Of course the 1st quarter stats are so very important, and I would very much like to get to the business of reporting these statistics on a County basis as well as for individual areas. But I don’t want to overstate the negative by reporting them in detail before all, or at least most, of the sales have been recorded. 4 business days does not appear to be enough time since as of tonight, # of sales for the quarter are down 40%. Let’s give that another week before comparing the 1st quarter YOY.
Suffice it to say volume continues to be down significantly compared with last year. Median sold price of homes is very close to the asking price of those homes at time of sale and sold prices appear to be down only 2% for Residential and not at all for condos compared with the 1st quarter of 2007. Given the significant decrease in volume, prices holding fairly steady continues to surprise us.
King County Residential Sales
Active/For Sale – 10,180- UP 116 -Median Price approx. $530,000
In Escrow – 2,574 – DOWN 90 – median price $449,950 – UP $2,225
Closed YTD – 3,719- UP 446 – median price $435,000 – no change
The median asking price of Residential Propertes that have sold is $440,000, so they are selling at 99% of asking price.
King Conty Condo Sales
Active/For Sale – 3,590 – UP 72 – median price $324,950 – no change
In Escrow – 846 – DOWN 17 – median price $299,995 – UP 95 (asking prices)
Closed YTD – 1,234 – UP 137 – median price $289,950 – UP $4,950
The median asking price of the condos that have sold is $293,675 so they are selling at 98.7% of asking price.
Stats not compiled or published by NWMLS. (Required disclosure)
I’d suggest just reporting the monthy, and not the quarterly, because it gives more detail and is less stale (sales were worse in January than March relative to the prior year’s sales).
“The median asking price of Residential Propertes that have sold is $440,000, so they are selling at 99% of asking price.”
Does this mean the original asking price was $440k, or that the last listed price before going STI was $440k?
laxtosnoco,
It means the last listed price before going STI was $440,000.
I can no longer accurately determine the median price of Residential property for sale (which is why I show it as approximate) as the statistics feature for hand calculating only works up to 10,000 units. Once inventory is more than 10,000, I have to count the volume in two segments.
The cutoff is at $2.9M at the moment. Inventory hits over 10,000 somewhere between $2.9M and $3M.
As to your question, people still tend to wait for a price reduction vs. submit a low offer against asking price. And/or sellers wait until they think it is worth less and drop their price before accepting an offer at the lower price.
Still, the new on market homes that are selling seem to be selling without price reduction. The home up the street from me went STI the first week without reduction and it was not underpriced.
The key seems to be “needs work” vs. “turnkey”. Turnkey homes are still selling quickly and at premium in the better markets where turnkey is scarce. In markets where turnkey is more readily available such as Issaquah and Renton/Kent, the prices are more impacted. In areas around Microsoft and in Seattle where turnkey is a bit harder to come by in single family homes, turnkey is still selling at premium and “needs work” or poor location is seeing price reductions in order to sell.
It’s like watching two different markets simultaneously.
Kary,
I can’t do monthly stats simply because they might look better than quarterly stats or my credibility gets shot to hell 🙂
I will report both, but from what I am seeing so far, March is not better YOY as to volume. I’ll give it another week, but I don’t see a change in the trend as of this time.
I still think the first quarter, regardless of March YOY will end up representing the same % of sales in 2008 as it did in 2007. So using the quarterly stats as a predictor of what will happen by year end is of value. To base that on monthly stats only and the best of the first three months would skew the results.
Also to report the best month and not the quarter would be looking for the positive spin. While I don’t look for a negative spin, I can’t look for a positive one either.
Ardell wrote: ” can’t do monthly stats simply because they might look better than quarterly stats or my credibility gets shot to hell 🙂
I will report both, but from what I am seeing so far, March is not better YOY as to volume. I’ll give it another week, but I don’t see a change in the trend as of this time.”
If I wanted you to skew the stats, I would have asked for “Decade to Date.” 😀
Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing, because I’m seeing SFR March being significantly better (per the NWMLS non-guaranteed reports):
2008
Jan 1037
Feb 1148
Mar 1503
But they’re still down significantly compared to 2007:
2007
Jan 1558
Feb 1572
Mar 2286
Laxtosnoco-
I agree. I’m very, very skeptical that the list to ask price ratio is 99%. If the NWMLS is pulling stats using the very last list price vs. sold price as their benchmark, then I would presume to start looking elsewhere for meaningful data.
