Now this is what I call NEWS!!! 60 minutes is still on the air? I thought that died with my schizophrenic great grandmother two decades ago! Has Stahl been stuffed and stood up by the jukebox? I’m seriously in shock. Tell me you’re joking, Kris- 60 minutes is still on the air? HA! Talk about a news story!

Sidenote: I love that NAR and everyone else is giving Redfin creedence by even issuing talking points- who cares? McDiscounts are out there and even the DOJ is promoting them (talk about geriatric ignorance)! The value Realtors will survive long after we blink and the McDiscounts are gone because NO ONE likes paying money (to Redfin, etc) to get nothing in return (other than having to complete a Real Estate transaction on their own- they should have to buy themselves E&O Insurance!).

ARW – Thank you! I so agree. Before I read your post I was telling Kris that this is a non-event. Not worth the time to even discuss, as it is old news. I will say my greatest disappointment is Glenn Kelman. He speaks out of both sides of his mouth, then issues a self-serving “Consumer Bill of Rights” (aka, Consumer Bill of Bullshit) that is nothing but propaganda in a desperate attempt to tilt an otherwise level playing field in HIS direction, not the consumers. If you remember that kind of kid when you were young, he was the one who was a bit spoiled and couldn’t stand to lose. So when you would play with him he would just change the rules of the game to his liking and everyone else be damned. Ultimately, the other kids would catch on and just not play with him anymore.

What Glenn doesn’t want people to know is that he is not a real estate guy and he is not a consumer advocate. He is a tech guy trying to make money in real estate by taking advantage of the unknowing and taking a commission that he has done nothing to earn. All in the disguise of a “rebate” . That’s a big problem, because there are really no shortcuts to the top of this field. It takes the hands-on experience of literally hundreds of transactions to be really good at this. He will see. Sooner or later.

Wife and Husband,

You are so correct, in your assessment of “those guys” and in your comment that I am giving too much attention to the undeserving. I’m off the subject, and going to my room.

Good! Smart people dont need Realtors these days. And seller should no spend 6% to sell their house, that is ridiculous. It should cost maybe $5000 max. The revolution is here! Finally!!

SERIOUSLY, Ponch- we need to get you back into 2nd grade!!! Please don’t make me analyze your grammar, spelling, or (even worse), the blatant ignorance of your statement.

You’re right- people DON’T need Realtors. I think sellers should have a go of it themselves, after all they know the market best, right? And they know case law for real estate, right? So well that they can defend themselves in a tricky situation! And they’ve been studying the market 50 hours a week for 10 years and know how to market their home in person, in the staging process, online and in print, and then walk their way through a resale or buying transaction! Oh, and don’t forget their ability to know the lending process and be able to advise themselves on that, too! By normal people knowing all of that, not using a Realtor would be ideal.

But wait- MOST people DO NOT have a clue what the hell most of that is that I just spewed. But Ponch, you are right- who needs an advisor? If you were to be sued tomorrow, you wouldn’t get a lawyer because hey- the not-paying-for-services-and-surprisingly-getting-nothing-in-return “revolution is here” and you are smart enough to defend yourself in all things pertaining to all realms of all professions (I would assume you’re proficient in legalese, right?).

Good luck with all of that!

Beat it Ponch………..or else mom will take your laptop away for staying up too late, again!

Eric ~
uh . . . you might wanna try using your speel chukker next time

I think Ponch was fired by his agent. Can’t imagine why.

@Austin Realtor’s Wife:

You are really mean. May be you need to go back to 2nd grade.
Your statement below demonstrates you’re a born loser.

————–
SERIOUSLY, Ponch- we need to get you back into 2nd grade!!! Please don’t make me analyze your grammar, spelling, or (even worse), the blatant ignorance of your statement.

I think the main issue rasied by the 60 minutes piece was the fact that the real estate industry has done its best to put discounters out of business. The Department of Justice lawsuit is very daming evidence of the anti-competitive behavior of not only the NAR but also local realtors that will do anything in their power to keep discounters out of the market. How can one argue that this behavior is good for the consumer? How can the NAR and realtors whitewash the DOJ lawsuit or the shameful lobbying for change in mortgage laws that helped create the bubble markets in the first place? I guess the NAR doesnt speak for the real estate industry.

Also realtors are not lawyers or mortgage advisors, it is a good thing to keep those professions independent of each other. Bottom line is that something has to change in this industry or get used to more hit pieces like 60 minutes.

Realtors work hard. They are the best in this field. I am not sure if they would be any goo at teaching the 2nd grade.

Eric – Calling people “losers” will get one moderated.

