Susan - Maybe I should just set this up myself outside of NAR.  Glad you like the idea - I think it would take away a lot of the guesswork, frankly.

Bruce - The more I think about it, I think I might just work on this on my own, and see if I can figure out a way to make it happen.

Jim - Good point, but it seems like the unethical ones manage to stick around, huh?

Thom - Right you are.  There are plenty of inefficiencies that come with the real estate territory, I suppose.  Thanks for stopping by!

Greg - I guess I see this as a jumping-off point.  It's been a stray thought of mine for many years now.  In essence, it would force more integrity into an industry that appears to badly need it.  I recognize the logistics are not perfect - perhaps brokers could be on the hook for determining that a "valid" offer exists.  It wouldn't be for executed offers, just offers in general.

Greg - How is your wife doing, by the way?  I think this might end up being our biggest baby yet!

Kevin - I don't think they lose any ground at all as sellers.  Nothing would be divulged with regard to price - I am just suggesting something that would prevent rampant lying on the part of the listing agent.  Perhaps they lose that "edge", but the buyers would know where they really stood (i.e. are they the only interested party, etc.).

Paula - I am a broker, too, and I (clearly) wouldn't mind this responsibility.  I disagree with you about buyer perception.  If a property is available, they already know that no ACCEPTABLE offer has come through the door.  It doesn't mean much, in my opinion.  Do you think buyers want to lowball when a home hasn't had offers?  Maybe the market is just different vs. here.  I am sick and tired of being lied to for the past 12+ years, I guess.

Natalie - I knew that this post/idea would be pretty black and white.  There are a lot of options, I suppose, and lots of potential abuses out there.  This was really just a mental exercise.

Pat - This would be something to bring more trust to the transaction (i.e. would improve on the status quo, in my opinion).

Dona - I agree with you on all points.

Debe - Thanks so much for your enthusiastic response!  I am happy you enjoyed this idea.  It has been rattling around in my brain for years, but I haven't really taken the time to fully plan the ins and outs....yet.  Thanks for flagging it for a feature, too!

Sandy - Think about how many extra pieces of paper that our buyers already have to sign vs. 20 years ago, many of which are the result of various lawsuits that have cropped up, necessitating new disclosures and affidavits.  It would create a bit more work, but in the scheme of things, I still think it would be worth it.  Perhaps local boards could allow their membership to vote on whether or not to institute something like this.  If it's truly not a problem there, I have two thoughts: 1. Your board wouldn't want it or care about it, AND 2. I need to move there.  :)

Erik - I find it interesting that anyone sees this as detrimental to a seller, but I see your point about the lousy offer.  I would say that if there is just one offer, perhaps buyer's agents would call the listing agent to feel things out.  If there are 12 offers, it would in fact save buyers some time.  Maybe it could be set up to just show "current offers", not "total offers to date".

Paul - I didn't want to minimize the idea in my actual post, but this is really more of a mental exercise to stimulate thinking on the topic of ethics.  I understand the point about stigmatizing properties, but it still seems like a better system than the free and easy "you don't know me, but you must now take what I say as gospel truth" way of doing business currently. 

Karen Anne - Perhaps it doesn't happen as often there in your area, or with the group of agents you do business with, but both I and the agents who work for me seem to experience this type of dishonestly pretty regularly here.  As I mentioned to Erik above, perhaps the system could be instituted so that it wouldn't display the number of offers overall, just whether there are currently any in play at that moment. 

Rita - Thanks so much for your input!  Much appreciated.  I agree that "change is in the wind" for our industry.  This is just a thought, and one that I feel needs to be explored/considered at some level.

Paul - Consider it done.

Dan - What is the difference between having it systematized and hearing it directly from the listing agent?  What I am proposing is to take some of the "gaming" out of negotiations, which would serve to level the playing field for buyers and sellers.  The same thing goes for unaccepted (or perhaps "unacceptable") offers.  If someone asks me, "Have you had any offers on this house yet while it's been listed?", if the answer is yes, I am then forced to explain it anyway ("one was a lowball, one couldn't get the loan", etc.).  With regard to your second point, I am in complete agreement.  PLEASE change the status of the home if it's not available.  THAT is a major waste of everyone's time.

