Realtors, Prepare to Lose Your 6 Percent

by: Jeff Jarvis May 28, 2008    

Jeff Jarvis

About this author:
Become a Contributor Submit an Article
  • Font Size:
  • Print

The monopolistic hold big real estate agents have had on information — on access to use multiple listings services — has been blown open at last thanks to the Justice Department’s antitrust settlement with the National Association of Realtors.

Kiss your 6 percent commission good-bye, Ms. Agent! Competition is on the way.

The only reason — only reason — that Realtors could hold onto their high commission for such little value and work is that they kept information away from the marketplace, making it inefficient. To quote Umair Haque (sorry, no link; I’m pulling this from my manuscript):

Competitive advantage is fundamentally about making markets work less efficiently. One catastrophically effective way to do that is to hide and obscure information – to gain bargaining power relative to the guy on the other side of the table. . . .

A world of cheap, abundant, always-on interaction, where value is shifting to the edges, demands a fresh understanding of what’s truly strategic and what’s not.

Here’s a quick example. Where orthodox strategy advises hiding information and making things less liquid, what does edge strategy advise? Exactly the opposite: release information bottlenecks and make things more liquid.

What Craig Newmark realized is that listings — for sale, for rent, for hire — are the property of the market. By making that efficient and extracting the minimum value from it, craigslist grew huge. When Craig spoke with our students at CUNY recently, telling them about some of his other activities, the students asked him why he wouldn’t maximize the value of craigslist, then sell it for billions, then use that fortune for his philanthropic investment. Craig said that he believes he is doing more good leaving the internet dividend he created in the economy. Buyer and seller, directly connected by Craig or by Google, keep more money from transactions. The middlemen — agents and newspapers — suffer but more people benefit.

This new economy can now come to real estate sales as information become freer. Oh, it’s not fully freed yet. But I do believe that the combination of this settlement and what it does to empower discount players and the depressed real estate market will combine to finally shove dynamite up Realtors’ rears.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch. A 2008 survey by the British Journalism Review found that estate agents in the UK are the least-trusted profession, worse even than tabloid reporters; only 10 percent of Britons trust them.

Freakonomics demonstrated how real estate agents’ interests are not aligned with their clients. “A real-estate agent may see you not so much as an ally but as a mark,” wrote Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner. They cited a study that found that real-estate agents keep their own homes on the market an average of 10 days longer than homes they represent and sell them at prices 3 percent higher. Levitt and Dubner explained that it’s more efficient for agents if they can get you to sell quickly, even though, from your perspective, that is clearly a less efficient marketplace because it doesn’t get you maximum and true value. “Here,” they wrote, “is the agent’s main weapon: the conversion of information into fear.” That is to say, the control of information leads to inefficient marketplaces. But in the long run, Zillow is becoming far smarter than the smartest agent because it knows more thanks to the aggregation of our data about sales. On the internet, more information equals more value.

The Times said:

Real estate agents earned $93 billion in commissions in 2006, with a median commission of about $11,600, Justice Department officials said. Internet brokers, offering pared-down services, provided average rebates of 1 percent on commissions that normally ran 5 or 6 percent, translating into thousands of dollars per sale. . . .

The National Association of Realtors, with more than 1.2 million members, said that the settlement was “a win-win” for both the real estate industry and consumers. It noted that the association admitted no wrongdoing and paid no fines or damages as part of the deal.

Laurie Janik, the [National Association of Realtors] general counsel, said in a telephone interview that the settlement would have no real impact on home buyers or sellers.

“I don’t think they’ll see anything different,” she said. “This lawsuit never had anything to do with commission rates, or discount brokerages.”

Bullshit. Competition is coming. Information will get freer. Rates will decline. Homes will be worth more. A more efficient marketplace is good for buyer and seller but not middleman. We’re finally headed in the right direction. The Times concludes:

Norman Hawker, a business professor at Western Michigan University who organized a symposium on the Justice Department litigation as a senior fellow for the American Antitrust Institute, predicted that the settlement would ultimately mean a drop in sales commissions of 25 percent to 50 percent as a result of increased competition.

“It’s pretty clear that there was an enormous amount of discrimination against brokers who were trying to use innovative business models,” including discounted fees and virtual offices on the Internet, he said. “There are lots of entrepreneurs who have been looking for a green light in the form of this order to begin offering discounted rates. It has the potential to be a big step forward for consumers.”