60 Minutes – The DOJ issue was raised in a very one-sided, almost throw-away manner. 60 Minutes, I understand, did speak to the NAR folks at length but chose not to present their side. The DOJ/NAR battle is a very complex one, but it was only mentioned in this piece as a device to portray NAR, and therefore Realtors, as evil with Refin playing the role of saver of humanity. Please know that I am not defending NAR; I happen to disagree with a lot of what they do “on my behalf” in the name of defending my honor. I do, however, contend that there is another side to the claims of unfair exclusionary, anti-competitive practices. If 60 Minutes was going to raise the issue, they had the obligation (IMO) to address the issue by presenting both sides, equally and fairly. Let’s face it, this was just a feel-good Refin love-fest, it was not journalism. In that sense, I suppose it didn’t disappoint.

60 Minutes – Excuse me?? Anti-competitive behavior? Forget the NAR BS. The reality in the field is that commissions are negotiable! I am getting really tired of the Redfin babies and their little friends crying about the big bad real estate industry. If a client wants to deal with a particular agent, they have the ability to negotiate the commission. If we are as bad as the Redfin’s of this world say we are, then the client ought to be able to strike a great comission deal. If not, they are welcome to go on to another agent until they find one that will work for the comission they deem fair. Once again, the free market at work.

Our clients perceive value in our services and that’s why they hire us, again and again. Redfin can’t seem to pull this off because they don’t provide service. They are simply overpaid messengers who happen to have a license and we all know how difficult it is to get that.. But for some people that works. Fine.

Interestingly, when confronted with facts, Redfin seems to get caught with their pants down. Exhibit “A” was when I challenged Trevor (of Redfin) regarding his comment that they were “doing 70 deals a week” in Seattle. When cornered, he “clarified” the fact that they were getting 70 “contacts” a week, not closed transactions, or even initiated tramsactions. While I give credit to Trevor for this clarification, it is a disturbing trend we are all seeing spewing out of the mouths of Redfin. Desperation? Maybe. Inferiority complex?. No doubt. Sadly, the head honcho, Glenn Kelman is leading by example on this slick misinformation campaign. What he didn’t say on 60 minutes spoke volumes. The volumes he does not want his potential clients to know.

Redfin is built on a house of cards. And like anything with a weak foundation, it will collapse. Likely under the burden of its’ own words.

Ponch can call me a loser all he wants, he’s still Ponch. 2nd grade is where I learned to be tough- it takes thick skin to take hits from an 80′s motorcycle cop.

Seriously though, the 60 Minutes piece was pretty bad, but I’m not honestly surprised; the liberal media frequently paints this anti-Realtor picture believing that Realtors are greedy billionaire bastards (when really, NAR released the stats noting the average income is only $47,700 anually- far from extravagance). No surprise here.

Oh, and Eric- seriously, I am sorry that I am snippy about grammar and spelling; I’ve blogged on it before. It should be inspirational, not insulting!

i understand your frustrations with attacks of your profession (speaking from the profession of interior design & architecture where we get much criticism), why not follow the rest of the service-based industries and charge based on the work/service you do? either by the hour or a flat fee agreed upon in a contract?

the percentage structure just doesn’t make sense anymore in the ever-inflated housing market today!

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division today filed a lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), challenging a policy that obstructs real estate brokers who use innovative Internet-based tools to offer better services and lower costs to consumers. The Department said that NAR’s policy prevents consumers from receiving the full benefits of competition and threatens to lock in outmoded business models and discourage discounting.

“The purchase of a home is one of the most significant financial decisions a family can make, and NAR’s policy stifles competition to advantage some of its members at the expense of home buyers and sellers across the country,” said J. Bruce McDonald, Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department’s Antitrust Division. “Consumers benefit when real estate brokers are free to compete vigorously by offering innovative services.”

Although NAR today announced its adoption of a revised policy, the revised policy continues to discriminate against innovative brokers, and does not resolve the Department’s concerns.

In most markets, real estate brokers share information about properties for sale, known as listings, through the local Multiple Listing Service (MLS) — a joint venture among competing brokers. Participation in the local MLS makes it possible for a broker to provide customers with listings for virtually all properties for sale in the community, which is critical to compete in the local market, the Department said.

Traditionally, brokers provided listings for properties to their customers in a variety of ways, such as by hand at their offices, or by mail, fax, or e-mail. Some brokers have recently begun offering brokerage services to their customers over the Internet, using so-called virtual office websites, or VOWs. VOWs are password-protected Internet sites that allow the broker’s customers to search the MLS database on their own, using their home computers to obtain the same information that would be available in a broker’s brick-and-mortar office. Delivering listings over the Internet gives web-savvy consumers more control over their search for a home, allowing them to educate themselves about their options at their own pace and on their own time. This allows brokers to reduce the time that their agents spend searching the MLS database or showing homes the customer dislikes, the Department said. Because the Internet can be used to deliver brokerage services more efficiently — resulting in better service and lower costs to consumers — brokers who utilize the Internet represent a competitive challenge to traditional brokers, the Department added.

