Perhaps it’s cabin fever; Dayton is dealing with a late winter blizzard. The city is shut down giving me plenty of time to put on my own little version of a big-thinking cap and ponder away the what-ifs. Call me foolish but today, with a fresh cup of coffee at my side, I’m taking on the subject of repealing real estate licensing laws. Oh my. First things first: I’ve never read Ayn Rand and I don’t study the finer points of Capitalism. I truly love freedom, but I don’t philosophize about it. Now that we have that out of the way…
Let’s do a little time traveling. Step into the Way Back Machine and return to that point in time when you decided that real estate is what you wanted to do with your life. Do you remember that moment? You want to sell real estate. Forget what you know now and concentrate; remember then? You want to sell real estate. Consider what would have happened if there was no licensing. How would you have gone about breaking into the business? Don’t tell me you would have simply hung up a sign, c’mon, you know you wouldn’t get hired! Really think about this a moment- what would you have done?
Is it reasonable to think that you would have spoken to someone who was already in the business? Would you have picked just anyone in the business, or would you have carefully considered the reputations, the business models, the success rates of different brokerages? I know we wouldn’t have brokerages the way they exist today, but for our purposes, we’ll stick with that terminology. So. Would you have looked- really looked- at the other agents working at that brokerage? Would you have sought out past clients to get their opinions and comments?
Use your imagination and stay with me here. This is how you are going to feed your family. What are you going to do to make sure that you can put ramen noodles on the table? What if you want an occasional steak? You are working where you live, or in close proximity, right? You have a reputation in town, you’d like to keep that reputation as clean and shiny as ever, so you are very very careful about picking a brokerage. You want to find a brokerage that will train you to become the best little real estate professional you can be. Training becomes paramount to you, because remember, since you haven’t been licensed, right now you are in the learning and training process. This means two things: You need to learn the business of real estate from somewhere (other than your ever-so-useful licensing classes), and your broker needs to really teach you something. Now we are getting to the meat of this, but don’t jump ahead of me yet.
You have done your research, you have found a brokerage with which you want to work. Now your brokerage is going to research you. How do I know this? Because if they are going to take the time to train you and put their reputation at risk, they are going to make sure the people they take on are worth the bother- it’s their time and mostly their reputation at stake- there is no licensing to hide behind. If you are serious about real estate as a profession, you are going to make sure that your resume is in order and you are prepared to interview for a job.
I don’t philosophize about Capitalism, but Greg does:
This is what Zillow is doing — national, verified reputation management for loan originators. It’s really, really nothing for now, not much beyond a pulse check. And yet it is everything, because it is the free-market asserting its natural right, its sacred obligation, and its uniquely-inescapable power to police itself.
Do you understand? Where markets do not self-police — as with Craigslist.com and, more importantly, as with state occupational licensing laws — endemic, epidemic, pandemic corruption is the only possible outcome. These results, which we patiently observe almost without exception, all the while insisting that they are only temporary aberrations — these results are the only possible outcomes of arbitrary decision-making systems.
Perhaps consumers will be disturbed by this, perhaps not. Maybe consumers will decide that they are only willing to work with real estate professionals who have some sort of college degree, then you will have to go to college, but for now, in our Way Back Machine, the broker will have to train you, your training will be their responsibility and their reputation. This also means that all the ‘secrets’ of real estate must be shared in order to make sure you have the skills necessary to become an effective agent. The environment of the real estate brokerage will change. You may spend time as an apprentice or an intern as you learn the business of real estate from someone who has a real and well earned reputation for doing and being the best in the business. How did they get that reputation? It’s a reputation based on truth and honesty, not on a few classes, a test, and a paid entry into a trade association.
This is not a frightening world to consider. This a world where real estate agents will have to prove themselves where it really matters- with clients and consumers. That’s not a scary thing, is it? Are there losers in this world? Absolutely! The incompetent and unscrupulous. Who really wins? Everyone else. Finally the clients have some protection against the people who would do them harm and harming the reputations of us all. It may be the end of the world as we know it, but we should all feel fine.
Greg Swann says:
At the risk of robbing you of the stunned silence you have earned for hitting a home run: Bravo! This is an aspect of licensing I have not explored, but you are right on the money. This is exactly how real businesses behave when they are not granted the protective coloration of a state-issued license.