When I write posts decrying the wasteful sloth of real estate agent commissions, I invariably get a cadre of agents - more often, actually, their defensive husbands - saying I just don’t understand the value they bring. I say that if they have to explain their value, then it is empty. They do not deserve 6 percent commissions and soon they won’t get them. Heh.

Related Articles

This article has 58 comments:

  •  
    May 28 10:02 AM
    It's a bit interesting that at a time when the commission rates will likely fall that real estate agents have had to work harder than they've ever had in the last 10 years. We hired an agent last year to fill a commercial property vacancy and he actually had to do a lot of leg work. I started to feel like he was actually earning his commission (which was not 6%).
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 11:04 AM
    Licenses are gov't promises to limit competition, not to protect consumers. As a Monopoly protection racket, maybe the worst case is Under the Louisiana Department of Agriculture, you'll find Floral Licenses. the board that certifies the license is made up of individuals who have a vested interest in designers NOT getting a license. It really only adds up to their preventing you from becoming their competition. And while I'm on lic.laws, why do people need marriage licenses? Why do people ask permission from the govt for holy matrimony? Peace Out
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 11:42 AM
    There is no such thing as a six percent commission unless the consumer agrees to one, all commissions are negotiable and always have been negotiable. Other options have always been available to any consumer such as for sale by owner or using a lawyer. My second point is that the only information realtors keep from the public is for security reasons things like alarm codes. Any other information is available to the public and can be found and has been available to anyone who wanted to take the time to look it up or ask for it. Local real estate boards take the time to compile this information and present it to their members in a single web site for which realtors pay a fee. I am a broker who is not a realtor and I am able to perform my business in any manor that I choose as long as I follow the state laws. This ruling will do nothing and will not change anything.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 12:59 PM
    billb,

    I agree that a commercial agent will have to work harder than a residential one simply because the number of buyers for a property like that is significantly lower. I imagine they earn their commission.

    As for residential agents, I think nowadays the buyers (not buyers agent) tend to do a lot of the leg work themselves. Having online MLS listings makes it easily accessible to buyers, so they can view houses and prices without having the agent do the work for them.

    I recently sold my place with a discount agent and everything worked smoothly, saving thousands on commissions. I never understood how an agent can take 6% +3% for the little bit of work they do. I mean, if they sell only 2 houses a month they're still well off.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 04:28 PM
    The 6% commission is actually a 3/3 a commission. 3% goes to the listing agent and 3% goes to the selling agent representing the buyer. On a rare occasion the listing agent sells the home and keeps the full 6%, but it is rare. The commissions have been under attack for over a decade. Our board and MLS in Utah have never prohibited discount brokers from setting their price nor has the NAR. Discount brokers have been around forever. I know of two discount brokers who could not make it in the business because: 1) their revenue stunk 2) People end doing business with a professional who charges what their worth, most likely 6-7% split 50/50. Some even add transaction fees on top of that.
    Jeff, your article is not researched well and is more of a tirade than informational. The truth as to why it costs 6% to list your home with a competent broker is because there are too many large brokerages with in expensive office buildings. Furthermore they need more agents in the house to subsidize the high expenses. As a broker I know the game of the big brokerages. They go to the specialty schools hire an eager newbie. That newbie predictably will do 1-6 deals with family and friends in the first 6 months. The big brokerages know that the newbie will be out of the business in 4-12 months, in debt up to their eyeballs, if not bankrupt. NEXT!
    The solution which the NAR will vehemently fight against is to make it harder to get a license; The NAR likes their 1.2 million dues ($104). The states need to require: 1) at least an associate’s degrees to enter the field or 2) require that all new agents operate under an apprentice for a period of time or until certain points have been achieved. Under this model, similar to appraisers after the S&L scandal, the industry would then attract people with a sense of direction, commitment and understanding of patience and discipline. Right now we get 18-year olds to retirees who just want to earn a buck or two, “part-timers.”
    I personally have a punch-list that includes 180 items from: to-do’s, calls, meetings etc. that I do for a client and this is just a starting point, it’s customized for each client. PLUS I have to prospect for new business at some point in the week.
    Jeff, I assure you the commissions are huge but your tirade is focused on the symptom vs. the cause. Perhaps your right, the commissions will come down. But consider this: If I average more than 2 clients a month, with my system, I would have to hire one assistant for every 12 additional clients (1 averaged). This is exactly why you see the trend of “teams” in big brokerages. That 6% gets cut up like a pie. The real disservice to consumers would be cutting the commission for the sake of cutting the commission. The right thing to do is to make it harder to become an agent. Then watch the commissions go down naturally or watch the service and reputation of agents do a 180. I’ve been financially broke many a months because I truly have the clients’ best interests at heart, and didn’t sell a property even though I easily could have. I know many who fall in the same category of ethics but like all things the bad guy ruins it for the good guys.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 04:51 PM
    What an idiot.

