There’s always something to howl about.

Category: Disintermediation (page 26 of 43)

Zillow.com dimed out by ubergeeks: “Please don’t crash”

From Worse Than Failure, a coder’s redoubt:

Donniel Thomas writes “Javascript isn’t for the weak of heart or those short of patience. What works in one browser may not function properly, or result in a nasty JS error in another (*cough*IE*cough). Which is why I can understand what this programmer meant.”

The following screenshot is from the homepage of Zillow.com, which is one of the most popular and AJAX-y Real-Estate sites on the web. And, as of this writing, the coder’s plea still remains …


Technorati Tags: , , ,

Zillow.com exemption: Arizona State Senate gives itself a frank appraisal, elects to seek out other feet in which to shoot itself

To all appearances, the attempt to criminalize Zillow.com’s Zestimations of Arizona real property will be all over when the fat lady signs. Not sings, signs. Arizona Senate Bill 1291, as amended to suffer Automated Valuation Models gladly, passed it’s final reading tonight. The amended bill passed in the Senate by a vote of 28-2. All that remains to be done is for Governor Janet Napalitano to sign the bill into law and things can… continue pretty much as they have all along.

Of late it seemed the legislature might recess without taking up the Zillow amendment, potentially exposing Attorney General Terry Goddard to the embarrassment of having to enforce his own and the Board of Appraisal’s idiotic interpretation of standing law. For all that I’m glad to see better sense prevail, that spectacle would have been amusing to watch.

In any case, assuming Napalitano doesn’t find some previously-unsuspected third foot to shoot herself in, this silly little drama should be over shortly.

 
Further notice: My details are a little off here, but Cathy Jager at Little Pink Houses has the straight dope.
< ?PHP include("Zapraisails.php"); ?>

Technorati Tags: , , , , , , ,

Questions answer why real estate license laws should be repealed

This is me in today’s Arizona Republic (permanent link). This is familiar turf to readers here, but I’m wondering if consumers might invest more effort in contemplating the issue.

 
Questions answer why real estate license laws should be repealed

The idea of repealing real estate licensing laws continues to percolate in my email, and I’ve written more on the subject at BloodhoundBlog.com.

I think I can make understanding this issue easier. Give a look to these questions. If you answer them honestly, you will understand why the real estate licensing laws should be repealed — even though they won’t be.

In the absence of real estate licensing laws, are consumers more likely or less likely to investigate the education, qualifications and experience of prospective agents?

In the presence of real estate licensing laws, are new licensees more likely or less likely to equate their status as licensed real estate agents with better-educated, more-qualified, more-experienced agents?

Taking account that they make profits when they perform their functions well and suffer liabilities when they fail, do free-market oversight entities seem more likely or less likely to assure consumer protection than government bureaucracies?

The same question on a more practical level: When buying electrical equipment, if you could have either government regulation or oversight by the Underwriters Laboratories, but not both, which would you choose?

In the presence of real estate licensing laws, are free-market oversight entities focusing on real estate transactions more likely or less likely to come into existence?

In the presence of real estate licensing laws, are alternative business models — radically different from traditional real estate brokerages but offering consumers more choice and possibly substantial cash savings — more likely or less likely to come into existence?

In the presence of real estate licensing laws, are traditional real estate brokers more likely or less likely to try to outlaw alternative business models offering real estate brokerage services to consumers for reduced or even no compensation?

Is there any consumer interest that would not be better served by repealing the real estate licensing laws? Even if you wish to assert that the laws offer some benefits to consumers, can you argue that Read more

Zillow.com news: Broker listing feeds “coming soon,” a lender opportunity and no news is not good news in Arizona

From Jeff Somers at Zillow Blog:

Soon, we will be launching the capability for brokers to automatically upload their active listings for free to Zillow, reaching the more than 4 million people who come to the site every month — more than half of whom are in the market to buy or sell.

Even when we first launched the ability for listing agents and brokers to add their listings for free to Zillow last December, we knew we wanted to find ways to make the process even easier. We have talked with numerous agents and brokers around the country — and we have heard over and over that you want to send us listings through a direct broker feed. As I type, our developers are wrapping up work on a very simple tool that will allow brokers to automatically upload listings to the site and keep those listings up to date.

There is a form you can fill out to be notified when the feature becomes available.

Two days ago Zillow announced a similar sort of sign-up form for lenders. What might this mean? At the time, I held my tongue, since what I have to say is pure speculation. But with today’s news as hook, here are a couple of wild-eyed conjectures:

My guess is that they’re going to provide some kind of EZ lender hook-up for buyers and re-fi candidates. Perhaps LOs would have to assert interest in up to five zip codes or something like that. Zillow likes person-to-person contact, rather than engaging a nationwide vendor like Countrywide. If the presumption is that they’re looking for a comprehensively satisfying experience like Wikipedia or Ebay — and this is the presumption I work from when thinking about Zillow — then they’re going to want to facilitate relationships to be carried out on Zillow through time, rather than just throw off leads.

