The_Bayou,

I agree w/ you on several points. I could not shout loud enough on a megaphone how much I endorse raising the standards for entry and licensing as a real estate agent. I think the low barrier is a substantial problem for the industry. There are many who possess licenses who should not. :-(

State licensing boards, and associaton build their revenues on increased licenses and members. Personally, I would much prefer to pay a higher licensing fee or association fee and weed out those who are dedicated to professionalism.

There are also many excellent Realtors who have substantial knowledge, skill and dedication. I don't ever use the analogy of a surgeon.....but I have used the analogy of an attorney at times. There are valid comparisons. We, as Realtors, are not attorneys and do not practice law. We do represent our clients and advise them on matters of significant monetary value, advise them of the rules and laws by which they must abide and do our best to minimize their liability. We do this representing one party, and in the best case scenario, the opposite party has their own representative. The most common analogy I use is that in a divorce, you wouldn't go to your divorcing spouse's attorney for advice about what is best for you, when I try to explain to buyers why they should have a buyer agent.

There are "Realtor Bashers" who simply attack, and I believe that is what JR was addressing. I am confronted w/ lack of knowledge or availability when dealing w/ other agents more than I am confonted w/ acts of dishonesty. The vast majority of all agents that I have ever dealt w/ have been forthright in their dealings. Of course, there are bad apples, but those indeed, are the exception.

Realtors who are dedicated to their profession, are actively on-call 7 days a week, continuously upgrade their knowledge and advocate strongly for their clients do not deserve to be bashed.

I spent a number of years in corporate sales and marketing positions. As a Broker, my hours are longer, my freedom is less (always on call), my need to stay on my toes is greater, my liability is greater, and my personal life frequently takes a back seat and is subject to change in order to meet the needs of clients.

When I hear cheesy slams as blanket statements against Realtors as a entire lot, I disregard these comments for they lack credibilty. We can only trust that the pubic, in general, is educated enough to dismiss anger bashing for what it is.

The integrity of Voices depends upon value contribution. Bashing will deter professionals and and it will also deter legitimate buyers and sellers. Trulia needs both. Trulia needs real buyers and sellers to visit property listings. Trulia needs content from credible providers to make Voices a place that consumer find worthwhile. Trulia needs brokers to want to submit listings, and buy advertising. It behooves Trulia to discourage Realtor bashing.

Opposing opinions and controversy is informative and helpful for consumers and RE Pros.

Cameron did not bash a Realtor by introducing this thread. He, as many consumer, simply wants easy access to info. I answsered earlier on this thread, as a consumer, I wanted the "book"....but coulnd't have it. :-( I didn't dismiss the notion of using a Realtor, nor her value to me as a consumer.

JR makes very valid points and I couldn't agree w/ her more. I, too, have drug buyers kicking and screaming to a property they thought they did not want to see. Upon seeing it, they wrote an offer.

Informed consumers are good consumers. I enjoy working with consumers who have knowledge of the area. A consumer who has read a few lisitngs and think they have the same knowledge as a Realtor who does this full time will often put themselves at risk. I have heard consumers boast about their successes w/o a Realtor and those are usually the ones who did not do well, but don't even know it. There are some very savvy consumers out there - so my comment clearly is not directed to all consumers. Not just in real estate, but in all walks.....it is the Archie Bunkers who think they know so much and trash others who are the ones who are the most "off." They are the minority. I am happy to say that I love most of my customers! :-)

Wed Mar 19 2008, 10:26

JR,

I agree that there is a lot of Realtor bashing on this site, but there are also a lot of Realtors exaggerating their importance. I have seen several Realtors use expressions like "You want to buy a house without a Realtor? Do you perform surgery on yourself? Would you represent yourself in court?" I am a finance executive, but I would never compare the importance of my services to that of a surgeon or a trial lawyer. Potential clients would rightfully think I am pompous and ignorant, and would never consider hiring me.