In its complaint, the Department alleges that NAR’s policy restrains competition by requiring NAR-affiliated MLSs to adopt rules that will allow brokers to withhold their clients’ listings from other brokers’ websites by means of an “opt out.” In essence, NAR’s policy enables traditional brokers to block their competitors’ customers from having full on-line access to all of the MLS’s listings. When exercised, the opt-out provision prevents web-based brokers from providing all MLS listings that respond to a customer’s search, effectively inhibiting the new technology, the Department said.

kc – What you and the Dept. of Justice are missing is that in reality competition is fierce. The reason? Too many agents chasing too few deals. I can’t imagine a MORE competitive environment. Any agent working in the field day-to-day knows and feels this. That’s one of the reasons that the average income of agents nationwide is under $50,000. If the DOJ would get out of their Ivory Tower and get in the trenches on this issue, they might be surprised to learn how extremely competitive this business really is and how difficult it is to make a decent living selling real estate.

Every home, at least in our market, can be found on multiple websites / search engines. No, not all of the info that’s in the MLS may be there, but there is more than enough for a buyer to determine if the home may meets their basic requirements and there certainly is a contact number or e-mail address for those buyers who want or need more info, with absolutely no obligation for that buyer to use the listing agent. They can use anyone they want or no one at all! How can this be construed as anything other than ultra-competitive

But Redfin is slickly trying to create a loophole that suggests anti-competitive behavior while actually reducing service to buyers and trying to shift the work of a buyers agent to the listing agent, all at the expense of sellers, the listing agents and ironically, the buyer who instead of focusing on the purchase price, the comp’s in the neighborhood, the condition of the home, etc., is drooling over the rebate.

I could care less what Redfin charges or does with their commission. I just think it’s wrong for them to use the “hook” of the rebate to entice and take advantage of unknowing buyers who may pay way too much for the home because Redfin has not even seen it or any of the comp’s in the neighborhood. Redfin will counter this argument with the claim that they will get off of their butts and show the buyers homes. What they don’t say is that they charge a buyer hourly for this service. Beautiful, isn’t it!!

Austin – yuk! And a Realtor’s wife (only claim to fame)?? I think I would rather be dead.

67.164.148.45 – Interesting that Jim Franchises, Don Doerna and Eric Estrada are all sharing a computer.

1.) Austin rules, [Your City] drools- sorry everyone, that’s the best fight I have in me after a 13 hour day (and still movin’ right along).

2.) I don’t claim any fame. But I am a Realtor’s Wife. And I’m sorry you want to be dead

Sounds like someone’s bored… when the kids say they’re bored they get chores, so go clean your room, Ponch.

Austin – I guess you are not an African American. I know 2 people who “tried” Austin and hated it and the hicks. Just because it is the best city in Texass, doesnt make it a nice place to live unless you love paying property tax. LOL! You killed Eric, so jim was born.

Jim is my real name. lol!

I see Escondido is getting hammered, more homes and fewer buyers by the week. I am going to ignore the Texan–that usually makes them go away and play with the fire ants.

I can’t talk right now.

I’m busy playing with fire ants!

I could moderate him, Lani, but he’s just so darn funny!!!!

Jim, when I lived in Texas, we pronounced them “fahr” ants. And, I really appreciate an opposing point of view around here but only in the context that you bring value. You are officially on triple-secret probation. I really don’t like to censor any comments, but I can’t have you hurling meaningless personal attacks. There is just no value in that.

And, please pass this along to Eric and Don as well.

[...] famous when he was banned for nasty comments only to reappear as someone else using the same slant (he later confessed to his multiple personality disorder when caught).  This commenter would inject himself into conversation and blast whatever the Bergs were saying [...]

[...] famous when he was banned for nasty comments only to reappear as someone else using the same slant (he later confessed to his multiple personality disorder when caught).  This commenter would inject himself into conversation and blast whatever the Bergs were saying [...]

[...] famous when he was banned for nasty comments only to reappear as someone else using the same slant (he later confessed to his multiple personality disorder when caught). This commenter would inject himself into conversation and blast whatever the Bergs were saying [...]

[...] famous when he was banned for nasty comments only to reappear as someone else using the same slant (he later confessed to his multiple personality disorder when caught). This commenter would inject himself into conversation and blast whatever the Bergs were saying [...]