It is possible, using tax records and loan rates, to calculate profitable re-fi candidates: Homes that can be refinanced at a net savings, month-to-month, to the owner. Zillow has everything it needs to do this, and 70 million candidate homes to work from. This Read more

Catching a sniff of the stench from Tennessee: Why being right about the real estate licensing laws matters

Well.

It is beyond all doubt that readers here are thrilled to the core to cogitate on the implications of real estate licensing laws and their hypothetical repeal. So far the silence has been deafening, with nothing but a host of fallacious arguments, some charming insults and something new under the sun: green-baiting. (It’s like red-baiting, but for Capitalists.) What we have not had is a rational defense of the law.

That’s a real shame, because we are on the verge, potentially, of a revolution in real estate brokerage. Take note:

By means of its “Make Me Move” feature, Zillow.com is engaged in the essential act of real estate brokerage, the introduction of buyer to seller. Zillow’s efforts are not subject to state regulation because it is not performing brokerage for compensation.

IggysHouse.com is going to list homes for sale for free. The state may try to regulate IggysHouse, perhaps by arguing that the co-broke is compensation, even if IggysHouse keeps none of it.

Either way, the stench from Tennessee is too thick to ignore. What are traditional real estate brokers going to try to do with state laws when they come up against competition willing to work for free?

And: Does anyone want to argue that the proposals the traditional brokers come up with will be good for the consumer?

Why has no one been able to rebut the argument that real estate licensing laws are contrary to the consumer’s interests? How about because the argument is correct?

But: I’m here to help. The laws themselves are not going anywhere. Rotarian Socialism rules the country, and it will for quite a while. But you can know what is right and what is wrong, and you can apply your mind to figuring out who is to be benefitted and who penalized when new laws are proposed — as they will be.

Give a look to these questions. If you answer them honestly, you will understand why the real estate licensing laws should be repealed — even though they won’t be.

Like this:

In the absence of real estate licensing laws, are consumers more likely or less likely to investigate the education, qualifications Read more

Redfin’s Sweet Digs weblogs resurrected as neighborhood sites

From John Cook’s Venture Blog:

“Sweet Digs” is back — kind of.

The Redfin real estate blog, which was shut down last month after agents complained to the Northwest Multiple Listing Service that the home reviews were hurting sales, is making its return today in a modified state.

No longer will Redfin bloggers post in-depth reviews of open houses. Instead, the posts will detail information such as price reductions, past sales, open house listings and the number of homes for sale in certain neighborhoods. It also plans to do previews of new listings.

Sweet Digs also will be launched later this summer in Boston and Southern California, the company’s two newest markets.

Technorati Tags: , , , ,

Nadel’s critique of commission structures gets wider distribution

Mark Nadel‘s ground-breaking paper on traditional real estate commission models has been published in an abbreviated form in the Cornell Real Estate Review.

Nota bene: I embedded the wrong link for the Cornell version of the paper. It’s fixed now.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Real estate licensing laws are a criminal conspiracy against the consumer created by and for the benefit of a cartel

When I walk into a supermarket, the first thing I look at are the floors. If they aren’t buffed to a blinding glow, I walk right back out. Why? Because if the manager isn’t staying on top of the floor maintenance, he isn’t staying on top of anything else, either. Without doubt, I am “protected” by vast armies of federal, state and local food cops, but it turns out that they are not willing to get food poisoning in my place. If I fail to guard my own self-interest, the courts might make me (or my heirs) whole — after-the-fact. But nothing can protect me if I won’t protect myself.

Surely you effect many similar sorts of “consumer protection” in your own behalf, possibly believing in your heart that the laws can protect you, yet exercising caution to protect yourself even so. But consider this: If, when selecting electrical equipment, you had to choose between oversight by government functionaries or the Underwriters Laboratories — but not both — which one would you choose?

If you said government, you can stop reading now. You’re hopeless. For those still with us, what we’re doing is exploring the implications of doing away with real estate licensing laws. And if that idea makes you shiver, you can settle down: No matter what I say, the real estate laws are not going to be repealed any time soon.

But imagine for a moment that your neighbor’s mother introduced an old friend to the FSBO seller up the street. This is brokerage, introducing buyer to seller. The principals are unrepresented, but they can do everything they need to do — in Arizona, at least — at the offices of a title company. Nothing unlawful has occurred — until grandma takes a finder’s fee from either the seller or the buyer.

At that point she is in violation of real estate licensing laws. She can connect buyers with sellers all day, every day — provided she does not get paid for doing so. The purpose of the real estate licensing laws is not to protect buyers and sellers from chatty grandmas, who Read more

New York Times works hard to put the fizz in FSBOs . . .