Residential real estate brokerage is thrice absurd, alas:
This is not the universal condition in our business, but it is much too common. The incentives are perverted and, therefore, the results are perverse.
Most importantly, as you point out so eloquently, this scenario is exactly the opposite of the way real businesses are run: Hiring is slow and deliberate. Training is comprehensive. Reputation for quality is of paramount importance, so bad hiring decisions are rare but those few bad apples who slip through the cracks are fired with dispatch. And, in consequence, the failure of new hires is the rare exception, rather than the rule.
In the roll call of Capitalism, residential real estate brokerage stands out like a consumptive at a track meet, but, seemingly, no one wants to take a moment to wonder why that should be so.
You’ve done us all a great service today, Teri. I hope I’m not the only person to thank you for it.
March 8, 2008 — 5:27 pm
Doug Quance says:
“I hope I’m not the only person to thank you for it.”
You aren’t. Thank you, Teri. I agree wholeheartedly.
March 8, 2008 — 5:52 pm
Vance Shutes says:
Teri,
I’m glad that we here in Southeast Michigan narrowly escaped this latest “death storm”, as the local weather media have described our more recent storms!
Those of us in the business, whether in the “way back” world, or in today’s world, have nothing to fear with the new Zillow approach. At least, those of us who have regularly earned 80+% of their business via referrals from our “raving fans”.
Those of us who look at each of our clients for their “lifetime value” will end up even better in the world which Zillow describes.
Woe unto those who only see the GCI at the end of the transacation, and never see the person, their own client. Zillow will, perhaps, “help” them out of the real estate business, however they got into the business in the first place.
Let’s hope this is the LAST snowstorm for us beleagured mid-westerners of the season!
March 8, 2008 — 5:57 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Thank you, Greg.
>Hiring is slow and deliberate. Training is comprehensive.
Wouldn’t it be nice if real estate was that way?
March 8, 2008 — 6:11 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Thanks, Doug!
March 8, 2008 — 6:12 pm
Mike Farmer says:
Very good. I agree. It would be a different profession.
March 8, 2008 — 6:19 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Howdy Vance!
>Those of us who look at each of our clients for their “lifetime value” will end up even better in the world which Zillow describes.
I agree. And I like the phrase “lifetime value”. That shows a great deal of respect for your client.
BTW, This storm is one for the history books. We get 4-6″, maybe 8″ of snow, but 12″ plus 2 to 4 feet of drifs? No, not typical for us. When it hits 48 F on Wed, we are going to be dealing with flooding. It’s going to be awhile before we shovel/bail out of this one. But. Spring is two weeks away! The end is nigh. 😉
March 8, 2008 — 6:25 pm
Greg Swann says:
>> Hiring is slow and deliberate. Training is comprehensive.
> Wouldn’t it be nice if real estate was that way?
It is that way on Russell Shaw’s team, and his operation is an example where the boss not being the designated broker results in a much more business-like business.
This is the way it can work for all of us, in the long run, if weblogging and Social Media Marketing prove to be a good rainmaker’s strategy. When you are managing your reputation as the leader of your team, good weblogging won’t make up for bad behavior by your subordinates. You will have to assert real business-like management, just as Russell does. These changes can’t come soon enough for me.
March 8, 2008 — 6:52 pm
Russell Shaw says:
Oddly enough, what caused the present scene aren’t state license laws but 100% companies. There was a time when you simply HAD to “intern” under a broker. The better brokerage companies DID care who they hired. That started to go away after Realty Executives (founded in Phoenix by Dale Rector) established the 100% concept for agents. It wasn’t Realty Executives that opened the floodgates to nonsense but the original low cost “knock off” versions (like John Hall & Associates was 30 years ago). It was ReMax that made the concept popular across the country but once it was possible for an agent to go to a “broker” who would charge them $100 – $200 a month, total, and the agent had no real need to do anything but look for low hanging fruit – that was the beginning of the end.
It is the “mega agent” teams that are really the old mom and pop brokerages – but now on steroids. I believe this will be the wave of the future.
March 8, 2008 — 7:19 pm
Trevor Smith says:
>”You have done your research, you have found a brokerage with which you want to work. Now your brokerage is going to research you. How do I know this? Because if they are going to take the time to train you and put their reputation at risk, they are going to make sure the people they take on are worth the bother- it’s their time and mostly their reputation at stake- there is no licensing to hide behind. If you are serious about real estate as a profession, you are going to make sure that your resume is in order and you are prepared to interview for a job.”
