Has NWMLS gone too far banning "Coming Soons"?

Michael,

I read your "coming soon" section on your website. You're an interesting guy. It was great chatting with you.

Many and probably most of my clients work at either Microsoft or Google. I cexpect our markets and consequently our viewpoints, are somewhat different for that reason But I enjoyed readying your comments.

thanks, ardell

so i'm guessing that the google crew isn't sharing with you their plan to have an MLS like product.  like all their stuff it will be very well featured (even if it is creepily all seeing) and i am sure it will be disruptive at the molecular level.  if we have an entity to fear as "keepers of the data"...it will be google.

Michael,

hmmm...hard to respond to that without going too far afield. We don't want to be "keepers of the data". We do want broader and broadest exposure of all data to all people via any and all means. I'm using The Queen's "WE" here. 

The Zillow's and Trulia's are important to the overall growth of data as they better capture transactions done outside of the mls and even bank owned properties that are not yet for sale and to some extent soon to be bank owned properties. 

So Zillow and Trulia and the like are NOT in conflict with us and while they may not have all of the mls listed properties, they have more of the non-mls listed properties than most brokerage sites. So anyone looking to buy or sell does not really have a one stop shop site. They need to use a Brokerage site like Redfin coupled with Zillow and Trulia and possibly Craigslist. Different areas in the Country may have different sites to complete a comprehensive picture of the data. Here Redfin plus Zillow is fairly comprehensive. The Zillow "Make Me Move" listings are at least in part the "Coming Sooner or Later" data.

The only thing to fear is the letting go of ethics and Fair Housing and the loftier duties of agents vs non-agents. We should never fear not being the Property Monger. That is why if you could care less about Fair Housing, then we don't need an mls at all. If we are not about the myriad of rules that govern how buyers and their agents conduct themselves in people's (sellers') homes. If we are not about the myriad of rules and laws that govern the fair and optimal treatment of all homebuyers in this Country...well then it is simple. We should not be at all. If we are merely "a business", then the Realtor Organization and "the mls" is dead. 

We may in fact be headed in that direction, and when all agents are saying (like you) that this is just a business and we can keep all the commission (exclude buyer representation) and we can sell to whomever the seller wants to sell to (Fair Housing a non-issue), then it is time to unravel the whole ball and toss it over to the truly private, capitalist, sector.

I don't think we are there yet. But if we move to only what is best for brokerages without an element of public trust, then the DOJ should simply disband the whole operation. Without loftier goals and duties to the people of this Country generally...we are nothing.

Frank,

Joe Agent wants to be a member of your facebook group BUT he only wants to be a member so as to obtain properties that are not yet listed for the benefit of his buyer clients. He NEVER wants to share any of his listings in your group as he either wants to find his own buyer or put in the mls for mls members to bring a buyer.

Is that OK with you? Someone who either never lists a house like an EBA or someone who never wants to share his property before it is listed for sale?

How about an agent you know personally who hates your guts and says he will NEVER let one of his sellers accept an offer from one of your buyer clients?

Is there no basis for which you would exclude someone from your group? Is ALL really a fair representation? Are you checking to make sure that the members are licensed? How do you know if their license to sell real estate was ever obtained or continues to be valid? Let's say an agent loses their license and wants to use your group to stay in the busness because the mls knocked him out when the license was taken away? How would you know, especially if that member of your group is on the other side of the Country?

There's a lot more to an mls than data. While you asked about Fair Housing specifically, the issue is about inclusion and exclusion and I don't think you are being 100% factual when you say open to ALL or maybe ALL includes more people than it should. The many threads of an mls include a lot of checks and balances. It's not a big free for all where someone can slip in and sell without a license or be excluded because they mostly or exclusively work with buyers and never sellers. 

If someone is only there to be a fly on the wall and see if there are any properties for their buyer clients and 90% only take and don't ever give a property in...how will you handle that?

...and now Frank we are back to where we started before you wrote this post. What IS an "mls"?

