-rdb°

I’ve banned his/her IP address from leaving comments, but I’ve never tried out this feature before, so maybe he/she can cooperate with us and try to leave another message so I can know if this function is working! LOL!

Not sure how the “Ardell you know you are completely full of it” comment affected my response, so I won’t go back up there and just take it from here. How can a $500 limited service listing, carry the same responsibility under Agency Law as a full service listing.

Seems to me that the consumer should be able to list with an agent for less and the agent should be able to get a hold harmless letter at $500. What prevents a consumer and seller from that option? Clearly the consumer can’t hold the agent responsible for much, if all he wants to pay is $500 for mls access, a sign and a lockbox and to “represent himself like a FSBO” other than that.

Why would the agency law prevent the buyer from that limited responsibility to agent option? Buyer’s can check Agent Represents NONE on the offer, but sellers do not have that little box/option on the current forms.

maybe blocking that ip would be best. that comment by the “fake russ” had me scratching my head.

representation and compensation vary in each state. homeowners who move from state to state every couple of years quickly learn that they must learn the ropes all over again. the real question is, can a solution be found to implement representation and compensation fairly accross the board?

-rdb°

Editor’s note: This is the 2nd post I’ve gotten in two days where someone submits a post under a contributor’s name. I think this is really shallow. I’m not sure what to do about this other than to delete the posts for now, but if this same person keeps this up, I may have to go to a system where registered users are the only ones who can post… but I’d really hate to do that…

Maybe the best bet is just to block this person’s IP address (it is identical for both…) hmmm.

As I said earlier, I did NOT make the post that said you “were full of it.” I presume you read my disclaimer before you made this post but maybe not. Even so, your comments are directed at me and my opinions and I don’t want someone reading your post and come away thinking that my lack of response indicates my agreement with your conclusions.

Where have I said I supported any PARTICULAR business model? I do remember our five minute conversation where we discussed Catalist and other matters but I certainly don’t remember saying that I supported their model or that I thought the industry should move in that direction. I do remember telling you I thought the model was interesting and that traditional brokers in SoCal did not take too kindly to their model and made it very difficult for them to do business. That is a fact, not an opinion.

Your concluding line:

“Mostly it sounds like you think every agent should and will offer the same high level of representation, whether the consumer pays $500 or $50,000…but that can’t be so, I must be wrong there.”

Again, not what I have said nor what I believe. I believe that consumers will figure out what they like and how much they want to pay for it, as long as innovation is allowed to happen.

I may not “get” a lot of things but I do “get” agency and how it works in real life. Your entire post is based on agency representation tradeoffs. Since I assisted in drafting the Agency Law for Washington State (which required hours and hours of committee meetings with practioners) and since I have educated thousands of real estate licensees on their agency obligations and how they play into the real world of working with consumers, I have a very real and working knowledge of agency in real estate.

Do you really think that industry wide, the higher the commission paid, the better the agency representation? That would seem to directly conflict inference of the agent’s comments that I referred to in my earlier post (http://www.raincityguide.com/2006/07/17/you-have-to-wonder/) which was ‘pay me more and I will work harder to get my buyer to purchase this house’. If that is the inference, then it would directly conflict with the buyer’s agent duties to put the interests of the buyer ahead of their own financial gain. If that is not the inference, then what is it?

To summarize, there are folks that have contributed comments on this very interesting issue who provide great representation and advocacy to their clients. Seems also that they are across the board on compensation. What’s wrong with that? Only the market will tell us.

Happy Day!

Russ

Beautifully said, Russ. I wholeheartedly agree, and wish that I’d expressed it that clearly and succinctly.

The “drama” of this particular issue, that being the DOJ suing NAR from Sellsius’ original article, is clearly not being created by bloggers.

The issue of the consumer having options with regard to commissions, and the services provided by those commissions, is a topic worthy of the Department of Justice’s attention. If it is a big enough issue for the Department of Justice to entertain, it clearly is a big enough issue for people to address and follow and comment about.

I sidestep you on occasion for two reasons. One because we are fellow contributors. Two because a small portion of my vantage point comes from a very brief conversation we had in person regarding Catalist, the Broker in CA who came out with a 3% total commission, split 1 1/2 to Catalist (not the listing agent) and 1 1/2 mls offering. The agents are employees.