I think as long as agents are independent contractors, Brokers will never invest the money and time needed to make new agents true professionals. Many Brokers have a very low standard when selecting agents because they know that even if the agent doesn’t succeed, they can still make money off of desk fees, technology fees, and other junk fees in the interim. Its not just 100% companies or discounters who have these low standards, many full service brokerages do too. I worked at a very well known, full service Seattle area Broker prior to switching to Redfin. I was required to attend 0 training classes, and the optional classes generally had more to do with staging then meat and potatoes real estate training.
Its my belief that as long as agents are independent contractors, Brokers will have little motivation for investing the huge amount of time and money needed to properly train them. This makes me believe that we need stricter licensing laws, not the elimination of licensing laws.
BTW: Great writing Teri. Between you and I, this is one of the first blog posts I have read word for word in the last few days…. very engaging 🙂
March 8, 2008 — 8:00 pm
Carl Minicucci says:
This is by no means a novel concept. To that end, I’d direct you to founding father of this thesis, namely, Milton Friedman in his book “Capitalism and Freedom”.
(Required reading during my 2nd year “Comparative Economic Systems of Eastern and Western societies” …oh, about 18 years ago)
In it, our dear Laureate devotes a chapter or two on the notion of occupational licensing, particular with reference to the medical field. Nonetheless, his arguments would conceptually apply to most other professions.
If Teri’s passage excites you (indeed it should), be prepared to lite a cigarette once you read Dr. Friedman’s musings.
March 8, 2008 — 8:07 pm
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
I intended to comment my gratitude here, but the balloon has already popped. Your very illuminating post was just the springboard I needed to finish a post I have been working on for some days now.
“You need to learn the business of real estate from somewhere (other than your ever-so-useful licensing classes), and your broker needs to really teach you something.” That was the line that did it. I spent the next hour and a half editing my thoughts down to just over a 1000 words; making everything just so. I came back here to thank you for a wonderful post and the impetus my idea needed.
Of course, it should have come as no surprise to see that Russell Shaw, with:
“…it is the “mega agent” teams that are really the old mom and pop brokerages – but now on steroids. I believe this will be the wave of the future…”
has said it better, said it first and used only 29 words!
Terrific post Teri. You probably have no idea what ripples you generate when you write like this.
(One day Russell, I will get there ahead of you) 🙂
March 8, 2008 — 8:47 pm
Teri Lussier says:
I feel like Rip Van Winkle:
Greg-
Believe it or don’t- I had Russell’s business in the back of my mind as I wrote this.
>When you are managing your reputation as the leader of your team, good weblogging won’t make up for bad behavior by your subordinates.
Never occured to me. Interesting point!
March 9, 2008 — 12:52 am
Teri Lussier says:
Russell-
Thanks for your input.
I have seen an intership-style with mega teams; and have noticed more agents forming teams every day. I’ll take your word that that’s the future. 😉
March 9, 2008 — 12:59 am
Teri Lussier says:
Trevor-
Thanks for your kind words.
>Its my belief that as long as agents are independent contractors, Brokers will have little motivation for investing the huge amount of time and money needed to properly train them.
Well said, and I agree, but you lost me when you made this leap:
>This makes me believe that we need stricter licensing laws, not the elimination of licensing laws.
Licensing laws will not solve a training problem. More education might, on the job training might, but only if it’s done by competent trainers. And this still does nothing to protect a consumer.
An open market would allow input from consumers and clients- the people most affected by our actions. Closing the ranks with greater licensing shuts consumers out of the process as well.
March 9, 2008 — 1:10 am
Teri Lussier says:
Carl-
Naw, this isn’t novel. Just me piping up with something I’ve been meaning to post about for months. The latest twist at Zillow (and the blizzard) gave me a reason to finally write it all down.
Milton Friedman, huh? I’m currently reading Kinky Friedman, so perhaps Milton would make a good follow-up?