Bill - Right you are.  I suppose every safeguard is rife with the potential for abuse.  After reading the comments and thinking about the process more, I wonder if it wouldn't be better to have the offers go through the service first?  Again, this is something that I have been thinking about for awhile, but it's always when I am in the middle of working with buyers, and I haven't even written anything down before last night.  Thanks for your input.

Alan - I agree with your comments here.  I'm not sure if this would be the correct method or not, and I think the "broker to broker" concept could go a long way by itself.  I am starting to think that if a third party system of any sort were implemented, the offers should go DIRECTLY to that service first, eliminating the gamesmanship completely (fake offers, etc.).

Mike - What do you think of the ideas from my exchange with Alan?  Either: 1. Have brokers in charge of confirming the receipt of offer(s), OR 2. Have offers submitted directly to the outside clearinghouse, then distributed immediately to the listing agent?  Just food for thought -

Barb - I am thinking of updating the post with some additional thoughts on that.  Please see my responses to Alan and Mike.

Erica - I know of a few in this area who do the same thing. Why not take that ability away from those who are simply not respectful of the truth?

Matt - Thanks for your thoughtful comments.  I think I would lean toward one of the ideas that I mentioned to Alan and Mike above - maybe the extra work should be from the clearinghouse, NOT the listing agent.  If buyer's agents submit directly to the service, that would certainly eliminate the opportunity to lie to them, too.

Missy - It would have to be something agreed upon at the local board level, I suppose.  If the board doesn't "buy in" to the idea, it won't bother to implement it properly either.

Chuck - Please see my above responses on this topic.  Thanks for your comment!

Sharon - We have ALL had this happen, I bet, and most times I am virtually positive that no other offers even existed.

Kim - It sounds like you already know the answer in that situation!

Rebecca - You are probably right.  In a small-town setting, this is probably not as warranted as in big cities.

Hal - It's interesting that you bring up the escalation clause idea, because I received an offer on Wednesday with one of those included, and I loved the idea.  I have been selling real estate full-time here in Austin for just over 12 years now, and I had NEVER seen that done before.  I think I may use it the next time this type of situation arises.  Good stuff!  I also like what you said about buyers feeling more in control of their negotiations.

Maureen - They sound like characters from a movie to me.  I am always dumbfounded when someone goes to great lengths to lie about anything.  It creates so many extra items to remember when you lie.  I'm too lazy, I guess.  I prefer to just be honest.

Lorraine/Loretta - Yes, that sounds very irritating indeed.  Thanks for your feedback here.

Gail - It sounds like you have been lied to a LOT, especially considering how 2008 was.  I didn't hear it last year at all (if memory serves), but I have heard it twice this year already.  I am guessing that you heard that part about escalation clauses during some training, and you may be right, but I don't think that there would be anything to prevent someone from mentioning it either over the phone or in a cover letter/email, since those are not part of the "official" contract document.  If you read my update to the post (after you made your comment), I would be interested to hear your ideas on those suggestions.  On a separate note, I have heard the phrase "you can't legislate morality" so many times over the years, but almost EVERY law on the books is legislating some version of morality.  What about legislating on the topic of violent crime, such as murder or rape?  Every society has its own set of things that it finds abhorrent.  I don't think it's immoral to speed in my car, but some people do.  If you don't legislate morality, you end up with no rules at all.

Greg - Congrats, man!  I have a feeling that ours will be coming later than that, but who knows?  Pam is also VERY pregnant now, which is why I think this might be a bigger baby.  Time will tell.  With regard to the pre-qual/pre-approval letters, that is a whole story unto itself.  I am more discerning and critical now on that stuff, in an effort to protect my seller clients.  Even with that, though, I still have instances when I receive a "pre-approval" letter that turns out later not to have any weight at all.

Tony - That is pretty much what happens anyway, at least for me.  My radar about multiple offers has been honed somewhat over the years, so I am generally correct, but who knows?  If a home is unique, and it's been on the market 300 days, and they just happen to get 3 other offers on the same weekend that we submit ours, it's probably a simple lie.

Cindy - Thanks, and you're right. They are trying to create urgency, at the expense of the truth.  I had a multiple offer situation on one of MY listings, and I was completely above board with all parties involved.  I also explained to the agent whose client didn't "win" why we went with the other offer.  She really appreciated my fairness in giving them a shot.  The next day, the winning party was forced to back out for medical/family reasons, and I was able to return to the 2nd offer and work it out because I didn't burn the bridge with them. 