There are a lot of bad Realtors out there, as many Realtors on this site have readily admitted. In most states it is very easy to get a real estate license. It is so easy that Melinda even recommended getting a license just to get access to the MLS. My wife got a license in a weekend (Massachusetts).

Because it is so easy to become a Realtor, there are hundreds, likely thousands, of people that do the job part time. Many argue that Realtors are professionals, and I agree that many are, but would argue that the weekend warriors are anything but. These Realtors are usually recommended to buyers by family members or friends ("Did you know that Kate down the street is a Realtor? You should have her look for some houses to show you."). Because buying a home is such a big decision, and because of the amount of information available on the internet today, a home buyer often conducts many hours of research on the neighborhoods they want to live in. They got to greatschools.net to hear about the schools, they talk to friends of friends that live in the neighborhood, they read local blogs, they go to all open houses, talk to the listing agents, other home seekers, etc... They often end up knowing a lot more about the areas they are interested in than the buyers agent they hired, despite the fact that the agent they hired works in those areas.

In my opinion, real estate agents will always come under fire as long as there are no real barriers to entry to the profession, other than a small fee. There is nothing to stop me from getting a license this week, signing on with a brokerage and helping buyers find houses next week. This has to stop.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 09:39

Acutally in my market you can access our MLS for free from my office site.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 09:24

K: I find trulia to be more about trying to defend our professional as Realtors than anything else.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Many public bulletin boards are like that. You should see Craigs List Housing board if you really want to see realtor bashing. Then they want us to help them for free. Go figure.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 09:13

I think Deborah and others have nailed the true spirit of the thread. I have absolutely zero interest in seeing the name of the seller, their contact info,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JR: You don't. Others do.


I'd consider paying $60/month to get access to listings
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
JR: So would some others. Many pay more than that. They also have to pay by the year. A full year.


BUT, and it's a huge but, the Realtor's don't own the publishing medium, which is the MLS.
~~~~~~~~~~
JR: You should have said IF, and it's a huge IF. Realtors DO own the publishing medium. Where did you get the impression we didn't.


Currently, the MLS is a monopoly in any given market.
~~~~~~~~~~~
JR: It is? There are no listings to be seen on Realtor.com etc? Some buyers sound like children: "Mommy, I can do it all myself, I don't want any help!!! Whaaaa!!!" I can't tell you how many times I've had people INSIST on seeing houses I knew were not for them, and kick and scream about going into houses they were sure they would HATE, and they ended up buying them. You can't judge a book by it's cover, Cameron. You can't judge a home by it's photos, sometimes you can't even judge it with a drive by.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 09:12

Cameron,

You can get an "MLS DATAFACE MODULE" to incorporate into your system at no cost to you. It can access the regular MLS and provide you with all of the information that you desire. And it is 100% legal.

You just have to know where to call.

Gary De Pury

Wed Mar 19 2008, 07:54

Cameron...

Here in the Chicago area, our MLS is MLSNI (Multiple LIsting Services of Northern Illinois)... and the Realtors and their agencies DO own the MLS.. .it is run and operated by the local real estate agencies, along with the North Shore Barrington Board or Realtors (my board), the and all the local member boards (CAR & others)... who have representatives who sit on the board.

So our MLS was created by Realtors, run by Realtors for the express use of Realtor members. That being said, you can access MLSNI by going tohttp:// www.mlsni.com, and search through the listings. This is NOT the same MLS as the realtors see... ours ishttp:// www.mlsni.net which is password protected, and available by subscription (should probably be PREscription) only. So we DO own the publishing medium in this case. And yet, we willingly share it with the public in mlsni.com

We are one of those rare areas where we have TWO MLS services....(which we pay membership in as well, to stay property informed) MAP is the second one, but they are combining this fall, and MLSNI will be the prevailing MLS of the two... (woo hoo!)