There has been broadbased list price reductions going on for months. And not token $500.00 drops.
meant to say list to sold price ratio…
The way the NWMLS publishes stats gives the Sales Price in relation to the last list price, not the Original List Price. Agents can manually look at each property to determine the original list price, but to do this for hundreds or thousands of sales is far too time consuming.
We complained about it years ago, but didn’t get the change we wanted. We used to be able to search for OLP to SP with the former system.
My guess is that the majority of properties that sold in March had far fewer DOM than the still-for-sale properties, but I’m not going to go run thru 1500+ sales :-).
When we do a market analysis for a buyer or a seller regarding a specific property or neighborhood review, it is quite easy to get the full stats. We just have to get it manually, but the data is there.
It’s a programming issue, not a choice to skew data. It is annoying most certainly.
Ardell,
Thank you again as always for your hard work on this.
Question: When do you expect to have time on market numbers for this past quarter?
Thanks,
Mark
Kary said: “Maybe we’re not talking about the same thing, because I’m seeing SFR March being significantly better (per the NWMLS non-guaranteed reports):
Well let’s use your numbers, since I’m not posting mine yet.
Jan 1558 vs. 1037 = down 33.44%
Feb 1572 vs 1148 = down 26.97%
Mar 2286 vs 1503 = down 34.25%
How is March significantly better? At the moment, using your numbers, it looks significantly worse in March vs. February to me.
Are you simply looking at more homes sold in March vs. February, as will generally always be the case, vs. March 08 vs. March 07?
All postings are not in for March of 08, but even if you look at it this way:
45.41% more homes sold in March of 2007 vs. February of 2007.
Only 30.9% more homes sold in March of 2008 than in February of 2008.
If March solds get to 1,669, which they may after all postings are in, then Feb 08 vs. March 08 would be even with 07. At present they are posting at 1/3 under as to March performing better than Feb this year vs. last year.
Anyway I look at it, I’m not seeing March as better. If you are simply looking at 1,503 sold in March vs. 1,148 sold in Feb. I think you are grasping at straws to find a positive spin and missing the big picture, or possibly if not a positive spin, if that sounds offensive, then a ray of hope.
Mark,
I think 7 business days from month end will capture more accurate data. I am busier than I have been this week getting a few properties ready for and on market, but if I have time to post before Sunday I will.
I can always post a “story post” in 10 minutes, but stat posts take a lot longer. I think I finished last night’s after 1 A.M.
Posting quarterly results by area is my goal, so we can see where King County is not moving in unison. Some areas have equal volume to last year. So if the median is down 35% and one is not down at all, another could be done by as much as 50%. That is the real story I will be looking for and will take many hours.
If median DOM of sold property is 55 Days (which it was last night FYI) and one area is at 35 days and another at 72 days, that is significant and what I will be looking for.
Glancing at my chicken scratch scribbles from last night, Residential King County was 55 DOM vs 40 DOM. I’ll verify that when more data is in.
Leanne,
Do you know why we can search by LAG# for the listing agent but not for the buyer’s agent? Don’t under-estimate the power to skew data to a purpose.
Another way to see if March is better:
% increase in sales from Feb 2007 to March 2007: 45%
% increase in sales from Feb 2008 to March 2008: 31%
Lax and Tim,
If the sold prices are down 3% and the list prices are down 15%, that just means sellers are overpricing out the gate. Of what value is it to know that?
The challenge is to know who is overpriced out the gate and who isn’t. The best properties that are priced well will sell quickly. If you wait for price reductions you will by definition be buying not the best. The best will hold up in value better if the market declines. So you are building in a program to fail if you are looking for the prices with the most give or the properties with the longest days on market.
Conversely, jumping on the best house that is overpriced is just as dangerous, but not more dangerous than chasing best value by sold price vs. original list price or high days on market.
Alan,
If prices are at 1st quarter 07 level and the trend of sales month to month stays at the same percentage, we may see prices flat at 1st quarter 07 levels. But if the trend starts pulling even further away as to relationship of volume, we will see prices moving as well.
In that regard tracking September 07 to present YOY is very important. I think the Case Schiller statistics of back to August 07 pricing will be overstated in hindsight. The improvement is showing at 1st quarter vs. last quarter, not simply because of season, but because the fear of financing at all levels is diminishing somewhat. Not the fear of buying, or the inability to finance, but the fear of financing was much worse when there were reports that there would be no jumbos at all or financing at less than 20% down except for FHA.