Mel - True.  I pretty much do the same thing, but then I feel obligated to at least pass the info along to the buyers.

Michael - I would be interested to hear your take on the "updated" part of the post, which was written at about the same time as your comment.  Thanks so much for your perspective.

Sandy - That happened to me THIS WEEK with a buyer.  Once they heard that there were two other offers on the table, they walked away.  Glad to hear that you like the idea.

Andrew - I can't really add much to your well-reasoned response to my post.  It (almost) goes without saying that the entire blame shouldn't remain with the listing agent alone.  However, in the scenario I was describing, I think it STARTS with the listing agent.  I couldn't agree more with your point about bidding the property up so high that it can't appraise.  Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a comprehensive comment here.

Chuck - Right you are.  Getting people to adapt to change is always hard, and getting them to adopt a new set of procedures is even harder. 

Herb - I agree with you that our reputation in this business is critical, but if no one bothers to regulate personal ethics at all, what would our industry look like in a few years?  We are already one of the least-respected industries in the country.  Why not make some steps to change that public perception?

Lisa - Thanks!  I just thought it would be nice to remove the guessing games.

Deb - All of us have probably felt that helpless feeling that you describe here, and I think changing the long-standing tradition of the listing agent as sole gatekeeper might bring a breath of fresh air to the industry.

Kelly - Which comment were you referring to?  That might help me to respond better.

Karen - I agree with you on that point, but I just think there are a lot more "bad guys" out there than you may care to think about.  Why not remove some of the gamesmanship and guessing?  With regard to your comment, "If we have an escrow, but I can tell the buyer is flaking, I wouldn't want to discourage someone from showing the house", wouldn't the house show up as "pending" during that time anyway?  That alone is enough to keep away almost every buyer and agent who would have looked.

Tim - I think that is a reasonable proposal under the circumstances.  :)  I like the way you think!

Carol - I like the Toledo MLS solution that they implemented.  Interesting stuff - at least then you can track what is actually happening with a specific property.  I have the same thoughts about dishonest agents, by the way.

Larry - Indeed.  I sincerely think it would go a long way toward dispelling the notion that we are nothing but used-car salesmen with a license.

Chris - I like the concept of proof that you are proposing and I really like the phrase "memorandum of understanding", but I guess it might be really easy to fake something like that.  I wonder if it would really keep the ones who already have no issue with the expediency of lying to create a false first page.

Robert - Thanks so much!  I think it's worth exploring.

Claude - In a nutshell, you have just summed up my reasons for writing this post in the first place.

Paul - I think the downside would the additional expense involved, depending on who pays for it.  However, it seems like the government has created a brand-new money machine recently, so maybe they would like to throw a few billion dollars into my personal project?

Maria - Nor do I, but I think it's worth considering.  I think ANYTHING that can help consumers to view the real estate industry with more respect as professionals would go a long way.  I think implementing ideas like this one would do a lot more than "image advertising" on the radio.  I still don't think the average home buyer or seller knows the difference between a licensed real estate salesperson and a REALTOR, and I'm not sure that it really matters right now. 

Sandy - In my opinion, the only way to ensure that truth prevails is to have all offers go directly to an impartial third party BEFORE the listing agent ever even receives them. 

Bill - Thanks!  I have had TWO multiple offer situations since the beginning of the year, once as a buyer's agent, and once as a listing agent.  We are busy right now - hope it continues!

Jerry - You hit the nail on the head with all of your points here.  "Highest and best" should only be used when you have a fistful of offers to deal with.  As you indicated, I think this type of thing would go a long way for us all, and it might even make more buyers understand the value of having professional representation.

Michael - Simply put, you handle your business exactly the same way that I do.  I don't see any value in lying to other agents.  Agents like us are not the problem, and we're also not really the target of my proposal.  :)

Kris - You may be right about the complexity, but it seems like some type of modification would be a step in the right direction.  And yes, it is sad to think that we have to force honesty on anyone.

JL - That is pretty much my thought as well.

Mary - I suppose that's true of ANY system that is in place, but it seems to me that having a system of any type would be an improvement over the status quo.

Kathleen - I think "sad but true" sums it up very nicely.  I have educated hundreds of clients about the commission structure - I feel your pain.  :)

Charles - This post really isn't about agents lying about whether or not a property is under contract or not.  I am more interested in the negotiation process from the beginning.  We have the same rule in place here in Austin.

