Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"You are letting the other guy lie and get away with it."
As soon as you call the other guy a liar and claim the high ground, you are rolling in the mud.
IF you can prove someone is lying, take it to the board or the state, not to a prospective client.
Ohh. What does full service mean? What does the client think it means? Is my full service the same as the competitions full service? Care to differentiate full service from required service?
What does the state RE Dept think it means? What does the RE board think it means?
This is all off into puffery and such. Same reason I am reasonably sure the competitor won't sue me if he should get a copy of my chart.
And of course the non ethics clauses of NAR allows all this.
Agree - but - We have an operation that pushes 1% commission. Banner ads across the bottom of the front page of the newspaper. They appear to offer full service.
You can expect to hear about these guys on every third or fourth listing. So how do you respond to " But I can get all that from Bubble Real Estate for only 1%". "Bubble" is not bad actually...highly automated high volume shop. Probably as good as any of the other high list shops though actually a long way from full service.
So how do you avoid discussing them in somw detail. And if you don't effectively denigrate them why should the seller choose you?
Before I respond to this specific post, I just wanted to comment that it's encouraging that this has become a productive discussion on how to improve and professionalize the language used in the industry.
On the topic of what is "risky talk" from an anti-competitive standpoint, the post above could be troubling in my opinion. The DOJ is keen to have new entrants, new models, those who offer low cost services and generally challenge traditional brokers who use 'traditional' commission rates and traditional models. It's no secret that they are concerned that commission rates have not reduced enough considering availability of technology and the inflation of home prices over the last many years. The DOJ seems sensitive to ANY real or perceived, explicit or tacit attempts by the more traditional players to discredit, contain, etc. these players. It's my understanding that the NAR (as a result of compliance issues) suggests competing FOR clients business rather than competing AGAINST these players and strongly warns of any kind of discussions between agents/brokers on competing against a segment of 'threatening' new players or players with new models or fees that "break the mold".
My personal opinion is that it's risky to come to a public forum like this and discuss with other traditional players the best way to compete against a disrupter type competitor (e.g. someone coming in with 1% rates). If you review NAR guidance, you will likely agree with this. If I were you, I would steer clear of anything that could look or smell like communications that attempt to "share notes", share ideas, discuss, brainstorm, or share "experiences" competing against disruptive (or any) competitors or types of competitors. Just not worth the risk as the penalties could be criminal and very severe.
The sentence from above that could be a problematic question in the context of discussion with other traditional players - "So how do you respond to " But I can get all that from Bubble Real Estate for only 1%"
This is only my opinion. I am only a concerned consumer interested in consumer protection. Frankly I'm surprised at how far behind the industry seems to be when it comes to professional, clear, and disciplined communications.
Before I respond to this specific post, I just wanted to comment that it's encouraging that this has become a productive discussion on how to improve and professionalize the language used in the industry.
On the topic of what is "risky talk" from an anti-competitive standpoint, the post above could be troubling in my opinion. The DOJ is keen to have new entrants, new models, those who offer low cost services and generally challenge traditional brokers who use 'traditional' commission rates and traditional models. It's no secret that they are concerned that commission rates have not reduced enough considering availability of technology and the inflation of home prices over the last many years. The DOJ seems sensitive to ANY real or perceived, explicit or tacit attempts by the more traditional players to discredit, contain, etc. these players. It's my understanding that the NAR (as a result of compliance issues) suggests competing FOR clients business rather than competing AGAINST these players and strongly warns of any kind of discussions between agents/brokers on competing against a segment of 'threatening' new players or players with new models or fees that "break the mold".
It is not a new model. Been around here for close to 20 years anyway. Many who practiced this model went under when the market crashed in 2008. It is a model that may work in an fat market with rising prices. But in a skinny market with long sales cycles they go broke.
Secondarily you would swiftly find out that the 1% is actually 4% and will rapidly escalate to 5% as real needs get factored in.