When I say, “It’s a Crusade…a Mission…against…not sure who or what. The fee structure? The Realtor? The agent who is making too much damn money?” I am not creating a “drama”. I am repeating the drama terms used by the alternative business models. This is the Mission Statement of Catalist cut and paste directly from their website, CatalistHomes.com, “Our Mission: To reinvent the existing residential real estate business — an antiquated, inefficient, and costly system of selling homes.”

There is a lot of money and some big names backing companies like Catalist and Redfin and Zillow. You have made mention of your apparent distaste for brokers who do not show the homes listed with what the broker determines an insufficient offering in the mls.

From one of the “White Papers” that are part of the DOJ suit “There are many disclosure gaps that exist today in the real estate industry…” ­ My issue with Agency Disclosure Laws is that they do not highlight the “option” of a buyer going directly to the listing agent to save money, and where that leaves the buyer in terms of representation. I think the “disclosure gap” is putting in everyday laymen terms…”If you call the seller’s agent whose name is on the sign, and buy the property directly from that agent, you need to be aware that the agent will be counseling you to the advantage of the seller”. Something simple and clear like that.

Sellsius used the Brando reference with regard to NAR and the DOJ suit. I used Pacino as a counterpoint to draw in the agency disclosure issues that are also part of the material in the case. Christine’s comments to your post point out that Buyer Representation does not progress by waiting. If anything, it regresses.

I am not “full of it” when I link agency representation issues with commission issues. I am not “full of it” when I tie together NAR , the trade organization responsible for representing Realtors and The Real Estate Commisions of each state, responsible for their constituency, the home buying and selling public.

Some of the new and innovative business models popping up require that someone talk about the commission issues in direct connection with the representation issues. A seller hiring “an agent” for $500 to put up a sign and a lockbox, a FSBO in the mls if you will, where the seller must receive offers themselves directly from the Buyer Agents, should be addressed in the Agency Disclosure pamphlet.

My point is that the new business models that many, including you, support, come with some tradeoffs in the area of representation. The fact that an agent at Redfin is writing an offer without having seen the property, is no small issue in terms of being adequately represented, and yet you see no problem at all with this from a representation standpoint.

When I say, “But no one is going into the right arena on this one. Russ clearly “gets it”, but sidelines the issue a bit. Agency Laws protect consumers and some “discount models” are completely contradictory to the Powers that Be that offer consumer protections.”, I am not talking about the MONEY side of the alternative business models. I am talking about the representation dilutions that “come with” that no one seems to want to address.

The general public is being led to believe that there is no tradeoff in representation if a buyer calls the listing agent direct to save money. The general public is being led to believe that there is no tradeoff in representation when a seller has to review offers with the buyer’s agent direct, with no agent present representing the seller.

I apologize for saying you “get” the obvious dilution of representation in some of these alternative business models that you claim to support. Perhaps you do not “get it”. Perhaps you think every consumer is as qualified as you to receive offers directly from buyer’s agents when selling a home and are as qualified as you to evaluate a home you are preparing to purchase without the expertise of an agent looking at the property before an offer is written.

Mostly it sounds like you think every agent should and will offer the same high level of representation, whether the consumer pays $500 or $50,000…but that can’t be so, I must be wrong there.

This is the REAL Russ. I did not make the prior post. Not sure how someone could make a post as if they were me but it seems an odd way of making a point.

(the real) Russ

What I am seeing right now is a whole lot of “We have to stick together on this!” kind of thinking. Instead of face to face, sincere conversations with clients, everyone is “sticking together” and practicing “scripts” to “sell” their services” to the nameless masses. Their “relationship” is with the agent down the street, when their “business relationship” should be with their client.

As you can see by some of the comments here, most agents can’t swallow that when the client is the buyer.

I know…I pulled a “Bill Clinton at a debate” move. Liked your comment though To answer you question I’d have to go back through all of the posts and comments since you arrived. You asked “where you have said” and frankly, you may have said it to me the one time we met in person, so I’m not spending my weekend look through old posts. I’m going to Street of Dreams with Robbie!