Joan - The health care issues deserves its own discussion!  I agree completely - NAR has lobbyists that should be able to push this through somehow.  On the multiple offer part, I agree that agents have self-interest in mind sometimes, and I can't blame them, I suppose, as long as they are keeping their fiduciary responsiblities intact.

Larry - It sounds like you and I would get along really well.  I don't enjoy being lied to, and I can generally smell it from a mile away.

Terri - I disagree with your take on this, but I guess you knew that before you wrote the comment.  I do think it would serve as a deterrent if implemented correctly, although I do think that they would eventually find a way to circumvent that, too, more than likely.  I think that if clients thought agents had more accountability to some outside party (other than the state real estate commission) it might go a long way toward helping with our public perception.  I don't want to advocate additional work just for the sake of more work.

Tricia - I haven't ever requested that personally, but my business partner has.  I bet it would change the tone a LOT.  I guess I haven't ever done that because it seems unnecessarily pushy to me, but I think it would be effective.

Tere - I am not against true negotiating, and I think I'm pretty darn good at it, but not at the expense of the truth.  I appreciate the fact that you aren't sure if my idea is the best solution, but I would be interested to hear what you think might be.

Trey - Wanna help?  :)

Connor - I agree about health care, believe me, especially with my premiums!  The argument could be made that it is already a fineable offense to break the code of ethics (which I feel that this does, but I may be wrong).  Personally, I already try to avoid the agents that are notorious for this, but there are so many agents that my personal avoidance probably doesn't harm them very much, which (truthfully) is why many of them remain top-producing agents.

Cameron - Thanks for your input.  I agree that it would be a big undertaking, but I would be interested to see if it could be launched in a few markets initially as "pilot" projects.  I don't think the cost would be as great as you think, and I would be willing to sacrifice a little bit for the greater good of our industry (that's just me).  I do think, based on the comments I have received here, that it's something sorely needed for ALL REO-type properties and short sales.  Maybe it could be created, then used as an option for agents who wish to distinguish themselves in the business and with their clients. 

JB - No question about that.  I wish it wasn't something that ever even happened, but it does.  Glad you are enjoying the topic!

Hope - Thanks so much for making your initial point - I thought it was worth writing it down, even though it is clearly in the formative stages of my thought process.  On the paper/gas issue, we actually do get almost all of our commissions wired straight to the company account.  Just seems easier for everyone!

Marlene - Thanks!  I agree completely.

Richard - That's why I updated the post at the end to include the idea of submitting offers DIRECTLY to the outside service. 

Michael - I like the simplicity, but I think it still falls on the listing agent's head to be honest about that.

James - That happened to me THIS WEEK, as a matter of fact.

Luke - You're probably right - perhaps it should be implemented at a different level, or as an optional service (e.g. "We are 100% transparent").  The market here is quite strong right now, thankfully.

Tammy - I would be VERY interested to hear their opinion on this topic.  I like the fact that you have actually done something similar in past negotiations!  You may be right - perhaps the local level would be the very best way/place to start, then it could spread.

Lane - I guess there are a lot of things that are against the Code of Ethics, but it doesn't seem to stop agents from breaking them constantly.  I like your idea of a points-based system or something similar.  I have had agents ask me for proof before, and I have given it to them.

Misty - Maybe we could develop something and provide it as an optional service, which could eventually become the benchmark for ethical negotiations.  "Oh, you're not using Verified Offer?"  As I mentioned in one of my responses above, maybe the agents who DO choose to implement this could market it as such, as in "We have nothing to hide here - 100% transparency is our goal."

Mindy - I think your comment is missing a word.  What do you not have in your local market?  Liars?  I wasn't sure from the context.  Yes, multiple offers do happen, but not nearly as often as we are led to believe, in my humble opinion.

Isaac - I don't think you are naive at all.  I call that "trusting".  I am the same way - I am honest with other agents and with my clients, and I expect the same treatment from them.  However, I sometimes get a strong feeling that things are not what they seem, and I pass this along to my buyer clients as well.  Overall, I handle things much the same way that you described ("how far along are you?", etc.).  Thanks for your input.

Christine - That happens to me several times each year!  Thanks for your support on this topic.

