Author: Russell Shaw (page 4 of 10)

by Russell Shaw

Mega-Producing Realtor

Author website

The following email was sent to me by Steve Westmark. I posted about Steve and the Minneapolis MLS back in April. Seems the Chicago MLS got the same idea but has now changed their mind. Or should that be “minds”? Or “numb skulls”?

I really do not understand how any association that is supposed to have been formed for the benefit of Realtors can possibly come up with some of the retarded gibberish that some of them do come up with. I fully understand that it isn’t polite to poke fun at retarded people but in cases like this I just can’t help it. What tortured logic makes it alright for Homegain – and others like them – to use the term MLS in their URLs but not alright for an agent to do it? Is it that the dimwits who sat on that board thought it might be a lot easier to push those local agents around than it would be to push the attorneys who work for Homegain around? Homegain would have been willing to litigate until they won, the local agents were not.

I would also have been willing to litigate and I would not have just fired a few emails back and forth. In addition, I would have waged a local and national PR battle (for starters, naming all the names of the spineless and mindless dolts that passed such a ruling) that would have had them playing defense – not me.

(why yes, I do write this sort of post to make good friends with the various boards of directors around the country:-)

_________

—– Original Message —–

From: Bryan VantHof

To: steve@stevewestmark.com

Sent: Monday, October 15, 2007 3:45 PM
Subject: Fwd: Update on Chicago area use of MLS in URL’s

Steve,
Thought you might find this interesting. Thanks. Bryan Vant Hof – fishMLS Realty

———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Gene Carey < Gene@view-mls-homes.com>
Date: Oct 15, 2007 4:11 PM
Subject: Update on Chicago area use of MLS in URL’s
To: bvanthof@fishmls.com

Bryan,

Just wanted to give you an update on Chicago areas plans to start fining agents who use MLS in their domain names. After sending them some very extensive emails threatening lawsuits Read more

by Russell Shaw

Mega-Producing Realtor

Author website

I have no idea if published Letters to the Editor are covered by copyright protection – if they are I will need to stop doing this. If someone were to suggest that there was a pattern to the types of letters Inman News chooses to publish (say, for example, that I’ve made assertions like that in the past) a person wouldn’t have to wait very long to find examples of that pattern. This one is from today:

Higher commissions are ‘anti-consumer’

Dear Editor:

Are semantics clouding the real issue? When you have thousands of real estate agents competing for a limited amount of business this is construed as competitive, just as Realogy and RE/MAX suggest. However, this does not equate to competitive real estate models, which should — but do not — benefit consumers.

In this agent’s opinion, the issue is not whether there is competition between agents to obtain business — it is the competition as it relates to commissions that have these companies on edge. This should be considered “anti-consumer,” not necessarily an anti-competitive issue, which is simply a case of semantics.

These companies readily admit and demonstrate that they will do and say almost anything to thwart competition with regard to commission dollars.

How many times do they have to say that they are worried about the pressures of lower commissions? It is well documented and stated by these companies that they spend inordinate amounts of money to attract business, thereby placing them in a position where they cannot compete with other models that use pricing (commissions) to compete with the “anti-consumer” real estate models that hire thousands of agents and spend millions of dollars to obtain market dominance.

Ironically, these “anti-consumer” companies are honest about the reasons they continue to frustrate a decline in commission rates. They cannot “compete” within these confines. This is about commissions, not competition to attract business.

What the public should consider is whether they want to do business with companies that knowingly take advantage of their mere size as opposed to finding ways to lower the costs and becoming more efficient when it comes to actually selling homes. Besides higher Read more

by Russell Shaw

Mega-Producing Realtor

Author website

Bruce Hahn writes another letter to Inman News. Of course it gets published, Bruce’s letters always get published on Inman News. I’ve posted about Bruce before, in this post and
in this one. It is a big secret who pays Bruce. He likes to advance the idea that it doesn’t matter who pays him, only the viewpoint he is forwarding is what matters. I don’t buy it. Say what you will about NAR (I do:-) but how they get their funding isn’t a secret. What agenda they are pushing, or why, isn’t a secret either.

I want there to be a record of Bruce’s letters. Some day it will eventually be obvious who has been paying Bruce to write these letters and paying him to not tell anyone who they are. In the meantime, here is his latest:

Dear Editor:

Given NAR’s concerns about the objectivity of the Justice Department’s competition and real estate Web site, I checked the consumer education section of NAR’s Web site to see how NAR’s descriptions of the features of the various real estate brokerage business models compared with those of DOJ. I couldn’t find any information at all on any of the real estate brokerage business models on the consumer education section of NAR’s site. This is curious since you would think educating home buyers and home sellers about the various types of real estate brokerage business models and their features would be a great fit for NAR.

I think NAR should stop beefing about DOJ’s and FTC’s efforts to educate consumers about the various real estate business models until it has something superior to offer. NAR has among its membership traditional and minimum-service brokers, EBAs and many other business models. It should appoint task forces, with every segment equally represented, which would be asked to work together to develop objective consumer education materials on the various alternative brokerage models home buyers and sellers might wish to consider.

For even greater balance NAR might also seek input from some of the other real estate brokerage associations and consumer organizations interested in this area. This would give NAR the opportunity to both Read more

by Russell Shaw

Mega-Producing Realtor

Author website

Last Wednesday the citizens of the United States became a lot better off. I was surprised that no one publicly popped open a bottle of champagne to celebrate. This is not some small thing, it is exciting news. The Department of Justice, Anti-Trust Division launched a website that is going to make the world a better place. The nice lawyers who worked on the research for the site and wrote the copy spent considerable time compiling the information.

This is my favorite page on the site. I liked it a lot because the page it linked from had this quote:

“Brokers typically charge a commission based on a percentage of the home’s sale price. Over the past decade the average commission rate has remained relatively steady between 5.0 and 5.5 percent. As a result, the actual median commission paid by consumers rose sharply along with the run-up in home prices.

Unless broker costs were also rising sharply during this period of time, competition among brokers should have held commissions in check even as home prices were rising.”

The word, “costs” was bold on their site, as well. Unless broker costs also went up (where the brokers could actually prove they had to spend more) competition SHOULD have held commissions in check. My costs have gone up in the past nine years.  Way up.  My acquistion cost per listing and my costs to service each listing has gone up, as well. What they may be shooting for is the correct amount of profit a Realtor should be making.  I wonder if they plan to subsidize those agents and companies who can prove they are making less (like Foxtons)?

I’ve included a link here for any stray DOJ lawyers reading this post to help them. There are many calculator sites on the internet, I choose this one because it came up first when I did a Google search for “consumer price index calculator”. Try it. Type in 1998 = $1.00 and then put 2007 in the year you want to check. I got $1.26. I think you will too.

If you are a Realtor going to a grocery store or a Read more