    Because everyone knows that all agents do is post properties on a website.

    Hey, I'm getting sued - I think I'll go to court without a lawyer since all he wants is a fee to fill out paperwork.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 05:53 PM
    I never understood 3% commission each way, so you have to cover 6% of the price just to go to the agent. What a rip off. The value add was and never will be there. The only reason that this is not lower is that competition is not allowed. This is the same as stock brokers who used to charge $150 to buy 100 shares and then the discount brokers came in and fixed that.

    I always thought paying your 6% was like paying the mob a vig. Lets be serious, that percentage is more of a mob racket than a legitimate business.

    It will be nice to see real estate brokers take the hit. Their value add to the equation is not anywhere near the vig they charge. And the author is spot on, they do not provide to efficiency in the market, they hurt it.

    Plus brokers also had a nice hand in the current housing crisis. How much did they cash in during the last five years?

    As the judge says in Caddyshack, "the world needs ditch diggers." I am sure it will take a little while but we will have more ditch diggers available soon.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 07:00 PM
    "3% goes to the listing agent and 3% goes to the selling agent representing the buyer."

    WRONG at least in my state. Unless you have entered into a specific buyer agent relationship, both sides of the transactions fiduciary responsibility is to the seller. The buyer has no representation in the transaction unless it is explicitly spelled out.

    BTW It's easy to determine the posters who are agents, trying to justify their existence.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 07:39 PM
    The sacrosanct 6% commission has not been sacrosanct for a long time. As an earlier poster correctly noted, commissions have always been negotiable. What he didn't say is that, for a long time, brokers and agents simply refused to budge. That's changed, and this ruling will only accelerate the trend.

    As to the broker who posted about the "agent mill" approach to the business that has served "big brokerages" so well and concludes that raising the bar is the answer for the industry -- Amen, brother!

    Forget locationX3, the real mantra is Recruit, Recruit, Recruit! Brokers will need to re-discover that the business is about serving Homebuyers and Sellers, not flogging a handful of deals out of some poor schmuck who was stupid enough to believe that Real Estate = Easy Money, because the information monopoly that made that system work for so long is finally, legally dead.

    This will not be the end of the industry for the simple reason that, for most people, there is real value in the help a good real estate agent provides throughout the process. What will change is their attitude of "You need me" -- No, we don't, but we might choose to use you because its just easier.

    I could do my own taxes, but I don't because it stresses me out and I would wind up paying more than I do when my accountant does them. Of course, if my accountant wanted 6% of my income in exchange for his services, I'd laugh in his face. I feel that what I pay is commensurate with the service he provides.

    That's where the Real Estate industry is headed: Fewer, better qualified agents serving clients from a menu of services using technology to more efficiently handle a larger number of transactions. Perhaps those who remain standing will earn the same, or even better, money than good agents do now. We will see. We will also see what will become of all the less-than-stellar candidates that, until now, brokers were happy to run through the Agent Mill. I bet the Time Share guys, Telemarketers, and "Make Millions from Home on the Internets" folks are are about to see an influx of suckers, sad as that is.