I will expect monthly YOY to be worse In September through December than March through June.
If the sold prices are down 3% and the list prices are down 15%, that just means sellers are overpricing out the gate. Of what value is it to know that?
Thats true, but the statement that houses are selling at 99% of list price isnt useful if the list price has been reduced 5 times.
What really would be interesting is to know what % of original list price houses are selling at. Apparently that number is not readily accessible from the MLS (according to Leanne).
If absolute prices stay flat through September then the YOY percent change is going to move further into negative territory. Prices are going to have to rise this summer for YOY changes to stay flat.
“That�s true, but the statement that houses are selling at 99% of list price isn�t useful if the list price has been reduced 5 times.”
It’s useful in purchase strategy as you have to know when to wait, what you are waiting for and when to stop waiting. Best time to get a property at best price is just when they are ready to reduce the price, but before they actually do it. Getting it at 90% of list the day before they reduce it to “correct” list pirce is better, as often the 99% factor is kicking in because once reduced there are two or more offers and then you compete with other buyers. For everyone getting a house at 97% of final list price there is someone else getting it at 103% of final list price.
Better to know what the value is so you know what you are waiting for. Using medians for sale strategy is of value. Using medians for purchase stategy is often a plan to fail.
Lax, you said: That�s true, but the statement that houses are selling at 99% of list price isn�t useful if the list price has been reduced 5 times. What really would be interesting is to know what % of original list price houses are selling at. Apparently that number is not readily accessible from the MLS (according to Leanne.
That is correct, however, one property at a time, any agent can take a look at the OLP (original list price) to SP (sales price). We do have the data, we just can’t parameter that criteria to show automatically.
That info I believe is very important, I’d like to see this changed for our reports.
As to the percentage list/sold, I don’t really see the relevance of the original list price. When a price is reduced $25,000, only unreasonable sellers think they actually lost $25,000. So what does it matter what they sold if for compared to what they originally asked? Quite frankly, I don’t see much relevance in it the other way either. If it gets to be over 100% that might show an overheated market, but other than that it’s pretty irrelevant.
As to the “significantly better” comment, I misread what Ardell wrote in the OP. Sorry.
14. Ardell, the ability to search by selling agent may well come our way, I have no objection to that. As you know, we can search by selling office, not as good, but at least can gain useful information.
Ardell wrote: “Do you know why we can search by LAG# for the listing agent but not for the buyer’s agent? Don’t under-estimate the power to skew data to a purpose.”
The NWMLS doesn’t collect the selling agent data for some reason. Only the selling office. I’m not really sure why.
OLP has relevance when you’re working with an individual seller or a buyer. While you can get the figures manually, it would be nicer to have them at a glance.
For example, the houses with long DOM, but showing no price movement. It would be nice to grab the stats for homes at 60+ DOM and show what they sold for in relation to OLP without doing it one property at a time; then look at 90+ DOM, and 120+ DOM etc.
The old Compass program had many search parameters that we don’t have now. Quite frustrating, but we do see changes made, and this change should be implemented.
I disagree. I think that is a very human reaction. People form emotional ownership attachments to all sorts of things. Test drives are an incredibly useful car sales technique for this purpose. Get a person on a test drive by themselves and they will feel like the car is theirs. The prospect of “losing” that car makes them more likely to purchase it.
The same thing happens in stocks. Inexperienced investors are much more likley to hold a dropping stock if they are slightly behind than if they are slightly ahead.
I would wager that when most people place their home on the market at some price, they are already spending the money from that sale in their dreams. Dropping the price feels like taking money out of their pocket.
Alan, and that is the same psychological reason that some sellers more readily agree to pay $10,000 towards buyers closing costs than agree to reduce their price by $10,000.
In much the same way that dropping the price feels like taking money out of their pocket, paying the closing costs doesn’t feel like a price drop.
Humans. It’s who we deal with :-)!
Leanne,
The question is WHY can’t we search by Buyer’s Agent, and it’s not because Rappatoni’s system doesn’t come with that abiltiy, it’s because our Board voted to hide that info. So not being able to get information a certain way is often not an inadequacy of a system but an elective choice to a purpose to hide the info.
“I misread what Ardell wrote in the OP. Sorry.” NO worries Kary. I’m doing eight things at once myself today. I just thought I did the calculaton wrong given your comment.