Yes, I’m joking… 😉
March 9, 2008 — 1:17 am
Teri Lussier says:
Hi Sean-
>One day Russell, I will get there ahead of you
(Yeah, Russell- me too! 😉 )
Sean, I think you’ve done a great job of expanding on this at A Life That Pops! And if I helped with that somehow, well, I’m very very happy. 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 1:27 am
Russell Shaw says:
There isn’t a person who posts or comments here who isn’t already way ahead of me in one area or another. I am not being “humble” with that statement – that really is the truth.
If what I say and write helps others to wind up passing me in business as well, my life will have been the genuine success I’ve intended.
March 9, 2008 — 2:56 am
Trevor Smith says:
> Licensing laws will not solve a training problem. More education might, on the job training might, but only if it’s done by competent trainers. And this still does nothing to protect a consumer.
I think they could. What if obtaining a real estate license required an internship similar to how a teaching license requires student teaching?
Also, more required class time is needed… but they have to be good classes (Get rid of online classes, [I can’t believe I said that!] and make them more practical for what being an agent is really like). In WA, you can take 60 clock hours of classes online, finish them in 20 hours, pass your test, and walk into a Broker’s office to interview and not have the first clue about real estate.
March 9, 2008 — 8:50 am
Teri Lussier says:
>What if obtaining a real estate license required an internship similar to how a teaching license requires student teaching?
I tread delicately into this water, and at the risk of branching off into a unwanted tangent, but if there was ever a case for repealing licensing- teaching would be at the top of the list.
As to the rest of your comment:
>In WA, you can take 60 clock hours of classes online, finish them in 20 hours, pass your test, and walk into a Broker’s office to interview and not have the first clue about real estate.
Stricter licensing would mean more of the same. Until consumers drive the process, not the NAR or any other entity, it’s just more of the same. The way things stand, consumers have little say in this process, and the most to lose.
March 9, 2008 — 9:04 am
Sean Purcell says:
Russell,
It becomes so much clearer why you are on top of this game. From your above comment:
Russell Shaw March 9th, 2008 3:56 am
In the AM?! Are you serious? The best never rest…
March 9, 2008 — 9:11 am
Teri Lussier says:
Russell-
I missed that comment until Sean just pointed it out.
>If what I say and write helps others to wind up passing me in business as well, my life will have been the genuine success I’ve intended.
I know you are serious about that, and it’s clear that you are generous about sharing what you know.
(It’s part of what makes you so gosh darn charming. 🙂 )
March 9, 2008 — 9:24 am
Trevor Smith says:
> I tread delicately into this water, and at the risk of branching off into a unwanted tangent, but if there was ever a case for repealing licensing- teaching would be at the top of the list.
I am the only person in my family who is not a teacher. 5 teachers in all in my family…. all of them say licensing laws need to be stricter…. but your right, this is a tangent.
> Stricter licensing would mean more of the same. Until consumers drive the process, not the NAR or any other entity, it’s just more of the same. The way things stand, consumers have little say in this process, and the most to lose.
I don’t understand the leap you are making here. How would eliminating licensing laws put consumers in charge? It would simply mean more incompetent agents being hired by brokers who care little about their agent’s success (This is of course a generalization, but an accurate one in many cases).
I wholeheartedly agree that better training on the Broker’s part is one aspect of producing better agents, but back to my original point – as long as brokers are hiring independent contractors and not employees, agents are dispensable to them. They don’t have the motivation to train them to the level needed.
Once again, I speak from experience: I watched 10-15 new agents walk around a prominent Seattle brokerage for months with no clue of how to do real estate. Those who survived had to seek knowledge and wisdom from seasoned agents. I don’t believe the elimination of licensing laws would have suddenly made my former Broker implement a superb education and training program to prepare agents for success. I think it would have made her open the flood gates to whoever was willing to pay a desk fee and take a 50/50 commission split.
March 9, 2008 — 9:31 am
Teri Lussier says:
What I said was
>I know we wouldn’t have brokerages the way they exist today, but for our purposes, we’ll stick with that terminology.
Trevor, the business model would have to change, which could/should/would make it consumer driven.
So this:
>as long as brokers are hiring independent contractors and not employees, agents are dispensable to them. They don’t have the motivation to train them to the level needed.
Would no longer be a successful way of doing business
And this:
>It would simply mean more incompetent agents being hired by brokers who care little about their agent’s success
Would no longer be the case. I can make that leap because unsuccessful businesses- unsuccessful as determined and defined by consumers, not a Board or trade org- would be driven out of the market.