John - I received one of those offers on Wednesday (almost verbatim), and it was done in a way that was inoffensive and served to show my sellers that the buyers were very interested, but they had a limit and needed proof.  I thought it was a terrific idea - did you come up with that on your own, or learn it along the way somewhere?  Good stuff either way.

Diane - Simply put, I agree.

Gail - I think to say that it would "never" work might be a little harsh, but we can agree to disagree.  It sounds like something that you would like to have, or at least in some form.  Tammy Lankford mentioned that she has done this with her local board previously (allowed them to verify things).

Michael - This was why I updated the post at the end to include submitting all offers DIRECTLY to whomever is doing the monitoring.

Kim - I have to admit that I find it interesting how many Texas agents love this idea.  Maybe it's a bigger problem here?  :)  I doubt that.  Thanks for the compliment, by the way!

Bob - I liked Tim's idea, too!  John's negotiating strategy is terrific, in my opinion.  Placing a checkbox or field in the MLS would do nothing to alleviate this particular problem in my opinion, because the listing agent is still the one in charge of the information (or misinformation!).

Marzena - I guess you can't please everyone, and sometimes people are simply jerks.  Thanks for your input here.

Linda - Frankly, I'm not even frustrated.  This isn't something that has happened to me lately as a buyer's agent.  I was in a multi-offer situation in January, but we "won" the deal.  I understand that you don't agree, and that's okay.  I don't have a problem with people disagreeing with the solution, but it seems a little harsh not to offer any other ideas along with it.  It would probably have come across better if you had offered an alternative or a tweak rather than just saying, "you are wrong".  And no, I don't actually buy into the idea that someone is trying to get the best deal for their seller if they are actively lying in order to achieve this.  It just doesn't sit well with me morally.  That's like saying, "I am trying to get the best deal for my family by not paying taxes."  The end doesn't justify the means.

Aaron - Thanks - glad to hear that you liked it.  I guess it is a little bit "out of the box", but it's a starting point!

Jim - I understand where you are coming from, and I agree with you about the art of negotiating.  Forgive me for turning some of your words back on you, but it sounds like your comment comes from the perspective of a listing agent, not someone who is working with loads of buyers.  This particular idea stemmed completely from my own work with buyers, NOT as a broker/owner.  I experience this phenomenon and deal with it far more often as an agent myself than when I am training/helping the agents who work for our company.  With regard to removing the art of the deal, so to speak, I am not advocating full disclosure of prices, etc., just a move toward more transparency in our dealings.  Yes, it levels the playing field, and yes, I would love for that to happen.  Frankly, it might have prevented some of the giant bubbles that popped in some markets around the country, but that be overstating things. I can personally stand the heat and I have for 12 years now, but I feel that this type of thing might help all of us.

Barb - It sounds like you have had some situations arise that would merit a system or service like this being in place.  No, no baby yet - we are about 6 weeks away from our due date!  Thanks for asking!

Teresa - Thanks for saying that!  It seems as though the crowd is split into two distinct camps over this topic. 

Konnie - You are about the fifth person to indicate that it would be helpful with bank-owned properties.  I may try to pitch this idea in that arena first.

Russell - It created even more discussion than I had expected!  Thanks for stopping by with your thoughts.  As you know, this is not the type of thing that you or I necessarily need in place because we handle our business via the Golden Rule, but I do think some version of this could be highly beneficial.  I may just develop it myself and offer it as a marketing tool for agents.

Torrey - Thanks for your thoughts on this.  I will check out your site.

Cristal - I remember hearing horror stories about that kind of thing happening when I was in real estate school in 1996.  I think it would be awesome!

Chris - This may sound terrible, but I don't know if such a form even exists here in Texas.  I would love to see a copy of the one you use there.  Would you mind emailing it to me at jason@austintexashomes.com? 

Mark - I think the solution is quick - submit the offers straight to the "offer service".  No excuses then.  Many companies already use a showing service - why the heck not?

Bob & Carolin - You have been blessed - there's nothing else I can say in response to that.  Either you live in the most ethical pocket in the country, or you haven't run into the "bad guys" yet.  I think this particular solution of mine might best be marketed to specific companies looking to stand out from the crowd. 

Stephen - Perhaps, but it would be tough to circumvent if implemented properly.