# 28, well, sure Ardell, but really that data isn’t all that critical. We’ve never had it in this region, I don’t know if it is typical in other areas. It could be used in a positive way by agents, or negative, but
I just don’t see it as being a very big deal. Do you?
Far more important would be seeing OLP on the sales data reports, and of course that still wouldn’t show the OLP history if the property had been listed several times, with the same agent or others. That’s still a manual examination.
Lax and Tim,
Time to give up on the OLP wish list. There’s no good answer.
I just checked a property that is “New on Market” at $949,800. It was originally listed in March of 2007 at $1,059,000. The Original List Price of the new listing is $949,800! Even though the Days on Market are cumulative and showing as 387, the OLP only goes to the original list price of this mls#. So getting the OLP data would be misleading unless you had a “property history” button and checked for previous listing numbers of the same address.
Lots of hand calculating as the OLP data doesn’t carry forward from listing to listing the way Days on Market does.
Leanne,
We were cross posting. The “critical” issue of no info on Buyer’s Agent is that the Broker Owners voted to hide that info so it would be harder for other companies to steal their best buyer agents.
Once a Board votes to skew or hide data to their hidden or not so well hidden agenda, a stretch to not wanting list to sold data to be a wider spread, even if they could show OLP accurately, is not beyond imagination or expectation.
To assume the data isn’t skewed intentionally is naive. Clearly lists showing all houses sell at 99% of asking price is of more value to convince people to pay 99% of asking price, than to perfect the OLP system. I’m not saying that is why it is the way it is, but once a Board votes to hide something from it’s own members, you have to question their motives on many things. For the public to be suspect of released data is warranted.
🙂 I don’t think the best agents are steal-able! Buyers or sellers agents.
I think we can and will get OLP added. They put in CDOM, so it stands to reason that OLP equals the importance of CDOM. In our current market, it’s obvious for the need for OLP.
And, I don’t think it probably is likely we’d get the original OLP (OOLP?) from a previous listing added to a new listing data report, but manual calculations for individualized data is easy to do.
Very easy.
“Clearly lists showing all houses sell at 99% of asking price is of more value to convince people to pay 99% of asking price, than to perfect the OLP system.”
That was where I was going with my original comment. To the uninitiated, they might read your original comment as meaning sellers were selling at a 1% discount from their original asking price.
If an analysis is done the way the NWMLS currently harvests data with respect to list to sale price ratios, it can lead many people (buyers, sellers and media) to believe that sale prices are selling really very close to the list prices (the last List price published within the NMWLS database) when some spreads are far apart—which would indicate a market or neighborhood or larger area is or isn’t establishing a baseline of “price stability.”
For example, in my own area, there have been list price drops by the hundreds of thousands in some cases and tens of thousands in others. If a property goes pending at x amount and closes after it was listed at x amount then an agent may market their closed listings list-to-sale price ratio at a tight 97, 98 or 99% ratio, when in fact that is not true at all. (ie… an original list price was $950K but it sold at $719,500 after reducing the price several times to $722,500.)
Would I want this information if I were a buyer? Yes. Would I want an accurate guage of an agents’ selling success in a listing presentation? Absolutely.
Lax and Tim, the OLP shows on each page of the agents full detail sheet, the one we use in our discussions with buyers and sellers. Right at the very top, right corner!
Tim, for sellers, if an agent is doing a market analysis, it would be a rare agent who would choose not to look at OLP with a seller. The relationship of neighborhood data showing ORIGINAL LIST PRICE to SALE PRICE is a very important piece of data for helping a seller understand the dynamics of not overpricing his property.
The sale price to the current list price is a real ratio as well. It is the price that the property was listed at when a mutually acceptable offer arrived. It’s the listed price that motivated the buyer to write their offer.
What these stats really are showing is that the majority of properties don’t seem to be getting under contract until they have a price within most buyers comfort zone, or ‘striking range’.
Individual, wildly low offers sometimes work, but most often it is when a seller brings his own price down to the level that the market responds to, that a mutually accepted offer happens.
Leanne,
I think the point is what information is avalilable without being agent dependent? Some agents will only pull out the current listing sheet just as some agents used to quote current listing days on market without checking for old listings.
Tim and Lax are not members of the mls as far as I know, so telling them it IS available…to you…not them, is not the answer to their problem. I don’t think.