The true cost of an mls and of licensing is not about the business of selling or the data keeping. The data is primarily entered by the people who are paying the dues. The system that manages the data for the most part is almost always a 3rd party vendor cost. The cost of licensing and the mls that is attributed to the entities that govern us is to oversee us to be sure we are complying with all of the loftier goals of our "business". That includes Fair Housing, Agency Laws, how we conduct ourselves in other people's homes (sellers) and how we represent the people who are buying them...and last but not least...how we treat one another.

it is a business.   we do it for money.  in the immortal words of jerry garcia "...and you know i'm only in it for the gold".  if you didn't get paid, you wouldn't do it.  let's not pretend otherwise.  lofty goals are great but one must also pay the bills.   if your trade area is a hotbed of fair housing violations then this is the first i am hearing of it.  i read the internet...they have it on computers now.  (extra credit for the pop-culture reference there)

folks avail themselves of the zillows and such to avoid paying commissions...good for them.  i encourage everyone to reduce their expenses and maximize their revenues.  i try to do that every day.  it's what keeps me profitable.

i didn't say i exclude buyer representation...just that i seek to keep all the commissions and not play splitsies.  the vast majority of my sales have been through the MLS...but that doesn't mean i try like hell to avoid that.  the tone i hear is that agents seem to have sense of entitlement to gross commissions.  whenever i hear the term "fair share" i groan and see Obama jacking my wallet. 

unlike frank, i would have his righteous kick-ass plan open to all comers.  i've learned over the years that sellers gladly pay commissions to buyers agents...they see them as the ones doing the heavy lifting.  of course that's probably not accurate but that's what sellers think and if you try to disabuse them of their opinion it is not time well spent.

going surfing

aloha, all

for those keeping score the references contained above included jerry garcia, mary shelley, carl spackler the groundskeeper from Caddyshack and homer simpson...the four major media food groups, music, literature, movies and TV.  until, that is,  our modern era...where all bets are off. 

hey ardell...wait darn minute.  this following blurb is from your activerain profile...bold emphasis added...i am cornfused.  are you saying that YOU like to present your clients with homes that are not for sale but no one else should?

Buying a home and the home search process has gone way beyond looking at what is "for sale".  Often it involves the home listed 30 minutes ago and finding property that is not for sale.  Life has changed and me and my clients run at the top fo the ridge in that regard.  No old fashioned real estate except for my "having their back" part.

i am sure as the sunrise that you have your clients back but have you ceased the seeking of homes not yet listed for sale so as to not be unfair to your breatheren in the trade?  all the homes i have as pocket listings are not listed and are so not formally for sale.  but they're available for sale.  do we need a new classification?  which gubmint bureaucrat should we appoint to Czar that department?

i say any agent that doesn't seek every advantage for their client needs to rethink their suitability as an agent.

There is a very small percentage of agents on these Facebook sites.  While these premls sites are open to all very few will ever know about them.  This is where Fair Housing issues will come into play.  The exclusion of buyer's that are in  protected classes.  It is not the agent that is being discriminated against but rather their buyer.....HUD just announced a new incentive where Fair Housing investigations are going to be stepped up, where HUD is no longer going to just investigate complaints but are going to go out into the communities and start their own investigations.  

How will you handle an agent who is discriminating and deliberately withholding properties from the MLS who decides to use your site to sell their lsitings?  That agent knows who is in the group and who might show it...it is not an inclusive group of everyone, the MLS, having accesss.

Frank...my account has not been hacked. I may not use AR often and haven't updated it much, but no...not hacked. I have no secrets and I stand by anything and everything I have ever said. 

As I was trying to explain to you when we spoke before you wrote this post, being a member of an mls is basically a promise to list in the mls anything that CAN BE listed in the mls. It doesn't have to be spelled out for most members. It's pretty much understood. 

That does NOT mean that every listing can BE in the mls or that every buyer has to only buy a house that is IN the mls. Clearly if you are assisting a buyer purchase at foreclosure, as example, that property can't go IN the mls. We are licensed to help people buy and sell, and people need us to address all of their needs, whether or not a property can be IN the mls. Not all can.

I have worked with at least 6 different mls systems, probably more. Not all have the same criteria as to what can be IN and what cannot be in. To the best of my knowledge (I don't want to become the private spokesperson for any particular mls system) the one I belong to does not allow a listing to be entered if the property is already in contract. I have actually had people hire me who are already in contract...so that clearly would not be IN the mls as I was not even involved until the buyer and seller already knew one another and no agents...or at least no buyer's agent. 

Many mls systems, as noted in the comments here, want all properties entered even if they are pending when entered, because they want to expand the data source for appraisers. Each mls sets their own rules as to what can be IN and what cannot be in.

What I was trying to explain to you, and now to Michael too, is the agent is not supposed to encourage sellers to not be in the mls. That does not mean every property can be in the mls.

