to see a report as to where all the money goes, who gets paid what at the top.  Is there any such report?  I don't know the rules on associations as to whether they are for-profit businesses or not-for-profit but in any case, we realtors have no choice but to pay the fees in order to do business. 

Oct 27, 2011 01:06 AM
Anonymous
Andrew

If the NAR and MLS aren't a Monopoly, then I don't know what is....

They need to be broken up like the telecommunications industry was in the 1980's.   That's why we don't pay 25 cents a minute for long distance anymore.

And, we shouldn't have to pay the ridiculous fees for limited MLS access and the Realtor Gestapo

Oct 18, 2012 10:47 PM
#15
Ray Garrett, Jr.
Realogy Holdings Co - Richmond, VA
Director of Productivity and Innovation

Well Said Andrew!

Oct 21, 2012 01:05 PM
Michel Bell
Coldwell Banker Prime Properties - East Greenbush, NY
Seasoned & Full Time Real Estate Broker

I recently came across a webiste that offers a Wide Open MLS for Agents and Homeowners, easy to use and Free Listing Upload with a coupon code.

The site is www.xpozzz.com

I think we all should access to a OPEN MLS!!!!

Jan 07, 2013 01:59 AM
olDGUaRD MuStgO
New York, NY

Hi Ray,

There are about 1000 MLS's +/- in the U.S.A.  That’s an avg of 20 per state.  A single MLS would eliminate a lot of the inefficiencies grossly apparent in the current structure. 

The DOJ and FTC prosecutions are about preventing tyrannical MLS rules that reduce competition. The Realtor Boards have used their MLS as an unlawful vehicle to suppress and reduce competition from entering their market place. 

This is done in a variety of ways including arbitrary requirements that have nothing to do with protecting consumers or improving the Realtor image.  They have everything to do with maintaining or enlarging the incumbent broker’s market share.

This is bad for small brokers trying to compete against the old stodgy embedded brokers.  Consequently, this is bad for the consumer as limits their choice.  NAR has a long history of endorsing or refusing to enforce discriminatory and anticompetitive rules against its own associations.

Starting in 1950 in U.S. vs National Association of Realtors (NAR), it was sanctioned for engaging in price-fixing: http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/339/485/

There have been hundreds of similar court filings against boards and MLS’s everywhere.  They discriminated against blacks, against women, against married women, and for many other arbitrary reasons.  As a result billions of dollars of our tax dollars have been spent by the government including local, state, and federal courts to eradicate anticompetitive practices that are either expressly or tacitly endorsed by NAR.

Ironically, NAR is one of the largest non-profit associations in the world yet it spends millions of our Realtors dues on defending itself and other MLS’s from unlawful conduct it sanctions.  It is absolutely breathtaking how NAR has spun the news.  More breathtaking is that this conduct still exists.

History shows they won’t change their ways until a government agency compels them to do so. As indicated in the links below, the bulk of the lawsuits are commenced by brokers and not the public.  Again, the injury to the public is the byproduct of the MLS rules designed to suppress new or innovative brokers from entering the market.  If it weren’t for these exclusionary rules the public would have no claim or at least they wouldn’t have direct proof of the cause of their grievances.

Here’s an interactive map showing the enforcement in each of the states: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/realestate/maplinks/index.htm

These are more links to the atrocities committed by MLS’s and Realtor boards: http://www.ftc.gov/bc/realestate/cases/index.htm
 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/real_estate/
 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/real_estate/MLS.html
 
http://www.justice.gov/atr/public/reports/223094.htm#IVB
 
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/reporter/competition/realestate.shtml
 
http://www.ftc.gov/reports/realestate/V050015.pdf
 
http://www.ftc.gov/bc/realestate/workshop/index.htm#ftcstaffreport1983

As a disclaimer, many of the volunteer leaders of the associations have good intentions. Unfortunately, they are ill informed and purposely kept in the dark as they help move a hidden agenda forward.  Many but not all of the full-time, well paid staff profiteer from compulsory membership dues and MLS fees.

QUESTION

If it wasn’t mandatory that you buy a Realtor membership in order to buy a MLS subscription, would you still do so and why?

Feb 16, 2013 12:03 PM
Anonymous
CThompson
It is not just the mls, it is now access to properties with electronic key cards. You can't get a card without becoming a member if you are also licensed. Huh? That's right, you can get a card if you aren't' licensed at about $149.00 per annually. However, if you are a licensed sales person, you MUST become a member @ $655.00 annually.
Jan 22, 2014 06:26 PM
#19
Anonymous
Victoria Vaughan
First, great question! In my mind, it is a monopoly, but that does not necessarily mean it needs to be broken up. The Internet is actually creating more competition in an natural, organic way. Take flat fee listings for instance and places such as Zillow and Trulia which are now providing options to home buyers and sellers. As has been pointed out, competition-(although not always fun for those who were in a closed system, i.e. a monopoly- always benefits the consumer in the long run.
Apr 18, 2014 02:48 AM
#20
Anonymous
Sid

I'm a software engineer with loads of time to invest in developing any type of disruptive system. What will happen if I write a system of property listing and make it free for everyone to use ? (I've done that for a few markets)

Apr 22, 2016 05:25 PM
#21