Grace - If you don't see the need for it, I sincerely think that you should count your blessings, frankly.  You have worked with a stellar group of agents, and I applaud them.  I'm happy to hear that California takes a strong stance against this type of thing, but I have never even heard anecdotal evidence of that fact here in Texas.  The more I think about this idea, I think the idea of an "offer service" as a standalone product could help individual agents and companies stand out from the sea of Realtors.  Not only would it increase your integrity standing with clients, but other agents would KNOW without a doubt that they are dealing with someone who wants to be 100% above-board and transparent in their dealings.  As for the notion that this is an "awfully small problem", I wonder if during the really good years in California, Vegas, Phoenix, etc. puffery might have played a part in jacking prices up to inconceivable levels, contributing to the bubble which finally popped.  After all, how hard would it be to convince someone to pay a much higher price when things were already selling hand over fist?

Eric - I wish I could agree with all of your thoughts here, but (sadly) I cannot.  I do agree that we need more honest people to tell it like it is, but there is a reason that we are one of the least trusted professions in the country.  The more agents I deal with and hear about (both in my everyday business and through posts I read here on AR and elsewhere), the more I realize that the real estate industry has few barriers to entry (education, capital, etc.), so it tends to attract greedy, "salesy" people sometimes.  Granted, most agents are probably rock-solid in their dealings, but there is a larger percentage of bad ones that I care to think about.  Interestingly, I posted a link to this post on Twitter as well, and the input that I got from the general populace (i.e. non-agents) was 100% positive.  What does that tell you about how we are perceived?

Drew - Are you suggesting that the government bidding model is something to be emulated?  That seems to be one area that most people agree is rife with backroom agreements, nepotism, and just plain dishonesty.  With regard to an auction, I can't think of anyone I have ever met who felt that they were cheated or paid too much when involved in an auction.  When I buy stuff on eBay, I don't second-guess myself, nor do I think that the seller ripped me off, because I can see the bid history.  Maybe that's why that site is one of the top 10 in the U.S. - accountability.

Richard - I look forward to seeing your post!  Thanks -

Robin - That type of thing does happen sometimes.  I try to use my truth radar to discern this stuff, but it doesn't always work!

Sue - I think it could be offered as a standalone service, perhaps something that listing agents or companies would cover on a transaction basis.  This could be passed through to the client, or absorbed as part of the commission.  If it were done on a "per transaction" basis, the cost wouldn't be that much.  I wish that networking within the association were enough, but we have over 10,000 members in our local board, with people entering and leaving all the time.  I rarely do more than a deal or two with any one agent in the area.  It's easy enough to stay away from the bad ones once I have encountered them, however.  :)

Christianne - I like all of your thoughts here.  If it were done by assistants, I think they need to be the ones that are not strictly employed by any one real estate company.  Good stuff!

Linda - I think the auction model is a sound one, generally speaking, as I mentioned to Drew above.  Thanks for your input!

Craig - I can appreciate your comments about the appraisal stuff, and that is by no means what I am suggesting here.  With regard to your comments about negotiations, it sounds as though you think I am afraid of same.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  I LOVE to negotiate, which is why I have many friends who ask me to help when negotiating anything at all (car, insurance, loan, etc.).  I have also trained about 50 agents over the years on this topic.  I am well-versed in negotiations, which is why I can see the inherent problems in our current system.  Like you, I often call the bluff of the other agent, but I wish I didn't have to deal with it in the first place.  To me, it seems really old-school.  With the technology that we have available in 2009, surely a better system or service could be devised.

Bruce - Based on many of the responses here, perhaps I do need to just market this service on my own.  Why not?  Also, I agree with you about Tim and John's comments!  :)

Casey - I agree with you that liars will lie regardless, but (on a side note) I have found often times that lying and laziness go hand in hand, so listing agents who make it a practice to deceive their clients and/or other agents might not be willing to do the extra work involved to convincingly fake an offer.  We had a guy that used to work for me that was caught stealing DAILY from a large retail chain - his paperwork was ridiculously sloppy - no effort there at all, almost like he wanted to get caught.  At any rate, thanks for your comments and support of the concept.

Steve - Simply put, thank you!

Joshua - With all due respect, there are a lot of things that you and I currently enjoy in 2009 that were in the "that won't work" category not that long ago.  :)  What if the offers were submitted directly to some outside party, as I mentioned at the end of the post?  Also, with regard to the manipulation of paperwork, etc. please see my response to Casey above.  Thanks for your input!