March 9, 2008 — 9:47 am
Trevor Smith says:
Alright – you’re starting to convince me 🙂
So it would seem that you would agree that in order for this to work, agents would need to be employees and not independent contractors.
If that’s the case, this opens up a whole new world of thought in my mind.
I have to tell you, I am generally pro-government deregulation…. so I really want to believe that an elimination of licensing laws is a viable possibility. My experience has just told me otherwise. Now I need to think some more about it in the context of different brokerage models.
Very thought provoking Teri…. I haven’t had to use my noggin this much since my exegetical dissertation on the writings of the Apostle Paul 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 9:55 am
Sean Purcell says:
> How would eliminating licensing laws put consumers in charge? It would simply mean more incompetent agents being hired by brokers who care little about their agent’s success.
IMHO, the point here is not that eliminating licensing laws would magically rid the industry of incompetent agents. They exist now and will continue to exist into the future. But by eliminating “rubber stamp” licensing we remove the imprimatur of the state; the veil of competence. Caveat emptor puts consumers in charge by definition.
Occupational licensing of incompetent agents is like putting perfume on a pig. Many consumers are drawn by the aroma… in the end though, it’s still just a pig.
March 9, 2008 — 10:00 am
Trevor Smith says:
Very good point Shawn. The perfume on the pig analogy brought it home. 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 10:02 am
Trevor Smith says:
Very good point Sean. The perfume on the pig analogy brought it home. 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 10:03 am
Trevor Smith says:
Stupid me… posted twice…. spelled Sean’s name wrong once…. sorry Sean.
March 9, 2008 — 10:04 am
Sean Purcell says:
Just think Sean Connery without the money, good looks, cool accent, charm… well, you get the idea 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 10:40 am
Teri Lussier says:
Trevor-
>So it would seem that you would agree that in order for this to work, agents would need to be employees and not independent contractors.
Not necessarily. Perhaps I’m trying to have my cake and eat it too, but I would love to remain an independent contractor through all this. My “noggin” is still working out the details of that one…
Maybe, thinking out loud here, the business model would change so that brokerages would be actively competing for the best agents? That brokerages have more to gain from training and *retaining* the best? hmm. Like I said, I haven’t worked out all those pesky details just yet. 🙂
Which is okay, because none of this is coming to fruition any time soon anyway.
March 9, 2008 — 11:23 am
Sean Purcell says:
Teri,
Agreed with all the way up to: “…none of this is coming to fruition any time soon anyway.”
I believe we are already seeing this all around us. Russell said it best (unless you prefer long winded explanations, in which case my previously linked tome will do): “It is the “mega agent” teams that are really the old mom and pop brokerages – but now on steroids. I believe this will be the wave of the future.”
The only question in my mind is how long before the old guard brokerage models react (or do they try to hold on and eventually whither away)?
March 9, 2008 — 11:56 am
Trevor Smith says:
Mega-Agent Teams may invest more time in training their agents, but they are a far cry from producing the type of training or education that would be needed to eliminate licensing. The problem with mega-agent teams is the same problem as most brokers… the agents are still independent contractors. Depending on the Mega-Agent and how they invest in their team, a mega-agent could be just another layer for the income stream to travel up to the Broker. (I am envisioning salmon swimming up the salmon ladders of Grand Coulee Dam).
March 9, 2008 — 12:14 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Sean-
I was referring to a time frame for licensing to be done away with. That isn’t going to happen in 2008, and I/We can figure out the details by 2009.
March 9, 2008 — 12:24 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Okay Trevor-
I don’t have an issue with independent contracting, but obviously that’s a sticking point for you. At any rate, you’ve given me a challenge: How to explain a new business model to the likes of Trevor Smith.
I’ll get back with you on that one. 😉
March 9, 2008 — 12:31 pm
Trevor Smith says:
LOL… So I think overemphasized the independent contractor thing a bit….but you can’t blame a guy for sticking to his guns.
Thanks for a great post Teri 🙂
March 9, 2008 — 12:34 pm
Teri Lussier says:
No, thank you!
This is why we are all online right?