MLSNI does have information that goes back many years (1980)... but the photographs only last a year or so, and then they're purged to make room for more incoming memory.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 06:51

I find trulia to be more about trying to defend our professional as Realtors than anything else.

This buyer wants in the mls for a small fee,,,,, SO DO I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want in for a nonimal fee.

There will always be someone that wants the prize without the responsibilty.
.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 06:35

I think Deborah and others have nailed the true spirit of the thread. I have absolutely zero interest in seeing the name of the seller, their contact info, their lock box code, etc. etc. I'd consider paying $60/month to get access to listings (as far back as they go) of various statuses, days on the market, etc.. I understand that with some old listings on the MLS in Chicago, there are pictures still attached to that listing. What an insight that would give! Comparing before/after pictures of the same property should it come into the market to see what upgrades have been done, comparing how taxes and assessments have evolved, cutting through any tricks played by realtor on the true days on the market, seeing the original listing price vs the final listing price. Or taking a look at listings under contract to see what price level are they at or looking at expired listings to see what not to do. Or taking a look at rental listings to see what comparable properties would rent for, should that be a valid concern. It will make for a much more knowledgable buyer and seller. The value-add of the Realtor would be in their marketing ability, intimate understanding of the process, tying random pieces of data into an insight that buyer/seller without years of experience would be hard pressed to get to, and ensuring that emotion isn't part of the overall process so that a market-based outcome can be easily obtained.

Good question about who owns the data. I'm guessing here but would think that any MLS would make the Realtor's sign a contract right at the beginning that gives it full control of the data. Does that happen in real life? If not, then whomever is responsible for gathering and entering the data own it. Other than private contact information, I don't think the seller owns the data because they didn't take the time to come measure and input into the MLS. It's like someone taking a picture of a subject. As long as the subject gave consent to have a picture taken, its the photographer who owns the picture. BUT, and it's a huge but, the Realtor's don't own the publishing medium, which is the MLS. So, hmmmm, it would take consent of the both the Realtors (authors) and MLS (publisher) to be able to release the data to the public. The real question is what do you gain or lose by doing so? Currently, the MLS is a monopoly in any given market. Sometimes there may be more than one MLS that covers the same area but i"m guessing that that is rare. Anytime a monopoly is broken up, the stakeholders in that monopoloy suffer. But we are not asking to break up the monopoly. In other words, the input of the data is still monopolized. It is only the distribution of the data that is under discussion here. So who gains, who loses? The MLS gains to the extent that they have people like me willing to pay a high fee to get access to listing related data, the MLS loses to the extent that the weaker Realtors who rely solely on access to data as their reason for being will likely get pushed out and thus won't subscribe to the MLS anymore. The agents who currently rely on the IDX feed to provide content for their websites may lose a portion of the traffic but I would think that not everyone will want to pay more to get more. There will be a majority of clients out there who will be content with the free IDX feeds.

I'm not entirely sure that this is strictly a win-lose situation. It could be a win-win. The buyers/sellers win, the stronger Realtors win, the MLS wins, and the real estate industry wins because it might cull the weaker realtors all together.

Wed Mar 19 2008, 06:32

Elvis:
Oddly enough, we didn't have people calling for "transparency" and access to our records when we were printing 300 - 500 page books with photos of homes, every week or two.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
LOL Good point Elvis! The problem is that when something is on computer, people think it's "free". The same effort goes into obtaining and compiling listings now as then--the difference is it's available at the touch of a finger, so it has no "value".

Wed Mar 19 2008, 05:52

Bill......Here's a thread just for you.....

A property owner wants to know why his info, including his address is listed for the public.

Bill, your point is well taken that a seller input and authorization is important.

here's the thread...
http://www.trulia.com/voices/General_Area/why_is_my_address_…

Tue Mar 18 2008, 20:12

Cameron, Thanks for a lively thread!