Marty - I wish I could say that it would stop the rampant abuses that exist now, but that solution pretty much still requires honesty at the outset, right?

Krista - The more I have thought about this and read through every comment so far, I think this service should be offered as a standalone product for listing agents who want it.  With regard to the competency of all listing agents, I have a feeling that the general public would see this as a positive step forward, rather than questioning our abilities.  After all, how many industries willingly submit themselves to scrutiny?  If our ethics and integrity were widely revered, I would see your point, but how could it be damaged any further by implementing a system of checks and balances? 

Mindy - Understood - I am happy for you!

Jeanna - Thanks so much for your supportive comments.  I was kinda surprised at how many people were vehemently opposed to this idea, actually.

Margaret - You left me hanging!  Send me an email or something.  I would love to hear your thoughts!

Mara - In a word, yes.  I am certainly not trying to assert that the majority of agents are liars, because I don't believe that.  However, I do think that there are enough bad apples in the bunch that having a system of checks and balances wouldn't hurt things.

Peter - Thanks!

Russ - Yep.  Thanks for your supportive comment.

Becky - I hate to sound jaded, but you may be right - perhaps you just haven't been burned enough times yet, or maybe you live in an area where this truly doesn't happen as often.  I like positivity, though, and I am not trying to sound negative, just realistic.  Sadly, I don't think that these bad agents are the "distinct minority", at least not based on the anecdotal evidence that I have seen, read, and experienced. 

Sandy - Thanks!  Yes, I really do think that something could be implemented to stop them.  Perhaps I am just an incredible optimist, but then again I don't think I would have believed it when I was a kid if someone told me that I would be able to type words on a screen and broadcast them to the entire world.  :)

Jeff - To be sure, this idea is something that I have never spent hours considering (until today, that is).  I do think it has merit, but it would have to be discussed and tweaked to make it work correctly. 

Christine - I don't think that any new confidentiality issues would arise that don't already exist in the average real estate office, but perhaps they could be bonded.  I sincerely don't understand how the seller could be harmed by honesty, since the raw numbers on the contract would never be divulged.  I can't think of a single client who would find this harmful.  How do you think it would be detrimental to sellers?

Gary - I LOVE that idea, especially since title companies are always looking for ways to add value for us, following the regulations here in Texas about not paying for marketing materials, etc.  Great thought!

Diane - If it is left in my hands, I might just make it happen myself.

Dan - It's a good and valuable story to use, and memorable as well.  Thanks for sharing that one.  You are spot-on with how to handle a "multiple offer" situation.

Regina - I think you are the sixth or seventh person to mention the REO stuff.  I think this should be pitched in that arena first.  I like the broker field idea, too!

Dorie - There is no question that it's a sad commentary on our industry - thanks for your supportive comment!

Jennifer - I agree with part of your comment, since there are a handful of agents who are known for this and get a bad reputation.  However, there is so much turnover in our business (at least here) that there is always a fresh crop of bad agents to discern.

Jason - I don't know if NAR is the right way to go or not, but I think it would be helpful.  More than likely, it wouldn't harm sellers at all, because buyer's agents would learn to just call and figure out where things stand, regardless of whether there is an offer on the table or not.

Claudia - I like doing that, too, especially since it's really the only tool that any of us has to determine what the best move is for our clients.  I am happy for you that you haven't had to deal with many dishonest agents.  I seem to attract them during my transactions.

Jason - I am happy that I got you thinking!  That was really the primary reason for writing this post in the first place.

Jay - Wow!  It sounds like this topic struck a chord with you.  Thanks for sharing this info/post with others in your area.  As you indicated, things are tougher in bigger markets, at least in my own experience.  I agree with your point about God being the ultimate third party in our dealings.  Sadly, many of the most unethical agents around are often the most successful, too. 

Roland - Clearly, I am not sure yet either, but I do think the idea has merit.  Every consumer that I have shared this with has been very excited.