I appreciate the discussion, and I’m thrilled that you stuck to your guns. I wish I could keep it up, but work calls, and I can’t answer your questions. Yet…
March 9, 2008 — 12:38 pm
Russell Shaw says:
Most mega agent teams in the US are under the umbrella of a larger company. Re/Max would be a perfect example. It seems to me (but I have not done any kind of actual analysis) that the most common scenario is the mega agent is with a 100% company or cuts a deal with the “traditional brokerage” firm that is pretty much the same as if he/she were with a 100% company. There would never be a reason for the local broker/owner to want them not there. In fact, that is exactly the type of agent they would most like to recruit. Same at the national level for the national companies. These marque agents are “good for business” in the same way that Ford Motor Company spends hundreds of millions of dollars building a really really fast car they know they won’t sell many of – just so they can say it is theirs.
I don’t think it has anything to do with getting rid of real estate licenses. What the real estate schools teach has precisely NOTHING to do with being successful in the real estate business. Nothing. In all my years I have never met or listened to any instructor teaching a pre-licensing class who COULD have taught what is necessary for survival. The ability to get and keep customers. If they had that skill themselves they would not be spending their time teaching pre-licensing classes. They usually know the laws and the purchase contract very very well. But knowing those things won’t matter if you don’t have any customers.
THE skill the rainmaker agents have (sometimes it is their only real skill) is getting and keeping customers. The very thing most agents don’t know how to do very well. No real rainmaker agent ever needs (or would want) to fill up the office with people who can’t perform. Believe me when I say, you still get plenty of deadwood anyway, no matter what you do. The difference is there is NO incentive to keep them. None. Unlike a regular broker who may think, “well they may make a sale or two later” – a good rainmaker would see that this person is costing them sales – all the ones they aren’t making, that the right person in their place would be making. The fact of the agent attached to the rainmaker being an “independent contractor” is not relevant at all – except for taxes. And that is an issue I do not intend to take up in this thread. 🙂
March 10, 2008 — 12:04 am
Jeff Brown says:
Thank you, oh thank you Russell, you old school guy you. 🙂
What Russell is saying is that licensing has nothing to do with character, integrity, employees or independent contractors — or the quality of performance.
Russell delivers results and gets paid for it — and very handsomely. The rest is an attempt by some, certainly not Teri, to control us through their own sense of right and wrong. Of course their sense is the best, right? Right. Save us all. 🙂
It’s so silly to proffer the theory saying independent contractors magically become angels when they become employees. Or my new all time favorite — commission based agents are evil whereas salaried agents are a gift from the Lord.
This is about integrity, self respect, and the honest pursuit of results benefitting all parties involved.
What Teri wants, is what I entered into almost 40 years ago. It’s still available today. Russell told us as much with his operation and the way he sees it evolving.
Teri, you might have seen me without knowing it when you entered your Way Back machine. Don’t blame yourself, I had hair back then.
Great stuff, Teri.
March 10, 2008 — 8:16 pm
evergreen colorado real estate says:
I met up with a vp from zillow recently. They are such an interesting little animal. I think they are running out of money and now have to scramble to come up with ways to do so without pissing off the Realtors out there. Why not dabble in the lending side of things first – far less regulated esp. here in Colorado (Evergreen area is where we are). But no one has a crystal ball.
March 11, 2008 — 10:22 pm
Teri L says:
>I think they are running out of money
Interesting. Will you expand on why you think that?
March 12, 2008 — 4:45 am
evergreen colorado real estate says:
Just a theory but where are they getting their revenue from? Purely from ads? Doubtful that’s going to cut it long term. Not when you raise the kind of money they did. Your investors will start to push to get a return on that investment. Their entire business model was/is predicated on getting traffic to their website for their zestimates? That’s cute for awhile but the mainstream press has lost all interest. Dave Liniger and RE/MAX have built their own estimator (a new one is about to be released), others exist out there. Zillow is now going the Trulia route – give us your listings and we will help you grow your business… Hmmm… That sounds familiar – Realtor.com round about 1996. I work with numerous managing brokers and many are reluctant to feed the monster for fear it will come back to eat them down the road. While individual managing brokers are free to put their listings where they want – you won’t see RE/MAX International endorsing postings to Zillow. There is nothing in Zillow’s way from sticking a For Sale By Zillow sign in the front yard some day. Just my two and half cents.
March 12, 2008 — 7:02 am