The answer always being “well then you better have an agent and not only that, it better be an honest and good one” is the wrong answer.
“The key seems to be “needs work
Ummmm, I disagree Ardell. Our information is proprietary, and it belongs to the NWMLS, and to member brokerages to use.
If you sell your home, do you want everyone who sees the listing online to know that your OLP was $500,000 higher than it currently is listed at? I don’t think so.
As to data on solds, the public info sites such as King County Assessors Records simply shows selling price data; when we use the overall NWMLS solds data, we at least are providing data that includes the last listed price and the closed sales price.
I don’t know what Lax does for a living, but Tim has an escrow company. I believe he’s got quite a bit of information he considers to be proprietary to his practice, and I wouldn’t dream of suggesting he make it all available to the public.
Consumers don’t get to have free access to all of our information.
And, if a consumer works with an agent that is either dumb, lazy or connivingly deceitful, then clearly, that’s disturbing, but I cannot do anything about that, other than to suggest to consumers to get referrals and check references the way you do for any other service provider.
Leanne,
The MLS has decided to hang onto a few data points for members only like cumulative days on market and original listing price. As long as the MLS operates within the confines of antitrust rules (or as long as the DOJ doesn’t look to hard) it can continue to hold that info back.
I have no interest in joining the NWMLS just to get these two data points. However, by not publishing this info to the public, I wonder what the MLS members are trying to hide. When you make just about everything else public, what’s the justification for not publishing CDOM and OLP? The only reason I can think of is that it provides an advantage to sellers working with unrepresented or uninformed buyers who might use the info to negotiate a harder bargain.
Lax, I see no reason why DOJ would think CDOM (Cumulative Days on Market) and OLP (Original List Price) are issues for the general public to know for each and every property.
Can you tell me why you think this information should be public information? These numbers are very much available to any client of any NWMLS member.
Do you also think FSBO’s should publish their CDOM and OLP’s for the public? If so, where?
I would think sellers and buyers are entitled to privacy and what a seller originally asked for his property shouldn’t be information for the public to see “forevermore”. Once a stat is published in the public domain, it can be forever.
For example, if a seller’s property was on the market for 679 days because it was vastly overpriced and smelled like the goats he kept in the basement, and you actually bought that house … would you like the public to be able to search backwards to when you bought and see that you bought a house that was OLP at $999,999, sold for $123,200 and CDOM was 679? Ewwww. That could hurt you.
Don’t you see that those figures cloud the actual issue, which is, simply: Is the property worth the price that is being asked today?
** Does a bank appraiser analyze CDOM?
** Does a bank appraiser analyze OLP?
No. The bank appraiser looks at the purchase & sales agreement sales price, and either justifies that the comps prove that value or do not.
Unless you are a licensed agent, thru a broker in the State of WA, you do not qualify for membership in the NWMLS. But, as you know, it’s pretty easy to become a licensed agent, and to get your license associated with a member broker. I actually think with your interest in real estate, that you would be a good agent.
As to non-represented buyers: please get yourself represented, either via a good buyers agent, or even an attorney. Please. It’s so much better for everyone.
Leanne,
Thankfully, Redfin and Propertyshark now show pricing history to buyers. These give a good approximation of how long a property has been on market. The only problem is that many sellers re-list their properties (often in violation of MLS rules) so that they get a fresh MLS#. As I said, I don’t think this violates any law, but it is misleading to consumers. It reminds me of when a car salesman tells you he just got a car on the lot, but the battery’s dead when you go to take it for a test drive.
You said: “** Does a bank appraiser analyze CDOM? ** Does a bank appraiser analyze OLP?
rob,
Good point. For a while there the market wasn’t discounting sufficiently for extreme negatives, if at all. Excellent point. Good properties that need to sell at discount where the owner is making nothing on the flip could be better values, but not from what I have seen for the most part. BTWF prevails and the locations of the bad flip projects are often inferior and not worth the turnkey condition at the “discounted” price.
Ummmm, I disagree Ardell.
Good Leanne. When you start agreeing with me too much, I’ll start worrying 🙂
“…would you like the public to be able to search backwards to when you bought and see that you bought a house that was OLP at $999,999, sold for $123,200 and CDOM was 679? Ewwww. That could hurt you.”
You are kidding me, Leanne. The truth hurts so let’s hide it? Are you for real?
Lax, I believe those data postings are in violation of NWMLS member rules, so it will be hard to say if they can or will continue.