Third you may well find pressures to under price and make access difficult. And you can build a lot of that into the system.
Quote:
My personal opinion is that it's risky to come to a public forum like this and discuss with other traditional players the best way to compete against a disrupter type competitor (e.g. someone coming in with 1% rates). If you review NAR guidance, you will likely agree with this. If I were you, I would steer clear of anything that could look or smell like communications that attempt to "share notes", share ideas, discuss, brainstorm, or share "experiences" competing against disruptive (or any) competitors or types of competitors. Just not worth the risk as the penalties could be criminal and very severe.
The sentence from above that could be a problematic question in the context of discussion with other traditional players - "So how do you respond to " But I can get all that from Bubble Real Estate for only 1%"
So your opinion favors standing silently by while the sellers get screwed? The problem with any of this is the mechanism of a listing is not portrayed well by a single number such as the seller's agents commission. You have to explore the whole process and see how it actually works.
Simple example. How is the price set? Will this "new system" brokerage take a listing at 115% of likely sales price? Or will he pressure the seller to 95%. How does he deal with high end listings?
Does he make it hard to gain access to the listings? A tell tale number would be what percent of his listings is he double dipping. Normal is under 10% for agents who push it. But ever once in a while you see people hitting much higher numbers.
Does he charge for services normally provided free? Does he explain any of this to the client?
Quote:
This is only my opinion. I am only a concerned consumer interested in consumer protection. Frankly I'm surprised at how far behind the industry seems to be when it comes to professional, clear, and disciplined communications.
That is because of your perception bias. You will never see it clearly. But that is your problem.
I am no fan of the existing system. Reasonably absurd in any number of dimensions. But no the system is not going to be revolutionized by the latest rip off artist. Until you understand the details of these operations presuming they are good for the consumer is hopelessly naive.
Nor is it going to move to the internet. The sale is simply to soft.
Ohh. What does full service mean? What does the client think it means? Is my full service the same as the competitions full service? Care to differentiate full service from required service?
What does the state RE Dept think it means? What does the RE board think it means?
This is all off into puffery and such. Same reason I am reasonably sure the competitor won't sue me if he should get a copy of my chart.
And of course the non ethics clauses of NAR allows all this.
In observing or surpassing NAR COE, I take the approach that the COE is a "Minimum Code," like so much building construction.
Kind of like "not getting sued" is a rock bottom minimum of guidance for behavior.
So, I can see a checklist of various marketing endeavors that I would perform, and a column beside my list with questions for an unnamed competition.
Of course, closed sales records can be somewhat aggregated from MLS data, but the data is routinely corrupted well enough, it is difficult to advise that route.
In observing or surpassing NAR COE, I take the approach that the COE is a "Minimum Code," like so much building construction.
Kind of like "not getting sued" is a rock bottom minimum of guidance for behavior.
So, I can see a checklist of various marketing endeavors that I would perform, and a column beside my list with questions for an unnamed competition.
Of course, closed sales records can be somewhat aggregated from MLS data, but the data is routinely corrupted well enough, it is difficult to advise that route.
Actually our closed records are pretty good. Unfortunately the County records have gone to hell over the past five years so the only trustworthy records are the MLS. And I think that will prove to be a problem for those who try to beat the system. I would go off and take a look...I used to do this for a living so I am relatively good at it. But the only way an agent can get at the interesting data is to download the whole MLS - or at least the last n years. I have considered doing that for a while. And may yet. But it would take a while. I know of no rule against doing it...but if they thought someone who knew how was doing it they would likely make one.
However anyone with brokerage level access could do it. In fact I am reasonably friendly with our owner and may suggest he set up a low level monitoring operation. Unfortunately he is of the super salesman type. So keeping the other side honest is not his bag. Will always go to outsell them.
And, I think that Entry Only is NOT an adequate shield against poor measurement of the property.
Listing agents who cite the tax rolls, or an old appraisal, or builder drawings, etc, in a listing, should have MLS privileges immediately suspended.