My off market transactions include a property that I did have on market, it did not sell on market, the owner was being deployed to Iraq, and his parents bought it so they could relieve him of the responsibility and rent it out for him while he was in the service. Not an mls transaction. 

My off market transactions include a property that had a long term lease and the tenants would not grant the seller the ability to show the property. The lease only gave the seller access in order to sell or find a new tenant near the end of the lease. Also the place was in pretty bad shape with 4 to 6 people living in a small space and you could barely walk in the place. No ability to prep it for market for only a few buyers who would buy it subject to the lease. That is the one Michael is referring to. My client bought it as an investment property, the tenants stayed through the one time we were able to see inside, and the tenants did grant permission for us to see it once as my client became their landlord and they needed to meet him. Not eligible to be in the mls as there was no provision for agents to show the property. As many have said, you can't list a property in many mls systems that do not grant the members the ability to show it. Not all mls systems have that rule. When I worked in CA Beach Cities South of LAX, we did not have that rule as there were more cash investors buying tear down homes they did not need to go into because they were going to demolish it anyway.

I mentioned a recent one in a previous comment that is ongoing. The property is technically not marketable due to a cloud on Title. Has to be done off market. I have had a couple of those. If the seller has an obstacle to conveying clear Title, usually not a good idea to put it in the mls rather than find a buyer who is willing to work through the crisis point. In both of those that I can think of, I represented the buyers and not the sellers.

As an AGENT and MEMBER of an MLS, as I have stated, it is IN or it is NOT in. NOT in has to be due to an unusual circumstance of the seller or the property. It can't be because Michael wants to make more money or because Frank wants to circumvent the MLS. But there are clearly properties sold by licensed individuals that are not IN and cannot be IN "the mls".

Michael,

You said you support the buyer haveing equal and separate representation by a licensed and expert advocate of his choice (paraphrased) BUT you want to KEEP the money by double ending that is provided for that buyer's separate representation. You can't have it both ways. Which is it?

Every seller who lists a property in the mls provides a means by which any buyer can hire their own agent to represent them and to pay that person. How can you fully support buyers having their own agent...and the money to pay that agent IN the transaction...but NOT want any "splitsies". You are contradicting yourself there. Think about it. 

I do not believe you will be able to see what I am talking about Michael. But that "split" is there to pay for the buyers full and equal representation. If the buyer does not want a Dual Agent...they do not have to accept Dual Agency. "Splitsies", which I think is how you put it, is about the buyer having his own and not shared with the seller, agent and ANY agent the buyer chooses...not the one the seller or you chose "for him".

ardell you have a convenient way of not letting yourself be informed by specific statements that are difficult to reconcile with your slant which occurs to me to be at least slightly political in nature.  please reread everything i wrote and refrain from editorializing.  ther's no need to paraphase anything i ever say...i try to use the language with great precision.   i also try to spell correctly,  thanks to the good sisters at st. cecilias school.  to ascribe nefarious intent due merely to your suspicious nature is wrong of you.

splitsies is NOT there so i can assure the buyers get skilled representation it's there to induce the buyers agent to peddle my goods.   an MLS entry lets me piggyback off of every buyer seeking marketing dollar going back for months.  the buyers agency relationships are none of my concern.

my perfect willingness to share commissions by way of the MLS is not the same as my desire to NOT share.  i also don't prefer to share half of every burrito i order.

simply put, i try to sell every property i list...despite my mighty efforts i've only double ended four or five in more than twenty years.  interestingly, two have been in the last thirty days.  i am thrilled that i did so.   i need the money for surfboards and airline tickets and electric guitars and craft brews and tipping dancers and college tuition for the kids and a new glock and some tires for the motorcycles and the trucks.  wow...i really need to get to work.

now here's the funnest part of it all...ready...here is the Big Fun...i am CERTAIN that the buyers came directly to me on  those recent deals by way of a data feed that was shotgunned out by way of the MLS that all of us pay for.  so it is a truth that the MLS fed the data to some outlet that wedged it into the buyers email box.   fortunately for me those unfair-advantage-taker-of-er's called me, AND SINCE I ANSWER MY PHONE,  got to see the homes and compose their offers and have them presented.   think about that...my MLS circumvented ALL the non datafeed clients AND THEIR AGENTS...and gave the tech savvy clients WHOM I HAD NEVER MET what amounted to a full days headstart...in my case those two buyers got the deal because they picked up the phone and got moving toot sweet (that's tout de suite for the frenchies).   more cynically put, the MLS delivered other agents clients directly to me at the request of the clients.  one did remark that they had an agent but preferred for their reasons to deal directly.  note to self...remember to always answer the phone...its a payday calling.    once more, once...the MLS that  the agents pay for delivered their buyers to  the list agent.  oh the irony!  if that is to be stopped the MLS's will need to stop selling the feeds.  good luck with that.

