Protect Consumer Access to Real Estate Listings

Change email address and post this iPetition to the main blog as well as RECALL:

Protect Consumer Access to Real Estate Listings.

“It’s all about the interest of consumers,” said Pat Lashinsky, vice president for marketing at the California-based discount brokerage, which does business in Illinois. “I’m glad the Justice Department is stepping in to represent the consumer.”

“NAR wants to allow brokers to pick and choose which listings will go on the Internet. But consumers want to see all homes on one site,” Lashinsky said Monday.

“Sellers want their home to be seen by the most potential buyers in order to get most for their home,” Lashinsky continued. “Consumers lose if the listing is not shown everywhere. I think consumers will take an interest in this NAR bylaws change.”

Fred,

Thanks for posting this! As ZipRealty told the Chicago Tribune and this iPetition foretold two years ago, real estate consumers — BOTH buyers and sellers — would be the real losers if NAR’s selective opt-out VOW policy goes into effect:

Protect Consumer Access to Real Estate Listings
http://www.ipetitions.com/campaigns/protect_mls_access/

What may be more difficult to foretell is the unintended consequence of the DOJ’s legal actions this week. “Could there be a Cendant MLS someday?” “Absolutely” says the chairman and CEO of Cendant’s Real Estate Services Division in this March 2003 article in RealtyTimes:

http://realtytimes.com/rtnews/rtapages/20030305_vowregulation.htm

My guess is that Cendant’s four brands (Coldwell Banker, Century21, ERA and Sotheby’s) have more than 50% of listings in many cities and town across Massachusetts. Put that together with the new designated agency legislation in Massachusetts that glosses over the conflict of interest when brokerages represent the buyer and seller in the same transaction and the DOJ could inadvertently create the ultimate in-house sales machine with anti-competitive implications that rival NAR’s flawed VOW policy.

What’s your take and what steps should be taken to insure an open competitive market place for buyers, sellers, and real estate professionals regardless of whether they are traditional or alternative brokerage models?

Bill

Related Articles

Shouldn’t real estate consumers be free to choose based on informed consent?

Surveys conducted by the real estate industry over the past decade repeatedly find that some consumers want the convenience of one-stop shopping.  In response, real estate consumer advocates advise consumers to look carefully at the trade-off between time-saving convenience and cost, and to protect their right to make free, informed choices.  That’s the goal of this second article of a proposed Real
Estate Consumer Bill of Rights.  Initially drafted in 1999, how would you update it for 2005 and beyond?  If federal regulations were finally changed to allow banks to provide residential brokerage services, would this language need to be expanded? 

DRAFT REAL ESTATE CONSUMER BILL OF RIGHTS

2. Right not to be coerced into using products or service providers.
No consumer should be forced, without the consumer’s full informed
consent, into using any particular service or product. Consumers should
especially be cautioned where the real estate professional may, by
office policy, be required to act as a dual representative or shift
services without the consumer’s full informed consent. Consumers have
the right NOT to use real estate brokerage services and to “self-represent” if so determined by the consumer.

As written in an earlier blog post entitled, Cell phone bill of rights? Why not real estate?, The Real Estate Cafe will:

Whos Agent are you?

Sameoffice1_2See anything wrong with this picture?  Too many brokerages in Massachusetts don’t; that’s why home buyers and sellers need to protect their financial interest by asking "their" real estate agency whom they represent.  Yes, Massachusetts law requires real estate licensees to disclose their ageny relationship at the first personal meeting to discuss a specific property, but too often agents fail to comply with this mandatory regulation.  Even when they do, those brokerages who see nothing wrong with designated agency have no obligation to explain potential conflicts of interest so buyers and sellers can make truly informed decisions. 

That’s why The Real Estate Cafe has argued, for years, for a public information campaign at the start of the Spring homebuying season to protect real state consumers.  Why not use the Ides of March to warn buyers and sellers that designated agents can betray their financial interests?  Why not use April Fool’s Day to caution consumers not to fooled by designated agents? 

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com