There is no violation of any NWMLS rule if you as a seller list your home for a period of time (often 90 days), then when it expires, you are free to relist it under a new contract with the same or a different member office. That is quite normal, and valid. In fact, many sellers do change real estate companies at the end of their listing contract.
The NWLMLS rule is that a member cannot “cancel” an active listing, and make a “fake” relist to gain a new listing number or list date. That’s an expensive fine to the member that gets caught doing it.
CDOM, Cumulative Days on Market follows the address, so if a property is listed many different times, even with different real estate companies, the CDOM will show on the new listing data.
For example, that 679 CDOM house you bought with the goats in the basement — it had 12 different real estate companies listing it over that 679 CDOM period :-)!!!
But, the last listing still had to show the data at 679 CDOM.
I cannot say what lenders will do regarding a property that was for sale, but didn’t sell. They finance that same property for a buyer, so as long as the current owner meets valid lending criteria, I see no good reason that a valid financing request would be denied.
I realize there are changes in the lending field, but it would be quite onerous if someone thought he was getting a job transfer, listed his house, but the transfer fell thru, so he stayed, and decided to refinance. Life happens – and lenders cannot be overly restrictive without valid reasons, nor would they want to be. Much like when you get turned down by an insurance company because a house has knob & tube wiring … you don’t just give up, you call a few other companies. Someone wants your business.
You worked for a non-profit writing real estate loans? You mean like a low-income or first time buyer program? I’m not sure what you mean. That must be why you have such a high knowlege & interest of our industry. I did know that in CA the mortgage people also needed real estate licenses, not really sure why that would be a requirement.
And, if a buyer has a buyer agent, any real estate attorney shoud be able to assure you that the buyer agent owes their buyer client a duty of due diligence, including information about how long the property has been for sale, seeing the inside of the property they are selling you, as well as discussing & disclosing what pricing information or other market or neighborhood information(such as sales data) that might be relevant. Yes — it’s critical that your buyers agent actually sees the property you are buying, otherwise you are getting substandard representation, legally. Buyers should not be unrepresented – the right to the due diligence from the agent representing THEM is important.
There is no guy with the jumper cables, it is all available information, and competent real estate agents are happy to share it with their clients, whether they be buyers or sellers.
In fact, I would argue that an agent representing a seller must not share this kind of information with an unrepresented buyer — it is the duty of the sellers agent to get the seller the best possible price and terms. The sellers agent cannot lie, but neither should he/she volunteer information that isn’t requested by the buyer, nor required disclosure by law.
And, as you know, many properties really do sell at 99% of their original price, even more!
And, Ardell, ditto to you!! 🙂 I am for real, and for real good reasons.
Do you as a seller, want every buyer knowing you overpriced your home by $500,000 and that it sat on the market for 160 days before they even come to see the place? I think not. You want them to see the place at the current listed price, and make their minds up once they see inside.
You also really want your buyer to have represenation – either from a buyers agent, or an attorney. You know you do!
And, you know I agree with you 99.99 % of the time, when it isn’t about certain things … ! 🙂
Lax wrote: “I have no interest in joining the NWMLS just to get these two data points. However, by not publishing this info to the public, I wonder what the MLS members are trying to hide. When you make just about everything else public, what’s the justification for not publishing CDOM and OLP? The only reason I can think of is that it provides an advantage to sellers working with unrepresented or uninformed buyers who might use the info to negotiate a harder bargain.”
That very well may be right. Remember it’s my position that the current commission system is setup to work well for sellers (it’s actually something I stole from Mack McCoy, but I think he’s right). This is probably another example of that.
Another possible reason for not making it available may be to make the buyer’s agents seem more important to the buyer.
“Do you as a seller, want every buyer knowing…”
Yes.
Yesterday Mary was helping me clean some shevles and said “Did you know this was lose?” I said please show me anything you notice like that because I have to fix it or disclose it. She said “Oh, I’m sorry, you probably don’t want to know.”. I said of course I want to know. She said but if you know then you will have to tell that to buyers.
Why do people think we don’t want to know and fix and tell things to the buyers of our homes? She wasn’t speaking to me as an agent, she’s a housecleaner. Why is there a general feeling that people want to only tell buyers the good stuff?
Kary,
“Remember it’s my position that the current commission system is setup to work well for sellers (it’s actually something I stole from Mack McCoy, but I think he’s right).”