    My guess is that some of the current crop of Real Estate ladies and gents will make the transition. The good ones are smart and (God knows) motivated enough. But over time, the new face of real estate will be younger, better educated, tech savvy, and lacking that certain MLM motivational speaker quality that clings to the industry like cigarette smoke in cloth upholstery. Over time, they might even make the profession more respectable than "British Tabloid writer"...
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 28 07:59 PM
    The brokers only used the means given to them. NINJA loans were and are stupid. Banks, Wall Street and hedge funds, not real estate brokers, caused the crisis. Plus Fannie Mae has great solutions to curb the crisis. Where are the hedge funds solutions? Clearly the brokers had no hand in the crisis other than they profited like buyers, sellers, investors and REITS alike. Did you know that there are areas of America (Iowa) that have enjoyed a steady increase in values on an average of 2.7% per year with no huge market swings? The elitist caused this crisis by handing out stupid loans allowing 54% appreciation in just 29 months (Salt Lake City).

    Real Estate Brokers might take a hit but I'm not sure what you all think is going to lower the commissions? As I stated discount brokers have been around forever. Why do you all think this is new? If Google and Zillow now have a right to our MLS data then yes that's a problem for REALTORS. Short of being forced to sell our data, nothing is stopping Google or any other entity from competing at a discounted commission or comparable commission. Folks you’re focused on the money not the problem. Bad service at any price is bad service.

    This is about the value an agent provides and whether you agree or not. You get to choose the agent! Would you like me to find you three discount brokers to interview? RIGHT NOW! There in every state, every county and every city! A good agent provides value, whether it’s worth a percentage is arguable and nothing is stopping competition. It’s like lambasting the athlete that gets 20 million a year. I bet once that pie is cut up he really takes home half the face value of the contract if that.

    Oh ya, the forms we fill in are only there because attorney generals deem most agents incompetent to pen out a clause or addenda on their own. Why not make it harder to become an agent? The NAR won't have it! Those forms were all created and paid for by agent’s dues and fees. They were NOT created by government for us or For Sale By Owners. Office Max, the internet all have fill in the blank forms. What’s stopping anyone from selling or buying a home without paid help? Why are you blaming brokers for high commissions? I see nothing in the way of competition! There's fixed fee, discounted commission and Pay for performance brokerages all over, why aren't they more successful? Oh I know it's because Big Brother needs to step into this fight because the consumers are too apathetic and scared. They can’t organize and make a difference without government? Phewy! I can create a business plan on $3000, 2%, 3%, $995 or any other amount but why would I choose $995 when over 80% of the property sold averages over 2.74% each side? Would you tell your boss, no don’t give me a raise, that’s idiotic.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 09:22 AM
    Why not make real estate commissions like the rest of the business world; i.e. 6% fee on property up to $100,000, then a declining scale as the value of the sale increases, 5% up to $150,000, then 4% at %200,000 and 3% at 400,000 and continue to fall as the value of the sale increases. This is how the rest of the business world works, decreasing prices as the value of your purchase increases.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 09:37 AM
    Okay all you nay sayers! Go ahead... youve always had the choice to sell your own homes yourselves. No one is forced to use a realtor! The choice to use a professional is both the buyers and sellers. So go ahead and do it! Don't try to blame realtors for your inability to perform the transaction. And it has been like this since the concept of representation was invented. The choice is ALL YOURS!! GOOD LUCK WITH IT!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 09:40 AM
    It's about time!!!
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 10:22 AM
    Another poster wrote,

    "I always thought paying your 6% was like paying the mob a vig. Let’s be serious, that percentage is more of a mob racket than a legitimate business. "

    I have seen so many consumers post similar sentiment. I interpret this as "I have to use a realtor or my house won't sell and paying them is a rip off". You do not need to use a realtor if you think it’s a rip off then sell your house on your own.

    I am a broker and the first thing I tell someone considering selling a house is if you are reasonably intelligent,
    have the time to answer 25 to thirty phone calls a day (most of them similar to junk mail), can drop what your doing to show the property at a moments notice, can follow up with escrow officers, lawyers, lenders, home inspectors, and be a psychologist when the buyer has remorse in the middle of the night and calls to discuss their concerns at 3am then you do not need me to help you sell your house.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 11:53 AM
    Jeff, How can you be so reasonable about online journalism and such a wacko on real estate?

    If you don't want to pay X% don't! Stop whining and take control of your life.

    Jeff, How come the discount brokerages are not thriving? Because they and you have total miscalculated the costs of running a real estate business.

    You missed the real story of that case. The NAR came up with an incredibly stupid policy because at the time many main stream players like the owner of RE/MAX were all freaked out about a certain type of internet real estate website, in particular, two companies were talked about.