My own personal experience with For-Sale-By-Owner sellers is pretty limited. I’ve never farmed them for listings, so I know nothing of that part of their lives. I’ve called a bunch of them to try to show their homes, but only once have I successfully gotten into one with my buyers. Mostly my experience consists of unreturned phone calls. Not a huge tragedy: The houses I’ve called on were almost always insanely over-priced. Actually, I have seen quite a few FSBOs — after they were listed by professionals and professionally-priced.

This has led me to believe that newspaper reporters live in a different universe. I’m pretty sure that most FSBO stories have unhappy endings, but you’d never guess that by reading the papers.

The New York Times coughs up another example today, this one based on a study done in Madison, Wisconsin. The story doesn’t concern FSBOs, but, rather, an alternative discount listing service, essentially an MLS-less real estate brokerage. The claim of the study is that sellers willing to sell into an artificially limited pool of buyers do as well or better than the sellers of Realtor-represented homes.

Is it true? Who knows? There’s not enough data to judge. Apparently the study measures sold homes. What about the homes that didn’t sell, or didn’t sell until they were listed by a Realtor? The authors of the study claim they were able to account for differences among properties, but this is simply an invitation to endless quibbling. In the end it doesn’t matter. Value is at once a matter of subjective perception and a practical, real-world trade-off. If you believe your time is best spent changing your own oil, you’re probably not my ideal client.

As you might expect, the study was done during the boom, when you couldn’t get a yard sign posted before the home sold. It is also reasonable to expect that newspapers all over the country will pick up the story, since it offers such amazingly bad advice in the current market.

More: Galen Ward speculates on agent skill sets, Glenn Kelman finds still another foot to shoot: Redfin is useless for Read more

Consumer is the loser with real estate licensing, broker argues

This is me in today’s Arizona Republic (permanent link):

 
Consumer is the loser with real estate licensing, broker argues

We’ve been talking about real estate licensing laws, admittedly an exercise in futility. Whatever arguments I might make for repeal, it remains that the Arizona Department of Real Estate is not going to dry up and blow away like tumbleweed.

But here’s an important question: Who do real estate licensing laws benefit?

If you thought of consumers, that would be incorrect. The model legislation for real estate licensing laws in every state was written by the National Association of Realtors. The purpose of these laws is to artificially limit entry into the real estate business, with the objective being to artificially raise the prices paid by consumers.

The fact of the matter is that virtually all government regulation of commerce exists to limit supply, thereby raising prices. This is not an unavoidable consequence, but since regulations are either written by or heavily-influenced by the regulated industries, the alignment of government and business in one conspiracy after another against the consumer is a nearly-universal outcome.

As we discussed last week, another key beneficiary of real estate licensing laws is the real estate broker. Real estate salespeople must be licensed, but in order to work, they must also “hang” their licenses with a real estate broker, another category of license.

The broker will take a bite out of every dollar his salespeople bring in. It is not an exaggeration to say that a broker’s license is a license to steal.

It gets better. Real estate brokers have managed to get themselves exempted from IRS income reporting and withholding regulations. In any other business, the boss has to withhold taxes. Taxes are vile, but the reporting and withholding requirement discourages careless hiring practices. There is a significant cost to adding employees, so employers will not take a chance on just anyone.

Not so real estate brokers. Adding a new Realtor costs virtually nothing, so many brokerages are packed wall-to-wall with thoroughly incompetent agents — haphazardly trained but licensed by the state to wreck your financial life forever.

If you think these laws and regulations benefit Read more

Redfin discovers Earth: “It was wetter than we were expecting…”

You just can’t make this stuff up. Redfin’s Glenn Kelman:

At lunch with Cynthia and a local real estate baron, we heard about a new tactic for getting a deal on a property. Rather than offering a lower price, ask the seller to handle closing costs, which can run up to $10,000 or more.

How long have they been doing real estate? And today they discovered that they can negotiate the closing costs?

Recall that Kelman claims that Redfin agents are better negotiators. I mentioned closing costs when discussing why that claim might not be true:

A complicated negotiation might result in a higher reported sales price but a better overall deal for the buyers — for example, repairs or even remodeling, seller concessions, no out-of-pocket costs, etc. These are the types of arrangements more likely to be made by more-experienced agents.

A question their clients — and their clients’ attorneys — might ask: What else don’t they know?

In a word: Yikes!

Technorati Tags: , ,

Katy Couric, Redfin, and the Predictability of Markets.

There was a delightfully obtuse article in yesterday’s Oregonian lamenting the abysmal ratings of Katy Couric and CBS Evening News. The writer’s reasoning was that it’s our fault for not watching, that we’re a country of misogynists not ready for a serious female anchor. Damn us.

The fact is that, like most markets, the ratings were entirely predictable. Not that prediction is easy — obviously some people can’t even predict in hindsight — but those who are best able to infer behavior from given cause are those most likely to succeed in whatever they do.

