Comments on: DOJ-”opt-out” and a war with a “discounter” http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/ Seattle's Leading Resource for Real Estate Information Fri, 19 Mar 2010 05:20:19 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: ARDELL http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-341195 ARDELL Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:43:32 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-341195 <p>Real Estate Taxi,</p> <p>I think you missed the part where the DOJ says NO! to that. Your response is exactly why the DOJ had to sue NAR in the first place.</p> Real Estate Taxi,

I think you missed the part where the DOJ says NO! to that. Your response is exactly why the DOJ had to sue NAR in the first place.

]]> By: Real Estate Taxi http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-341194 Real Estate Taxi Mon, 29 Jun 2009 20:31:38 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-341194 I am an agent and I would opt out in a second. It just doesn't look good when the person whom is displaying my listing is not advertising me fairly. I am an agent and I would opt out in a second. It just doesn’t look good when the person whom is displaying my listing is not advertising me fairly.

]]> By: 3 cents http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-2065 3 cents Sat, 18 Feb 2006 08:35:56 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-2065 The DOJ is an antitrust suit, which we all know has to do with actions which are in restraint of trade. whether it's in the form of "opt out-opt in", the crux is that NAR may be restraining the free trade in real estate, i,e interfering with the meeting of buyer and seller. The interest of buyer and seller is at issue, not the broker's control of a listing. The seller needs to have the say on this. And I think that's where we're headed---take the choice away from the broker and give it to the seller. Most seller would want widest distribution while other may not (security reasons). But they should decide. NAR I think sees this coming becasue they have a trial form whereby realtors have sellers sign a form which supposedly gives them a "choice" concerning online dissemination of the listing, but it is framed in such a way as to allow the broker control.. clever The DOJ is an antitrust suit, which we all know has to do with actions which are in restraint of trade. whether it’s in the form of “opt out-opt in”, the crux is that NAR may be restraining the free trade in real estate, i,e interfering with the meeting of buyer and seller.
The interest of buyer and seller is at issue, not the broker’s control of a listing.
The seller needs to have the say on this. And I think that’s where we’re headed—take the choice away from the broker and give it to the seller. Most seller would want widest distribution while other may not (security reasons). But they should decide.
NAR I think sees this coming becasue they have a trial form whereby realtors have sellers sign a form which supposedly gives them a “choice” concerning online dissemination of the listing, but it is framed in such a way as to allow the broker control.. clever

]]> By: ARDELL http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1765 ARDELL Wed, 01 Feb 2006 06:01:44 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1765 I absolutely agree that the attorneys would strenuously disagree. I absolutely agree that the attorneys would strenuously disagree.

]]> By: craig http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1760 craig Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:20:17 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1760 Interesting take on the "real purpose" of the suits at issue. I'm sure the attorneys prosecuting those matters would disagree strenuously -- they believe the law has been/is being broken and they're working to correct that. While being "in the industry" may provide you with insight and knowledge, it also leads to a biased perspective that influences your perception. What is "fairly obvious" to you may, in fact, be off the mark. Interesting take on the “real purpose” of the suits at issue. I’m sure the attorneys prosecuting those matters would disagree strenuously — they believe the law has been/is being broken and they’re working to correct that. While being “in the industry” may provide you with insight and knowledge, it also leads to a biased perspective that influences your perception. What is “fairly obvious” to you may, in fact, be off the mark.

]]> By: ARDELL http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1755 ARDELL Tue, 31 Jan 2006 18:06:11 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1755 Actually Craig, I would wager that the DOJ's motives go far beyond the obvious. The DOJ is not using actual cases of the opt out clause being invoked. They are simply fighting the right of brokers to opt out ever, while we are saying, there are cases where opting out is effective control of mud slinging websites. The real reason that the EBA model and the Discount model are not taking off as they should, has to do with the fact that neither are effectively addressing the real issue at hand. That issue being the cost of the Buyer Agent fee vs. the seller's listing fee. Everyone wants to look at the fee as one number, when in fact it is two. There are many options in the market place regarding the seller's portion. It is negotiation of the buyer agent's portion that has not been affected for the most part. There have been many cases around the country regarding REALTOR owned mls systems. All are being lost last I checked. This is the key to NAR's power, not the opt out clause. But "they" are losing the other cases and so are hanging their hat on this "opt out" provision. I think we all know the real reason behind trying to weaken NAR's power has to do with banks wanting to enter the real estate sales arena. Even if the DOJ wins on the opt out provision, all a broker has to do to get around the ruling is cancel their NAR membership. Then the broker is not subject to any of the rules of NAR and hence gets around the DOJ ruling if that ruling prevents NAR members from opting out. If you are not a member of NAR, you are also not subject to the ruling on the case. So the real purpose of this suit, and other smaller suits around the Country, is to weaken NAR's membership and lobbying power. To those of us in the industry, that is fairly obvious. Actually Craig, I would wager that the DOJ’s motives go far beyond the obvious. The DOJ is not using actual cases of the opt out clause being invoked. They are simply fighting the right of brokers to opt out ever, while we are saying, there are cases where opting out is effective control of mud slinging websites.