It should be enforced to measure in person or to hire an appraiser to measure.
The 5% rule on SF accuracy should be applied to all listing agents equally, whether they are on the next street or the next state.
Interesting. Almost NO agents in the Atlanta area measure listings, because of the liability issues if it's not measured correctly. Our input program into our MLS automatically pulls and inserts the tax record SF, and we can only override it with a very few options: Owner, Builder, Appraiser or Not Provided. We cannot put a SF number in with "not provided". Tax record SF has to be examined closely, though, because sometimes finished basement is included in the SF, and sometimes it's not, so you have to be careful you are comparing apples to apples.
A few years ago, we weren't even ALLOWED to put in SF, because there had been kerfluffles with buyers suing for SF differences of less than 50 sf. Finally, the MLS/Board just decreed, "********** -- no more SFs will be published." We still had access to the tax records, it just made it a little harder to compare apples to apples. Then they decided to bring back SF entries, with limitations.
I'm trying to imagine the screams from 25,000 agents if they were told they had to measure their own listings . . .
Interesting. Almost NO agents in the Atlanta area measure listings, because of the liability issues if it's not measured correctly. Our input program into our MLS automatically pulls and inserts the tax record SF, and we can only override it with a very few options: Owner, Builder, Appraiser or Not Provided. We cannot put a SF number in with "not provided". Tax record SF has to be examined closely, though, because sometimes finished basement is included in the SF, and sometimes it's not, so you have to be careful you are comparing apples to apples.
A few years ago, we weren't even ALLOWED to put in SF, because there had been kerfluffles with buyers suing for SF differences of less than 50 sf. Finally, the MLS/Board just decreed, "********** -- no more SFs will be published." We still had access to the tax records, it just made it a little harder to compare apples to apples. Then they decided to bring back SF entries, with limitations.
I'm trying to imagine the screams from 25,000 agents if they were told they had to measure their own listings . . .
SF is optional as far as the NC Real Estate Commission is concerned.
If provided, they have specific measuring and accuracy standards. This ensures a common standard amongst agents who care enough to be professional.
But, here in CookieCutterVille, SF brings enough value that the MLS requires it.
Our tax record SF are not produced to any common standard, and typically vary wildly from SF as measured by the NC REC standard.
IMO, any time an agent enters a SF that is equal to the tax roll SF, they should immediately have to provide their work papers to support that value.
Because, most often they have not done their legal duty.
I wonder if I should just pay full asking for the house, then sue the listing realtor for the 400sf discrepancy once I've secured the property and can prove to the exact inch the actual square footage? Hmmm
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
SF is optional as far as the NC Real Estate Commission is concerned.
If provided, they have specific measuring and accuracy standards. This ensures a common standard amongst agents who care enough to be professional.
I would just go ahead and add here that those local standards you are referring to are based on the American National Standards Institute or ANSI.
I would also highly recommend that all real estate agents fully familiarize themselves with ANSI, and particularly the ones here who may be giving advise across state lines.
It's akin to electricians familiarizing themselves with the NEC or National Electrical Code. Sure different locations may have different practices, but ALL will adhere to ANSI in the most fundamental of ways.
I wonder if I should just pay full asking for the house, then sue the listing realtor for the 400sf discrepancy once I've secured the property and can prove to the exact inch the actual square footage? Hmmm
I would just go ahead and add here that those local standards you are referring to are based on the American National Standards Institute or ANSI.
I would also highly recommend that all real estate agents fully familiarize themselves with ANSI, and particularly the ones here who may be giving advise across state lines.
It's akin to electricians familiarizing themselves with the NEC or National Electrical Code. Sure different locations may have different practices, but ALL will adhere to ANSI in the most fundamental of ways.
Not necessarily true. The Nevada system is an administrative one run by the county assessors. It does not appear to have ANSI roots. It also effectively removes SF as an issue.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