    Both of those companies were bought out for their very valuable internet technology years ago by large main stream brokerages.

    Also I believe that NAR changed that stupid policy years ago as well.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 12:10 PM
    All compeling comments dependent on what side of the equation your on. I've been a broker for 27+ years and 7% in the day was great. The seller doesn't care about splits, who gets what and all that. All they see is it costs me WHAT to sell my house.

    Instead of trying to protect our turf we should be asking what we need to do for the benefit of our clients.

    We need to adapt to survive. The world is flatter than ever.
    Bottom line is it's what the consumer wants, it's about them not us.
    It's about competition and choice.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 12:37 PM
    I sold my last house myself. Easier than using an agent, not to mention more profitable.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 02:12 PM
    The writer of this post did go a little overboard. It seems as if he has a bone to pick with realtors. Take a look at his background and you will see that he has no real estate expertise at all. Nevertheless, he is right in the central thesis that this is going to bring changes and lower commissions to the industry. Here's my take on the decision-blog.metro-real-estate...
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 05:16 PM
    lasdc9...almost sounds like LASIK eye surgery. You may not need this procedure but some corrective thinking lessons for you might help.
    Your assertion that "there is no such thing as a six percent commission" is specious at best. The average man on the street knows that agent commissions are 6%. As Americans, we are not prone to haggling over prices as many other cultures do. That the 6% can be lowered simply by negotiation is just not considered by most people...the untutored...less sophisticated great un-washed masses, as you might call them, tend to pay what is asked.

    Your second point is equally misleading, in saying..."the only information realtors keep from the public is for security reasons..." belies the fact that the MLS purports to contain proprietary information. This MLS info is really public information albeit reported sooner than at your local recorder's office.

    As an investor who buys foreclosure properties, I need up to date immediate information about a particular house, neighborhood sales...along with other information.
    I need to know the market value today,not three months from now.

    Because I'm not an agent I cannot get MLS access, I'm willing to pay but my money isn't good enough. As a result the NAR ( Nat'l Assn. of Restriction) is "steering" me to "Mr. Local Agent...thereby hoping to get a bigger piece of my wallet.
    Don't fret...I get my MLS access from friendly agents...quid pro quo for us both.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 29 08:15 PM
    Commissions may decline. There will be a lot of agents "out of a job" because of the sales decline. The best of agents will still remain in demand and perhaps even charge more now.
    One more point... The prices of gasoline in my neighbourhood are virtually the same at every gas station as are the prices of homes unless under duress.
    So what's your point about 6% charged by a realtor? Whatever the rate, under normal conditions, yet allowing a reasonable profit, will soon be adopted by all offering similar in a competitive marketplace.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 01:27 AM
    I sold a house in 1978 for 64,000 and paid a 5 or 6 % commission.
    I sold a house in 2006 for 450,000 myself and paid no commission.
    If I had paid 6% do you think the 30,000 would have required more work than the 4,000 paid in 78 ? Absolutely ludicrous especially when an agent was basically an order taker.
    Think things are tough now ????
    I am a CASH buyer and wait a week to get calls returned if at all. When I do get an agent to show a house they rarely even ask if I want to make an offer. I tell them I am interested in the area and I have had ONE email me to ask if I was still interested - I replied - yes - and haven't heard back for 3 weeks.
    Now you tell me are things so tough that I can't even get an agent to try to sell me a house ??????
    Bullshit. Even 3% on a $100,000 is $3000 - not bad for just showing me a house and taking a deposit.
    Something is smelling really bad here.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 02:28 AM
    I sold a $1.35M house in 2003 and ponied up 5.5% commission, or $74,250 in commissions. For what? It sold in ONE day. Literally. It also sold at $100k more than what the realtor wanted to list it at. The price was full-freight, and I chose it. My 'realtor' whined she really didn't make that much money on the sale? WHAT? It sold thru the same office as the listing. She had to split with her part-time partner. Even if all she got was 1% of the sales price, that was still almost $14k for a ONE day sale. Later, when I had her show me properties a little (5 miles) out of our original area, she acted all put out that I actually made her travel a bit. So I got another agent for that area, and kept the first one in my home area. The second agent started sending me listings in my home area. At 8AM every morning. The first agent didn't get them to me for two or more days after they hit the market. WTF?! When agent one got my wife on the phone, and my wife let drop I had seen the house being called on two days earlier thru another agent already, agent one called me and had the gall to tell me I "owed" her. I fixed that notion rather bluntly and quickly. I told her I owed her nothing -- she owed ME. She made good buck ont he sale, but treated my purchase like a part-time event around her lifestyle, and that wasn;t gonna fly with me. SO either get moving and give me listings every morning at 8AM, or bow out. But don't ever THINK I owe you. She bowed out. I guess it was too much work to actually provide a service to me.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 04:40 AM
    I see a lot of angry 6%ters are chiming in. Time to get a real job. A Real Estate Agent is about as obsolete as a travel agent or a used car sales agent. I always avoided those leeches like the plague but I have to admit it is difficult doing so because 90% of all properties are listed with agents. So you are usually out of at least 3% of the purchase price.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 10:06 AM
    ............"Hey, I'm getting sued - I think I'll go to court without a lawyer since all he wants is a fee to fill out paperwork."

