NAR Policy - a hurdle for discount brokerages?

Elaine...I echo Ann...maybe we ought to ask them how they feel about?

Our website pulls the IDX feed from MLS...all of it. Buyers can search all listed properties...as far as I know the only high lighted listings are our personal company listings and that is done on a rotating basis...all our inventory gets highlighted not just a few.

Mark Nadel wrote: 
< "On the other hand, when all the major brokers in a community meet and at least tacitly agree to omit listings of those attempting to compete on price, the situation is very different.  When the "social norms" of a group of competing brokers dictate that any broker who breaks from that tacit agreement and includes all listings and advertises that fact is shunned or otherwise "punished" for offering consumers what they may want, then one is no longer talking about individual decision making.  Rather, one is talking about informal group enforcement of agreements in violation of current laws against anticompetitive actions." >

Mark, is this something you just ASSUME goes on, or was this written because you've actually encountered this?  Making that kind of generalization and/or assumption on your part is rotten.  That is not a "social norm" as you put it, and I would dare say you've said that without any factual basis.  Brokers everywhere understand that that would be a violation of the anti-trust laws.  "Social norms"??  I would beg to differ,  UNLESS you have actual facts that this kind of behavior has occurred somewhere.  And should you have actual facts rather than just some broad assumption you've made, based on what I have no clue, then those brokers involved in that kind action should be in trouble for their actions.

If you could please clarify what facts you have to substantiate what you wrote, I'm sure many here would love to hear them.  And if no such facts exist, then we'd surely love to hear what has caused you to make a statement like that, stating that kind of behavior is "social norms".

Thank you,
Ann Cummings

As a follow-up to my "analogy", I can't think of any other industry where competing companies get together for the benefit of the consumer to provide them with helpful, usable information. I don't mean the aggregators that might compile information, I mean the actual companies. Only the real estate industry does this!

What our brokers do by cooperating with each other (via the MLS) would be the equivalent of the car companies coming together as a group to provide one web site (a car version of Realtor.com) where consumers could shop. Like THAT's going to happen! And even if they did, what if Kia decided they didn't want to pay the fees to participate in the web site. Would GM or Toyota be accused of discriminating against the little discounter Kia for not including Kia if they didn't want pay up?

Ann, I totally agree with you. He lost me when he used the word "assume" and we all know what that means.

Elaine - GREAT follow-up.  We ARE the only industry that works TOGETHER to benefit consumers.  The problem is, those that are, for whatever reason(s), anti-REALTOR and NAR bashers prefer to promulgate false information so that we're perceived as just the opposite.  For the life of me, I canNOT understand why they persist in that manner, and what they have to gain by doing so.

Ann

Mark - as with any business or industry, there are, and will always be, a few bad apples, but a few bad apples and a few examples and/or articles read that may or may not be backed by factual evidence do not an industry make.  Please DO NOT paint our industry with a broad brush as you did with your assumed 'social norms' statement. 

There are over 1,000,000 REALTORS in this country, and the overwhelming majority are good decent hard-working people who work with the best interest of the consumer at the forefront of everything we do.  There are all kinds of business models being utilized by all those members.  Most of us do the very best we can, treating others with respect and with the adage of "The Golden Rule" in mind. 

Someone could take that same broad brush you used and paint journalists with it, car salespeople, lawyers, insurance salespeople, and any other profession, all could be painted with the same kind of broad brush you used in your initial comment.  Now would that be fair, and would it speak to the majority of folks engaged in those professions fairly?  I think not. 

Ann

Quoted from an earlier comment:  "This is some of the evidence upon which I base my assumption that there is often a social norm in a community that leads all the major brokers to agree to exclude the listings of brokers who attempt to compete on price."

A couple of examples do not create a "social norm" nor do they indict an industry as a whole.

Maureen wrote:   "Am I missing something? Is there a hurdle there I don't see?"

Maureen - I neglected that question in your post when I read the comments that followed.  There isn't any hurdle that you're missing.......there are entities that are looking for hurdles that just don't exist.