this takes me back to an earlier query which was not responded to...DO YOU PROPOSE AN OBAMAPHONE AND A DATA FEED FOR THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE THAT CAPABILITY?    clearly in two recent first hand instances the "disadvantaged" had little chance of getting into the shacks, much less being there soon enough to be timely with an offer.  there are many elements to an offer that make it a good one or a bad one.  the ability to move quickly and deal conveniently was a factor among those that were persuasive. 

if franks llosa's plan to aid the more savvy buyers agents seems like an end-around the MLS...well then consider that hermen hesse said "people with courage and conviction always seem sinister to the rest".  if i was doing some serious (or exclusive) buyer business i'd be willing to pay to play that game. 

herman hesse?  wasn't he on WKRP in cincinnatti?

Michael,

When I find an off market house for a buyer client, I do not represent the seller. I can only list property for a seller, not for a buyer. Only the agent for the seller can list a property in the mls.

I understand where you are coming from Michael. This is not my first rodeo.

You said: "splitsies is NOT there so i can assure the buyers get skilled representation it's there to induce the buyers agent to peddle my goods."

The buyer's agent would clearly be in violation of agency law to be so induced. No buyer is hiring an agent to help you "peddle your goods".

But I CLEARLY understand where you are coming from...and I am lucky to live and work in a place where fewer of that thinking are practicing. But it is clearly not foreign to me. I have been in the busness since before there was buyer agency, when we all represented sellers. Some think we are still working in that environment, mainly because the forms have not changed in that regard. 

As I said earlier "I do not believe you will be able to see what I am talking about Michael.". The ONLY reason the contract agrees to pay the TWO fees, one for the Agent for the Seller and one to the Agent for the Buyer...to the Listing Brokerage...is because the Agent for the Buyer is an unknown entity at the time the home is listed for sale. Some day all will understand that, or the system will be dismantled. Your choice.

In this area there are very few holdouts who don't "get" that and someday soon we should stop calling the Agent for the Seller the "listing" agent and the Agent for the Buyer the "selling" agent. Sad, archaic, crap...and why does that continue in this day and age?

Maybe Frank can tell us. :) Hey Frank! Are you the "Listing Agent" if you don't intend to "list it"? :)

I also looked at your site Michael and at your "Coming Soons".  Twenty years ago I worked in a community where lots of agents held exclusives in house in an attempt to sell the properties themselves.  What that meant to buyer's was the need to sign up on every brokerage website or have an agent in every brokerage in order to not lose out on one of those listings.  Some buyer's ended up with 10 o more agents because of this.  You state they must not be working with another agent or you will not deal with them meaning that if they have an agent and have been working with that agent for a long period of time they need to drop that agent in order to see your property.  It means that if they want to buy your Coming Soon they have no choice about having their buyer's agent represent them in the transaction.  Their rights are being taken away, their freedom of choice is being taken away.  Seems to me forcing consumers to do things your way may not be the best move....

I wonder how this was resolved?  Seems as an outsider to this mls that if the Client requests a certain activity and you have their permission that the Client is in charge. How was this resolved?

Like MaryBeth Mills Muldowney ... ditto.

Andrew and MaryBeth, if you are asking as to NWMLS policy, there is nothing to "resolve". No pre-marketing is the rule and a complaint from a Virginia Broker is not likely going to impact the rules here. Participating in Zillow's "Coming Soon" is a violation here. Pre-marketing is a violation here. 

Where we once had to list a property within 24 hours of getting a listing agreement signed, we now have up to 30 days to get the house ready, staged, photos, etc. The trade off for having enough time after the contract is signed to do our jobs well, is we can't try to sell it after we have a listing contract and before we put it in the mls. Seems fair to me. 

Back when we only had 24 hours to list from the time the listing contract was signed, we did not have the "no pre-marketing" rule. They went hand in hand. No resolution needed as far as I can see. The only gray area that I have seen is when the property was listed as a For Sale by Owner by the owner, prior to an agent being hired.