The Congressional Eye-Opener…I Mean Hearing

Posted by admin on July 27th, 2006

Congress listened to panelists plead their case of anti-competitve action by MLS’s and realtor associations

Have you ever found yourself in a situation where you are listening to surrounding conversation all the while thinking, “This person is so off base, he can’t be serious?” Welcome to room 2128 of the Rayburn House Office Building for the Congressional Hearing of “The Changing Real Estate Market” this past Tuesday. Panelists included representatives from the Department of Justice, Federal Trade Commission, Consumer Federation or America, limited service brokers and other business owners.

 

Congressmen and women moved in and out of the back door to claim their 5 minutes of face time with, what seemed to be a more nervous panel (overall), than a panel looking forward to making an impact on lawmakers that can actually aid the cause in offering consumers services based on need versus dollars. But in defense of the panelists, I was getting nervous, just listening to the outrageous and often times intellectually incriminating questions and outbursts of congress people completely unprepared and out of touch with what the actual issues were. (If I were Congresswoman Waters or Congressman Miller I would really hope there is no written record of what transpired, as I think, between those two everyone in the room got a little dumber, and lost a little faith in lawmakers having to absorb the incoherent jargon that kept coming from their mouth.)

 

Representatives from the DOJ and FTC “stuck to their guns” answering in true lawyer-like fashion most of the time repeating themselves with exactly what they felt were “anti-competitive” acts as handed down by local associations and state boards. On the other hand, business owners that sat on the panel were often times talked in circles until Congress heard what it wanted to hear. Their responses were often abruptly cut short by other unrelated questions and they were forced to cover the gambit when in reality there is only one primary issue – flat fee MLS and discount brokers are being “blackballed” by the very MLS’s and associations they pay to belong to because they business model strays from the “ordinary.”

 

Unfortunately, many of the business owners on the panel came from “Corporate America” and were unable to quickly and decisively respond to questions with any degree of industry experience and awareness. The best example came when Congressman Miller repeatedly backed the decision of the MLS to which Redfin belongs in their discriminatory decision that disallows Redfin from displaying the number of days a home has been on the market and Glenn Kelman, the CEO of Redfin, could render no compelling explanation. Well, every active buyer agent (which is what Redfin is) with a license and MLS access knows they can perform searches all day based solely on the number of days a home has been actively for sale in order to find “the best deal” for their clients. This was Kelman’s first of two opportunities to make a compelling argument for exactly why federal intervention is needed in the industry and just could not do it. Miller ignorantly argued that it would not be fair to any seller if that information was available, any agent in the field would have shut that argument down before it ever got started.

 

In Glen Kelman’s defense his opening remarks and written deposition hit industry discrepancies square on the head. In fact he had an opportunity to answer the headlining question with an example he cited in his opening remarks. Congressman Artur Davis – who was one of maybe two Congressman that seemed to be able to comprehend the issues at hand – essentially opened the floor and the microphone to Kelman when he asked “Why does the federal government need to get involved? Why can’t this be regulated at the state level?” Again, sadly nothing! With a chance to put the record straight he neglected to mention the great example he used in opening remarks. The right answer:  These issues cannot be regulated at the local (state) level because the associations that are implementing these anti-competitive regulations are the very individuals that comprise the state regulatory bodies and commissions. It is a glaring conflict of interest, and somehow state commissions are able to hide the truth from the federal government. Kelman said it best in his opening comments: “[The real estate industry] is like a Western where the cowboy promises to report the desperadoes to the sheriff, only to have the desperadoes whip out their badges. Clearly, this industry has failed to regulate itself.” That was all that was needed. For all the missed opportunities Kelman had, he was the only panelist on the second panel to speak for more than a total of 30 seconds. Everybody else had equal opportunity to step in and make their mark, and each let the moment slip…a bit unfortunate.

 

But in the end the most telling action was to conclude the hearing with an open forum from the President-Elect of the National Association of Realtors Pat Vredevoogd, from Grand Rapids, Michigan. After not a word the entire time the second panel was questioned a Congressman declined his opportunity for questioning just to ask Pat Vredevoogd her thoughts on the issues. Her thoughts?? Is this guy crazy?? Did he do any homework in preparing for this hearing?? Instead her thoughts, why not ask her what cause Michigan had in passing state minimum service laws only last month? Is there any coincidence?? I would doubt it considering NAR Presidents have a history of getting such laws passed. Al Mansell, President of the NAR in 2004, successfully had the state laws in Utah altered during his tenure.

 

Now let’s revisit a question by Congressman Artur Davis: “Why does the federal government need to get involved? Why can’t this be regulated at the state level?” The better question is: Why DOESN’T the federal government need to get involved?!