Some suggestions:

1. Trust your first impression.

It’s the first advice I give to buyers: You’ll know it when you see it; if you have to be talked into it it’s probably not right. Same with ideas: if it sounds nutty on first hearing, chances are it is.

When a network news division with serious credibility problems hires as an anchor someone famous for her teeth and entertainment value — and with credibility problems of her own — it’s nutty.

When a company — Redfin — launches on the supposition that buyers will rush to be represented by someone they’ll never meet in their most important purchase of their lives, it’s nutty.


2. The corollary to (1): Don’t project your own bias.

Manifested in the notion that “If I think it, so must everyone.”

The Oregonian is obsessed with global warming (full disclosure: I am not obsessed with global warming). When our local MLS decided to add a ‘green’ search mechanism, apparently intended to pick up those properties with Energy Star or other ratings, The Oregonian devoted sixty column inches to the news. (See here). I still haven’t ever had a buyer ask me to find a green property, a seller who’s asked how to get a ‘green’ rating, nor have I ever talked to anyone else who has, and I live in the greenest state in the US. As of right now, there are 304 green listings in the MLS; out of 12,741.

Redfin’s (and Sixty Minutes’) bias is “Stick it to the Man!” CBS’s bias is: gender trumps merit.

Caveat: It’s Read more

Do you think real estate reporting stinks?

You’re not alone:

The media coverage of housing is horrible. When the housing market was booming, we were warned of a “bubble.” When the boom finally slowed, we were warned it would be a disaster. It’s like the housing market is never good. It’s either bad or it soon will be. Even as a strident pessimist, I can’t muster that much negativity. And that “bubble” talk actually started before 9/11. If you had paid attention to it, you would have missed quite a boom.

The Arizona Republic is ever at the ready with local examples, of course. Especially on Saturdays, it seems, thus, possibly, to try to kill the busiest day of the real estate week.

Today is no exception, with a girthsome celebration of FSBObesity, but Jonathan Dalton and Jay Thompson have the paper’s number.

Technorati Tags: , , , , , ,

Tennessee commission rebate ban signed into law

From the the Nashville Tennessean:

Gov. Phil Bredesen has signed a bill reinstating a ban on cash rebates for home sales and other real estate transactions, despite opposition from consumer advocates and federal antitrust officials.

The bill signed late Wednesday reverses a decision made earlier this month by state regulators to repeal the ban under pressure from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Many flat-fee and discount real estate brokerages use rebates to reduce their commissions, which are set by home sellers. Justice Department lawyers have challenged cash rebate bans in several states, saying the bans hinder competition among agents.

But the Tennessee Association of Realtors urged lawmakers to reinstate the ban. They said the ban protects consumers from backroom deals between agents and outside parties, such as referral services and mortgage lenders.

The association also said discount brokerages can reduce their commissions by offering non-cash incentives, such as gift cards and services, or by renegotiating commission rates with sellers and their agents.

Technorati Tags: , , ,

Tennessee, Oregon, and the State of Real Estate

This started as a reply to Greg’s post on the Tennessee legislature, which apparently insists going backward is the new going forward. But then I had The Conversation, and it’s developed into a post of its own.

Involved is someone I respect, a friend, a mentor, perhaps the one person more responsible for getting me into real estate than anyone. In the business over twenty years, he knows RE law better than most principal brokers, and has helped me enormously in the first three years I’ve been around.

Oregon is one of the eleven states that has a “Thou shalt not share commission!” law, passed at least fifteen years ago, notwithstanding Glenn Kelman’s Sixty Minutes inference that it was all about him. I wanted to know why it was passed in the first place: Assuming consumer protection against graft or corruption, I couldn’t figure out how that worked. The answer dumbfounded me:

“That protects us, our commissions. I’m glad it’s there.”

Oh, dear. Thank you for the candor. Elaborate?

“Look, I know you’re a free market kind of guy, but there’s nothing wrong with laws protecting us from consumers. People try to hack away at my commission every day on the listing side. This prevents the same kind of hacking on the buying side.”

Wait. Aren’t you worth the commission you charge? “Of course. That’s my point.” Then when someone asks you to cut your commission, what’s wrong with: No. Why do you need a law, especially a law that reinforces the public perception that we’re all self absorbed troglodytes?

“Twenty years ago, before the internet, we didn’t have that reputation. Now 80% of transactions don’t even really need a buyer’s agent.”

Say what?

It went on, defensively and testily. The internet’s the problem, we’re the victims. When I brought up separating buyer commission from listing commission, he said he hoped he was well out of the business before that happened.

It’s occurred to me: his opinion isn’t an anomaly; as I said here the biggest problem we face as an industry is our industry. I can’t begin to get my mind around treating clients as adversaries, Read more