The real reason that the EBA model and the Discount model are not taking off as they should, has to do with the fact that neither are effectively addressing the real issue at hand. That issue being the cost of the Buyer Agent fee vs. the seller’s listing fee.

Everyone wants to look at the fee as one number, when in fact it is two. There are many options in the market place regarding the seller’s portion. It is negotiation of the buyer agent’s portion that has not been affected for the most part.

There have been many cases around the country regarding REALTOR owned mls systems. All are being lost last I checked. This is the key to NAR’s power, not the opt out clause. But “they” are losing the other cases and so are hanging their hat on this “opt out” provision.

I think we all know the real reason behind trying to weaken NAR’s power has to do with banks wanting to enter the real estate sales arena.

Even if the DOJ wins on the opt out provision, all a broker has to do to get around the ruling is cancel their NAR membership. Then the broker is not subject to any of the rules of NAR and hence gets around the DOJ ruling if that ruling prevents NAR members from opting out. If you are not a member of NAR, you are also not subject to the ruling on the case.

So the real purpose of this suit, and other smaller suits around the Country, is to weaken NAR’s membership and lobbying power. To those of us in the industry, that is fairly obvious.

]]> By: craig http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1752 craig Tue, 31 Jan 2006 17:23:53 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1752 I'm not familiar with the DOJ case, nor am I familiar with the antitrust laws that probably underlie the case. However, any market is best served by the open and free exchange of information. In your example, it seems reasonable for other brokers to pull their listings. What about other, less clear examples? At what point are brokers in fact pulling their listings because they don't want to promote the interests of the discount broker, a competing business model, while claiming that their actions are legal and not monopolistic (such as "that discounter is badmouthing me!")? At the very least, the system that you defend permits illegal behavior (squelching competition to the detriment of the consumer) under the guise of defendable conduct. I would wager that, in the DOJ matter, the prosecutors have determined that the motivation for pulling the listings had more to do with illegal behavior (i.e. controlling the market) than protecting reputations. On a related note, there is also an issue about "ownership" of the listings. An argument could be made that the listing belongs to the property owner. The broker/agent has a duty to sell the home on the best terms possible, and an as-wide-as-possible dissemination of the listing furthers that interest. To the extent the broker limits the dissemination of information, it is to the homeowner's detriment. This, too, may run afoul of laws designed to create and protect a healthy market. I’m not familiar with the DOJ case, nor am I familiar with the antitrust laws that probably underlie the case. However, any market is best served by the open and free exchange of information. In your example, it seems reasonable for other brokers to pull their listings. What about other, less clear examples? At what point are brokers in fact pulling their listings because they don’t want to promote the interests of the discount broker, a competing business model, while claiming that their actions are legal and not monopolistic (such as “that discounter is badmouthing me!”)? At the very least, the system that you defend permits illegal behavior (squelching competition to the detriment of the consumer) under the guise of defendable conduct. I would wager that, in the DOJ matter, the prosecutors have determined that the motivation for pulling the listings had more to do with illegal behavior (i.e. controlling the market) than protecting reputations.

On a related note, there is also an issue about “ownership” of the listings. An argument could be made that the listing belongs to the property owner. The broker/agent has a duty to sell the home on the best terms possible, and an as-wide-as-possible dissemination of the listing furthers that interest. To the extent the broker limits the dissemination of information, it is to the homeowner’s detriment. This, too, may run afoul of laws designed to create and protect a healthy market.

]]> By: ARDELL http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1739 ARDELL Mon, 30 Jan 2006 20:08:05 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1739 Let's see what people who arent' real estate licensees think about it. Anyone without a real estate license have an opinion on this? Do you need another example? Let’s see what people who arent’ real estate licensees think about it. Anyone without a real estate license have an opinion on this? Do you need another example?

]]> By: Jay Thompson http://raincityguide.com/2006/01/29/doj-opt-out-and-a-war-with-a-discounter/#comment-1736 Jay Thompson Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:47:05 +0000 http://raincityguide.com/?p=339#comment-1736 Heck YES the broker should opt out!! And there is NO WAY they should be forced to let this yahoo display their listings. I'm not a fan of discount brokers in general, but that's not what drives my opinion on this. The guy puilled a sleezy and unethical trick, IMHO. THAT'S what drives my opinion... Jay T. Heck YES the broker should opt out!! And there is NO WAY they should be forced to let this yahoo display their listings.

I’m not a fan of discount brokers in general, but that’s not what drives my opinion on this.

The guy puilled a sleezy and unethical trick, IMHO. THAT’S what drives my opinion…

Jay T.

]]>