Consumer Federation of America Questions State Regulatory Commissions

Posted by admin on July 24th, 2006

Conflict of interest for state regulatory commissions

The Consumer Federation of America is on the offensive again, attacking state real estate regulatory commissions for their "blatant conflict of interest." How has this been swept under the rug during the ongoing disputes involving the FTC and DOJ? This seems to be one of those "no-brainer" topics needing to be addressed in order to facilitate fair, unbiased industry regulation. Currently, traditional full-service agents are serving as the lawmakers for almost 70 percent of states across the nation. It’s no wonder why minimum service laws are being created! Commissioners are doing whatever they can to eliminate competition in the form of alternative models like flat fee brokers, arguing the industry is already more competitive than any other. The competition is there in numbers but not in choice. The industry is not "competitive" unless consumers have an opportunity to choose from a bevy of different levels of service. Some consumers may need "full representation" and contract negotiation assistance while others have enough experience to handle all aspects of the transaction short of marketing exposure provided by the MLS. If the rules are created for the benefit of the consumer, give them the gift of choice and let them decide.

See Also

Congressional Hearing to Focus on Competition in Real Estate

Posted by admin on July 24th, 2006

Titled "The Changing Real Estate Market," the comgressional hearing scheduled for July 25, 2006 is going to address the role of the internet on the market, innovative brokerage models (like flat fee MLS and home buyer rebate brokerages), MLS’s, and the effect of minimum service laws. The hearing comes on the heals of a consent agreement between the Austin, Texas Association and the Federal Trade Commission, New Mexico rescinding minimum service laws, the overturning of real estate rebate laws in South Carolina, and the ongoing litigation between the National Association of Realtors and the Department of Justice. Needless to say, the hearing will have a serious impact on the future of the industry. Representatives from NAR, the DOJ, the FTC, the Consumer Federation of America among others are expected to testify.

See Also

Another One Bites the Dust

Posted by admin on July 21st, 2006

New Mexico rescinds anti-competitive rules

Against heavy objection from the Department of Justice in February, New Mexico passed a rule requiring all brokers in the state to accept and present all offers to their clients. This rule effectively prohibits some forms of limited service companies that do only MLS entry. The New Mexico Real Estate Commission has now voted unanimously to rescind the rule. Such rules - that reduce and/or prohibit consumer choice in the real estate transaction - have been strongly opposed by both the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission. The pressure finally seems to be making a difference in the industry. In just one week both the Austin Association and the New Mexico Commission have changed rules designed to eliminate flat fee MLS and other limited service providers. The DOJ cited the lack of consumer complaints against fee-for-service providers in questioning the validity of the minimum service rules. New Mexico has now created a task force to study the issue since it is a national issue.

See Also

The Real Estate Revolution

Posted by admin on May 31st, 2006

The future of the real estate industry

Is there an easy answer to the question about where the real estate industry is headed? It doesn’t seem that way at this point. With the anti-competitive legal battles continuing between the DOJ and the National Association of Realtors (NAR), it’s hard to determine exactly what the future may hold. Although, it seems NAR is not going to lie down and allow flat fee MLS and discount brokers to have the same effect on their industry as discounters had on the stock brokerage and travel industries. But, lucky for discount brokers, it seems this is a double edged sword for NAR, as the harder they fight the more press they draw to alternative listing models, the outrageous commission structure that has been in place forever, and "fixing" that seems to take place in real estate. Isn’t weird that, theoretically, an agent is doing the same work for a $100,000 listing as they are for a $500,000 listing but will be compensated five fold for the latter? As flat fee MLS companies and discount brokerages continue to assume a larger market share, one must wonder if NAR is fighting in vain to prevent change. A homeowner should be afforded the opportunity to decide what services are needed in order to sell the home, not obligated to sacrifice 6 percent for a bundle of unwanted services. It is no secret that the exposure created through an MLS listing cannot be attained as a for sale by owner, so why not allow consumers to utilize a real estate professional who is willing to unbundle the services and offer them on an a la carte basis? To me it’s simple, NAR is attempting to eliminate competition and it is up to consumers to voice their opinion and concerns. Don’t get stuck without a choice!

Minimum Service Spotlight shifts to New Mexico

Posted by admin on February 20th, 2006

Limited service brokerages under fire again

Another state real estate commission has succumbed, at least temporarily, to pressure from the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission’s warnings against the imposition of minimum service regulations for real estate brokers. The effect of such regulations is to limit consumer choice regarding real estate services.

State officials have scheduled a meeting in Las Cruces, N.M. at the real estate brokerage office of David Steinborn, who also just happens to be the president of the New Mexico Real Estate Commission. Local flat fee brokers claim that the meeting is being held some 230 miles away from the real estate commissions office in order to make it difficult for opponents of the measures to attend the meeting.

See Also