Bill, I have participated in several round tables w/ brokers and MLS representatives about who owns the data. Brokers think they own it; MLS think they own it, since they assemble it. What is blatantly clear in these discussions is that everyone wants a piece of it. Trulia, and other companies extend substantial efforts to encourage agents, brokers and and MLSs to provide the data to them. MLSs extend much effort to court those of us who have direct feeds of the entire MLS. As a broker I have that, and I have also signed agreements about how I can use those feeds. Yes, many would love for me to provide that feed to them. Of course, when it is the feed, it isn't just data about our company lsitings, its everyone else's, too. I don't own other broker's data, but I do consider that I own ours. I grant permission to the MLS to export it with the IDX feed. Bill, you couldn't hit the nail more exact on the head with your point about who owns the data and all the discussions that follow.

Bill, Does your MLS feed to Realtor.com? If so, providing you elect to participate in IDX, isn't your seller info already out there? Perhaps your data isn't on Realtor.com? My sellers want to be there....and everywhere else we put them.

The Bayou, I think the vast majority of us are all on the same page. The discussions about the confidential data was for clarification. Cameron wasn't asking for it, sellers wouldnt' want it dispersed, and most buyers completely accept that. The vast majority of sellers are already on the internet, but the info is limited. Cameron simply wants more of the factual material data made more easily accessible to buyers....room sizes, taxes, type of heat, etc., and more search options.

Elvis........Your comments are so well spoken.....as always. We could award you a bulls eye for just being on target. Perhaps a bulls eye could be your next avatar. Before I was a Realtor, I can remember being a buyer and seller. I wanted to look at my Realtor's book, and I wanted her to leave it w/ me overnight. She wouldn't. When I first started in this biz, we still had books, and my clients wanted me to give them my old books. Perhaps one of the reasons I am so supportive of giving consumers access to property data (room sizes, taxes, etc.) is that I remember how much I wanted access to the "book" when I was a customer and not a Realtor. Elvis, you make great points in discussing "expectation" of access. I don't think that as a customer I had an expectation to have my Realtor's book, just a desire. I thought it would make our collective goal easier to achieve and more efficient. I reflect on those feelings when I hear buyers, such as Cameron, discuss his desire for increased accessiblity to info.

I don't think the public has the right to demand....and those member of the public who bash agents, belittle them and then demand do more to harm progress than help. Elvis spoke well about this.

The vast majority of agents are supportive and responsive of customer's input and suggestions on how to improve our industry.

Tue Mar 18 2008, 20:08

I'm not sure that some of the information you want to see is useful or even available. Our MLS has only been in existen for a few years, so you wouldn't see 10yr old listings there even if you were a Realtor. If you're looking for past history, that isn't even something we use the MLS for: we use services that access the public record. Much of the other info your looking for IS available on some MLSes.

Tue Mar 18 2008, 19:44

Did you ever think about it this way .... Without Trulia .. agents would be far less useful....?
________________

a cute turn of phrase, but no.. it's not humbling, 'cause it's not correct. Without the realtors data, trulia would be just as ineffective as zillow, which pulls it's data from public records.

Tue Mar 18 2008, 19:30

Alan (elvis)

Did you ever think about it this way ....

Without Trulia .. agents would be far less useful....?

.. humbling isn't it.....?



-

Tue Mar 18 2008, 19:25

Bill makes a good point. Do sellers want information about their homes available to all buyers or do they prefer to limit their pool of potential buyers to just buyers working with Realtors?

What are the arguments for each side? Do home owners hope that the Realtor will not share damaging information about the property with their clients? Why else would they want the information restricted only to the Realtors, rather than the community of potential buyers.

We are not talking about key codes here, or sleeping hazards, as obviously this information would be restricted. We are talking about the information that Cameron asked about, statuses, listing histories, etc..., the type of information that would better help him make an educated decision.

Slightly off topic, but any economist will tell you that restricting information from some buyers will have a negative impact on the market as a whole.

Tue Mar 18 2008, 19:20

Fellow Realtors,

Another point that is yet to