The way most everything is “setup” was put into place before buyer agency during a time when all agents represented sellers. You don’t have to worry about “stealing” that thought, it’s a given.
I don’t think the change from the selling agent representing the seller to the buyer affects that. Either way you have agents out there who “know” active buyers, and your commission is the bait.
Back when the agents by law did represent the seller, perhaps the system worked more in their favor, but it’s only a matter of degree.
A large central database of RE listings is very useful but someone has to pay for it. If the NWMLS made all of the information in their database freely available then no one would pay them. They wouldn’t make any money and the database would be shut down. They have to withhold information to stay in business. It isn’t a matter of hiding OLP’s from clients.
Like any business the NWMLS better be continually improving their service, both in price and in quality, or someone else might come along and eat their lunch.
Beyond what Alan wrote, the information is available to agents. It makes the buyer’s agent more valuable having access to that information. So it benefits the agents–the ones that pay for the system.
Alan,
The main purpose of an mls system to date is to offer a commission to come and see and show and sell the house. Not to provide data. It’s purpose was well established long before there was much data, or even a computer system, back when we had books.
The primary function of the mls system is for sellers to be able to access more, many and most agents to show their home, not to provide “data” to agents. In fact in a lot of ways it served its purpose better when there was less data, as often the info is so much that it provides a means for agents and buyers to NOT want to see the home, TMI, so more info is not always better given the purpose of the mls.
The cost of the system is irrelevant and minor. The real “cost” of the system is the cost of getting the listings in the first place to put in the system, not the measly quarterly charge of being a member of the mls. Also the cost of implementing the best exposure for the seller via photos and information that “lures” buyers to the property. So giving too much info in a manner that also gives a buyer what they need to determine not to go see the house is really counter to the purpose of the mls.
I know that no one seems to want to “get” that part, but I thought it bore repeating. It really is an advertising vehichle, not a data source. The only difference is it used to be a way for agents to advertise to other agents on behalf of the seller. Now buyers can “see” into it, but the purpose of the mls has nothing to do with buyers really, it’s a B to B portal agent to agent.
When we originally were trying to “fool” someone with new listing numbers, it was to fool lazy agents 🙂 We were only trying to trick them into getting to the property and to show the property in hope that once there, the buyer would like it. We never did it to fool the public, as the public had no access.
It’s been interesting being an agent through all the changes from DOS system and mls books to date. From all agents working for the seller through all the many and different types of representation for buyers and sellers. The historical aspect may be insignificant today, and yet much if not most of what is done is done from that historical perspective.
Unless the entire system is dismantled and the wheel reinvented, it will still have it’s basis in its original purpose. So perhaps the B to B mls system should remain and actually regress back to its real purpose leaving the “new” system to be invented by someone outside of the mls.
This ia great blog and thanks for posting these numbers. I see a lot of people are questioning whether March was really a good month compared to Feb and March 2007. One thing that will definitely help us decide that is if you also post the avg. $/SQFT values for all the homes sold. Agreed that this is not going to give you a complete picture but it will at least tell you if people are buying larger houses at the same price as compared to last month/last year.
Don’t know if it’s too difficult to calculate this stat but I can see why this will be very helpful
Chaina,
I can easily do that and will include them in my quarterly report. Thanks for the suggestion.
March was clearly good compared to January and February, 2008, but not good compared to March 2007. It doesn’t really mean squat though as to what April-December, 2008 will look like.
“It doesn’t really mean squat though as to what April-December, 2008 will look like.”
I disagree. If you have 6 months in a row down x% in volume, that is “a trend”. The chances of the trend continuing throught the year are then great. If we look at everything since the mortgage changes hit, and it all looks the same, chance are it will stay the same.
It’s only a trend after it happens. April could be above or below March, both for volume and median price. That means March doesn’t tell you squat.
The mortgage crisis was a tipping point that created a trend that will sustain until and unless the mortgage crisis is past, which I don’t expect to happen for quite sometime.
I agree that March in and of itself doesn’t tell us squat. But six months of squat tells us much.
That I’d agree with, but I wonder if we’re heading into a gas price crisis stage. There is so much less traffic now that I’m really wondering what’s happening to numbers like retail sales. Maybe people are combining trips, or not taking personal trips as much. But if people stop spending because they think it costs too much to go spend, that’s not good for the economy, because it works it’s way through and multiplies.