    So are you saying that realtards have the same education and expertise as a lawyer? Maybe you think you could do brain surgery to with you G.E.D.. That's right, people go to school for 8 years to sell homes. Your the idiot. You make me sick you lying, maggot. I remember the days when I had to pay $150 to buy and $150 to sell a few shares of stock because the brokerages had the same monopolies. I can't wait till realtors make so little money that teenagers and illegals are doing the work. Now go flogg yourself.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 10:39 AM
    "......Because everyone knows that all agents do is post properties on a website.

    Hey, I'm getting sued - I think I'll go to court without a lawyer since all he wants is a fee to fill out paperwork."

    Also, the seller pays the realtards fees so it doesn't come out of the buyers pocket.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 10:43 AM
    Alan wrote

    "The average man on the street knows that agent commissions are 6%. As Americans, we are not prone to haggling over prices as many other cultures do. That the 6% can be lowered simply by negotiation is just not considered by most people...the untutored...less sophisticated great un-washed masses, as you might call them, tend to pay what is asked."

    Why will the majority of real estate buyers haggle over the sales price but sellers will not haggle over the commission rate I have never understood this.

    Second if you have the time and can network with your assessor, title company sales reps, a local realtor or two you can get all of the information you need to make an informed decision on your own.

    My third point is , as another poster stated there is a very low barrier to entry to become a realtor, if you do not like being excluded go out take the time get your license any broker will hire you and you can get all the information you need.

    I will say it again if you are reasonably intelligent and have the time to spend doing the research you should sell your house on your own. If you do not have the time to do the research and the time to do the selling and follow up after the sale, which depending on the complexity of the transaction can involves a lot of time, then hire a realtor but negotiate the commission just like you would negotiate the sales price of the home you are selling or the purchase price of your new home. If the first realtor will not budge then interview the next if none will budge then sell the house by owner and let the agents in town that you will pay x commission if they bring you a buyer. Real Estate not rocket science each transaction takes time and effort to bring to a closed transaction that is what you pay or should be willing to pay a realtor for, their time.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 10:54 AM
    "A good agent provides value, whether it’s worth a percentage is arguable and nothing is stopping competition"

    BS. How about "minimum service" laws? or cartel behavior like freezing discount brokers out of the MLS?

    Most agents are a joke. When I sold my last house I had to figure out the market myself. My house sat for 6 months longer than necessary because I had it listed too high. Maybe my dipwad agent thought he was protecting my feelings by not telling me to lower my price. I would much rather have had hurt feelings and 6 months of mortgage payments/taxes.

    And for the money they charge they don't even show the house! It's some clueless buyer's agent who doesn't know the property and can't sell its advantages. A total ripoff.
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •  
    May 30 11:53 AM
    This article or the posters failed to answer one biggest question on my mind.

    Will this ruling make the MLS available to non real estate people like me? My only recourse is now to post on the Craigs list and it gets inundated with hundreds of posts. I always wished, I could post my for sale sign on the MLS with out listing with a broker.
    Please someone anwser my question, once again, I repeat:
    WILL THIS RULING MAKE THE MLS SYSTEM AVAILABLE TO THOSE OUTSIDE NAR (national association of realtors) to post properties for sale?

    THANKS
    AJ
    Reply | Link to Comment
  •