Buyers want a house; Sellers want a buyer

The National Association of Realtors held their Mid-Year conference this week. Often the Mid-Year Conference kicks up more dirt than the Annual event, as the Mid-Year conference focuses more on the business end and the mls issues (legislative sessions).  Less partying…more in depth issue discussions.

The big new issue is about Trulia and Zillow and the like. “Scraping” data vs. being spoon fed “appropriate” data. The big old issue is Dual Agency and what are “we” going to do about “it”.

The only news we must all and always be mindful of during these discussions is “we” are not the only ones in the “room”, and never will be.  Remember in the Bible when the Powers That Be of the time tried to trick Jesus into boiling everything He said in His whole life down to ONE major and single Rule?  Jesus didn’t skip a beat. If you don’t know what His one line answer was, well…go Google that. This is a Real Estate blog .

The one and only single rule of real estate, from which all other rules should follow is this: Buyers want a house at the lowest overall cost; Sellers want a buyer who gives them the highest net return.

Now take every mls rule, every State’s agency law, everything any broker wants and doesn’t want, everything any agent wants or doesn’t want, and hold it up against that one measurement…that one rule above all rules. Does what you want help buyers get their house at the lowest overall cost to them? Does what you want help sellers sell their house at the highest net return possible? If the answer is no…then change what you want.

The Big “New” Issue is about control of the mls data, control of the inventory, data scraping vs. direct feed via what insiders call IDX.  IDX is what you see when you search property on any agent site. Simple as that.

The sticky wicket for issue number one is that buyers want to see all the houses, including For Sale by Owner homes, preferably all on one site. That is why a Public MLS (kind of what Trulia and Zillow may turn into) serves the needs of buyers better than a private and Broker controlled site. That will continue to be true until and unless the Brokers fill the need of buyers (and to some extent sellers) by permitting listings that have no listing agent. Don’t hold your breath on that one.

The answer, as I see it, is two sources and not one.  One that has all listed property via any Brokerage site (as we all have access to all via IDX) and one that has all UN-listed property…and nothing else. Until then, buyer’s of homes will be confused into thinking that Zillow and Trulia and the like have all of the listed property PLUS…which it doesn’t. That means some portion of the public is always being mislead. Those that use only a brokerage site, and miss a choice For Sale By Owner property, and those that use Trulia or Zillow or, and miss a choice listed property. [One additional site for all rental property would be nice too. There’s a need someone should fill. But there never seems to be enough money generated by rental fees to support it actually happening.]

The Big “Old” Issue is Dual Agency. We already have that answer to some extent, it’s called Designated Agency. We simply need more time and practice and experience in the actual practice of Designated Agency…and that as they say is the SLOG of it. Until California adopts Designated Agency…there is no answer beyond the slog of it. When and IF California adopts Designated Agency, we’ll be able to make quicker progress.

Eradicating Dual Agency is not The NAR’s prerogative (Jim Duncan). Why? Look at The main rule of real estate according to ARDELL, characteristically in BOLD lettering in this post at paragraph four.

Sometimes and often, the buyer’s best way to get the house and/or get lowest overall cost, is by using the listing agent.  Not always, but sometimes and often. The State can’t…the NAR can’t…remove that option from the buying public. In reality what a buyer wants is full representation, from the person who knows the most about the house, and at the lowest possible cost which is free (or what they sometimes perceive to be free).

Sometimes and often, the seller’s best way to get a buyer to buy his house and get the highest net return is to cut out one of (or both of) the agents in the process.The State can’t…the NAR can’t…remove that option from the selling public In reality what a seller wants is ready access to all buyers in the marketplace without having to pay two agents, AND they want the buyer agent fee to come back to them vs. it being given to the buyer, if the buyer has no agent. They also don’t want to pay a buyer agent to tell the buyer that the house is overpriced or inadequate. They also want the agent they hire to be free to bring them a buyer direct (dual agency).

All of the answers with regard to Dual Agency are done with from the NAR’s perspective. They discourage agents from practicing it, until and unless it is absolutely necessary (when the buyer and seller want it). Each State has a long way to go on agency issues, like explaining “no agency” in it’s required agency disclosure noting it as an option. Until States stop asking for the real estate industry to approve and help with it’s agency options, “No Agency” will not appear as a fully explained option for their constituency.