I agree with what you are saying about the red carpet…. I will quote from my last post.
_______________________________________________
“Now in terms of not showing a picture of a bedroom that has huge holes in the carpet or something like that… well i agree with you… some things are best left not said.
My beef is on a bigger level in terms of overall data sharing with the policies of MLS’s across the country. And my point was… the MAIN reason they aren’t sharing very much of the data is to protect the brokers (who make up the boards of the MLS’S) cut from their buyers agents. In my mind this has got to be the overwhelming reason.”
______________________________________________

So once again… like i had stated before… everyone reads my main point then move on to some different point in the MLS debate…

I know and fully understand what you are saying about buyers agents knowing the MLS data is just data provided buy someone who has a fiduciary relationship with the seller…

MY BEEF IS NOT WITH THE LACK OF ACCURACY OF THE DATA….
it is with the lack of the overall sharing of the data… in any form by the brokers…

sorry to keep going back to my same points… but i just think that everyone is overlooking the obvious reason for the MLS debate because it is so simple… brokers are protecting the advantage their buyers agents have by having the full MLS data.

I give up on this subject..hahaha

For the record, I did not say that, nor would I do that. If the seller has a red carpet in one tiny room, I do not put that on the internet photos. That doesn’t mean I am concealing it from buyers who come to the house. The internet is an advertising tool, not a “disclosure format. Same with data. We have required fields and non-required fields. I am not going to fill in the “red carpet” data to post on the internet if it is not a required field.

That is my fiduciary duty to the seller. Not to conceal it from buyers who make offers on his home, yet at the same time not to put on the internet every single detail. The internet posting is a Highlight Sheet, not a Form 17.

When I am the buyer’s agent I DO NOT rely on mls data to represent my buyer client well. I understand that is put there by someone who represents ONLY the seller. Data is input by the seller’s representative. Buyer Agents and Buyers need to know that their “due diligence” doesn’t end at reading data input by the seller’s agent.

Please try to think of BOTH consumers rights please. The seller is a consumer with rights also!

I think you confused what i was saying… or most likely my poor literary skills weren’t able to get my point across.

My point is that it is the listing agents fiduciary duty (like you said under state law & NAR ethics codes) TO spread the data far and wide so there will be more info for the buyers to use and see about their houses. Now in terms of not showing a picture of a bedroom that has huge holes in the carpet or something like that… well i agree with you… some things are best left not said.

My beef is on a bigger level in terms of overall data sharing with the policies of MLS’s across the country. And my point was the MAIN reason they aren’t sharing very much of the data is to protect the brokers (who make up the boards of the MLS’S) cut of their buyers agents. In my mind this has got to be the overwhelming reason. I mean it is half of their income!!!

I keep explaining this to people in this debate…and they move on or get distracted… but i just cant let it go… THIS IS THE REASON…

hahaaa at least I’m pretty sure

One of the better solutions I have seen is Merv’s; I just have not made the time to learn more.

The industry is changing; I think that one key component that is often neglected is the consumers’/public’s “perception -vs- reality” of the amount of work that a good agent does, both behind and in front of the scenes.

Better agents deserve better pay.

As information is diffused much more widely, the industry will have to change; how is the key. I don’t think the public is ready …

This should be fun.

P.S. NAR says this:

The obligations of the Code of Ethics in respect of real estate disciplines other than appraisal shall be interpreted and applied in accordance with the standards of competence and practice which clients and the public reasonably require to protect their rights and interests considering the complexity of the transaction, the availability of expert assistance, and, where the REALTOR® is an agent or subagent, the obligations of a fiduciary. (Adopted 1/95)

Me, I tend to be more simplistic; something is either right or wrong.

BTW, fiduciary duties are owed because of the Washington State Law of Agency, not a NAR or WAR code. All licensees in the state of Washington owe the duty of fiduciary services. Now tell me how MLS ONLY at $595 entitles a consumer to that level of service?

I am working up five real life commission and transaction scenarios. I’m bringing them in as a new “thread” called Real Estate Commissions.

Let’s see if we can’t, by using “real” case history and commissions paid for each, figure out the true right answer that both we as agents and the buyer and seller colored glasses wearers can all agree on. Let’s start looking for that right answer that no one dares to talk about. The one where a consumer gets a more than adequate agent for a fair price. Let me do the scenarios as we can’t use % and I know the fine line between meaningful chatting and “price fixing”. I’ve got 5 sceanrios about ready to post.

This “good” agents want it all leaving the consumer with less than adequate options has got to stop. Let’s find out where the meeting point is…are you game to at least talk about it? Or are you going to “keep fighting for that % that is SUPPOSED to be fair across the board no matter how easy the deal is and whether the sale price is $150,000 or $750,000? Or are you just going to say “We aren’t allowed to talk about that”?

Could be interesting.

Jim… You are dead on.

Ardell, You are right about these comment:

Why should we embrace “the trend”, Robbie? Can you please explain that to me? Why should we make it easier, instead of harder, for the public to use our internal system in order to cut us out of the picture entirely? I’m confused there. Can you help me out?

But you are only “right” if your concern is having as many agents and as many closings/commissions earned as your ONLY goal in life….

But heres the kicker Ardell….

Article 1 of the NAR’s ethics code requires that: “When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as a broker, REALTORS pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client.”

That one sentence is THE root of alllll this debate…. the fiduciary relationship…. under each state law might i add… is the center of all of this.

So to say I want to provide watered down data to the public and keep my listing agents data away from everyone but my buyers agents here at my brokerage…(so the brokerage can get their cut off of the buyers agents) is simply against not only state law… but against NAR VERY OWN ETHICS CODE!!!!

So yes… you are right… it is in the Brokers best interest to keep this data in a watered down format for the public… but lets call a spade a spade.

Speaking of what Robbie said… this post has fired me up enough to do one thing… that’s get back to work on making… well ill use his words exactly:

“Perhaps, there is a market for a CarFax like service, that provides better MLS data, than the MLS? Despite my complaining, none of these obstacles are going to stop software engineers from giving the internet home buying public what they want (complete & accurate listing data). “

I think the good agents need to get more real and buyers and sellers who do need it all done for them need to be honest about their needs and abilities in that regard, and we have to meet in the middle somewhere.

I like that, in theory. Where the theory falls apart, I think, is with people’s self-awareness and expectations. There are far too few “good agents” and many consumers (and Realtors) believe that they are more competent than they are.

If what you say might happen does, with the “door openers,” etc, what should the agents who “get it” do? I will continue to fight for my commission at every opportunity, frankly, because I earn it. Not to hijack this thread, but our industry (and its lobbyists/leadership) needs to evaluate what its primary goal is – to have as many members (and therefore power/clout) or fewer members who are more professional and therefore more accountable to themselves, their companies and by far most importantly, their clients.

My two cents.