Frank/Sharon - I like John's technique as well, and it's one that I received on an offer this week here in Austin.  I thought it was a stroke of genius.  I only disagree with your last statement - often, I have witnessed listing agents who "get away with" stuff that their clients don't know about.  Case in point, I had a client who was interested in a home a few years ago, but the buyer's agent commission was 1/2 of what I typically receive.  The owner had no idea that it was unusual.  The listing agent just decided to "share" his big discount with the other agent unilaterally.  Clearly, this guy had no interest in working with other agents - he wanted all of the commission himself.  Clients are not always aware of what's going on, sadly.

Lisa - It's the same here in Austin - we can access a lot of basic info via the history.

Miriam - That does sound pretty extreme, but I guess I could understand it in some cases.  I wouldn't do it myself, but desperation causes people to do odd things sometimes.

Randall - Overall, I agree that regulation can only do so much, but why not make it a little tougher for people to openly lie?

Craig - Thanks for your comment - I had edited the post at the end yesterday to reflect the fact that this would probably only work if the offers went directly to the outside party, rather than depending on the listing agent to forward paperwork, etc.

Svetlana - I think you are about the 8th person on this thread to express frustration about REO properties.  If nothing else, there is definitely a need for some type of accountability there.  You said, "This idea is kind of unrealistic also because the sellers can put specific condition of non-disclosing information about any offers received into a listing agreement."  You are correct - sellers are the ones who can authorize this, but how many sellers would specifically place a clause like that into a listing agreement or prohibit their agent from disclosing the existence of offers?  How would they even know to do this?  I have never seen nor even heard of this during my 12-year career.  Furthermore, an agent who counsels his client not to disclose the existence of other offers clearly has self-interest in mind, NOT a fiduciary relationship.  Why else would you withhold that information?  I don't think the fact that it's possible for a seller to do this would make the idea unrealistic in any way.

Brady - Let's face it - banks are making life hard for many of us these days.  I would like to say that I am surprised, but I'm not. 

Stacey-Ann - You are one among many commenters here who is having issues with bank-owned properties.  I guess I need to figure out how to pitch this idea there.

Tina - True.  I wish the need wasn't even there.

Andrew - I agree that is the only method right now, but what if buyers really were protected more during negotiations? 

Mark - I don't think most of us are fans of NAR these days.  I like the "challenge" idea that you propose, and I agree that the coffers are probably very full now at both the local and national level.

Kristi - I edited the post after Bill's comment to indicate that the offers should go directly to the service/system rather than the listing agent, which would dispel this problem.  At the very least, it would require much more effort to circumvent, along with the help of lenders, etc.

Casey - Feel free to suggest that to the guys in charge if you like.  Thanks for noticing, and for your extra comment!

Georgia - I think I like the idea of starting locally first, perhaps by adding something to the MLS.  Richard Weisser wrote an interesting post on this, and I got a great comment on Twitter about the same thing.  What if buyer's agents could just click a button that says, "I have submitted an offer on this property"?  We all have unique logins, so it could easily be tracked, much like lockboxes. 

Ted - You are correct.  This can certainly happen sometimes, but at least those are situations when it's the truth causing it!

Barb - I love this idea, frankly.  I think I may propose something along those lines in our local MLS.

Erica - Sadly, I agree with you.  :)

Renee - It sounds like the easiest and perhaps best solution to this problem.

Kevin and Monica - Thanks for your input!

Michael - I have a similar saying, although on a different topic.  Real estate is not as easy as it seems when you're not doing it, nor as hard as it seems when you are.

Anne - Thanks for your strong words of support!

Zilkia - I guess that's why I would opt to remove the source of the original problem from the equation if possible.

Darren - I haven't ever been present when an offer of mine is presented, although I would love to be there.  It's not common practice in this area.  Thanks for your input!

Libby - I think the quickest solution would be something in the MLS controlled by the buyer's agents who have actually submitted offers.  A button/field accessible only with an MLS login seems like an easy fix.

Pat - It seems like that is simply the modus operandi of a LOT of agents out there, but many times they are just shooting themselves in the foot!

Kathie - I sincerely don't see how telling the truth is harmful to the seller.   I am not recommending that a running tally of offers be maintained, just whether or not there are any CURRENT offers.  I wish I knew all of the dishonest agents here, but I don't.  I have run across a good number of them over the past 12 years, but there are 10,000 agents, with new ones coming in (and some leaving) all the time.  I am not looking to burden anyone with a lot of extra work - what about a button that a buyer's agent could click on within the MLS to indicate that they have placed an offer? 

George - Thanks for your support on this idea!