Ann

Mark: I feel at a disadvantage here, since I don't know you ... do you work for the WSJ? ... are you a lawyer? ... are you a university professor? In other words, what is your knowledge base for our industry? I'm sure it would be helpful for us here to know that in order to properly evaluate your comments and credibility. Now, given that I'm unaware of your background or expertise, I offer the following comments/questions:

• You mention that consumers don't assume or don't want to receive ALL the news from WSJ. Do you have market research data to back up that claim or is it your assumption? Likewise, do you have market research data that shows that consumers expect to receive a complete list of homes on each and every broker's site? It's been my experience that buyer's think they are only viewing a given broker's listings on the broker's site, and are surprised when I tell them that competitor's listings are there as well. That's not my assumption ... it's based on real conversations.
• You mention there are web sites that show competing goods. The sites you mention are aggregators, not the competitors themselves. In our industry an aggregator would be a Zillow or a Craig's List. Likewise, the MLS's and Realtor.com are web sites where actual competitors are coming together to cooperate to make the information available to consumers. Brokers pay fees to the MLS and NAR, plus, expend a great deal of money on their own individual sites to be able to give the consumer this information. Should those brokers be required to list the home of someone who does not pay those same fees or reciprocate with sharing of info on web sites? Should the WSJ give their competitor's a free classified ad? It's the same thing.
• You accuse brokers of "coming together" to exclude certain other brokers. That is a very dangerous assumption, and one I believe, is totally inaccurate. Brokers are free to choose what is listed on their own site. It would be illegal (collusion) for them to "get together" to block certain other brokerages.
• My state's law requires that I provide a buyer with an Agency Disclosure form prior to showing them homes or getting them pre-qual'd or pre-approved. That form is required to cover the state law with the buyer as well as the individual broker's agency policy. Additionally, there is a BBA that is covered with the buyer as well. Both these forms require the buyer's signature, indicating that the information was disclosed to them.
• You mention that you have access to ONE e-mail from an agent. Again, you're painting with a broad brush in assuming that we're all like that one agent. Sure, we all know bad agents like that. But for every bad agent there are thousands of good agents who adhere to all laws, and take their fiduciary duty to their clients very seriously. Would you want us to judge YOUR OWN industry by the actions of one or two people?
• The main point that you and the DOJ seem to miss on the discussion of discounters, is not due to resistance to different business models. Rather it has to do with those models requiring that we must do twice the work for half the money to uphold our fiduciary duty. It's where the "rubber meets the road". If the discounter provides a means to set up showings (like actually answering their phones), or is available to take and present offers (even if it's after 5 pm), and watches the contract due dates, and arranges for the closing, and has run a Seller's Net Equity review to ensure the seller has the money to pay off their liens so we can actually close, then I've no problem if they choose to do this at a reduced commission. That's their business. But if I have to do all that work for them to make sure my buyer is able to buy the home they want, then I want to be paid for my work. Do CPA's charge based on the number of tax forms they have to do? Do lawyers charge by the hours including phone calls? Do you thinks either of these professionals would agree to "bite the bullet" and do twice the work for the same or less amount of money????
• You mention that the stock exchange provides a similar exchange of information that our industry does. While I agree there is a similarity, there is one key difference, and that is that there is no FSBO in the stock exchange. You and the DOJ are wanting us to be responsible for showing ALL homes, including FSBO's. How can we show something we're not aware of? Do you expect us to drive all the neighborhoods and call all the FSBO's to see what their price is on any given day? Would you expect the stock brokers to do this? Are you certain that every single stock broker tries to sell ALL available stocks or funds, regardless of the fees they will earn?
• Now, before you say that FSBO's not having access to the MLS is the problem, (as in my last bullet point), I refer you to the bullet topic of paying the fees for reciprocal information. 

Perhaps, it might be beneficial for you to come out to the Midwest and actually spend a month shadowing an agent to get a truer picture of Life as a Realtor®, then see if your assumptions or hypothesis is still viable. I would ask that you "walk a mile in our shoes" before you make your assumptions of ALL of us as an industry. Isn't that a fair request?

How did I miss this one?

Anybody put Mark Nadel into the Google search engine?

Interesting results.

I couldn't either...interesting don't ya think?

Go Pats!!!!!