A broker doesn't like the fact that MLSs have rules for the wording of listings that are submitted to the MLS.
Dear Blanche,How do you feel about a regional multiple listing service that basically dominates one whole metropolitan area by being essentially the only MLS available and refuses to allow any agent or real estate company that is NOT a "Realtor" to join their MLS?
And also, how do you feel about an MLS that requires all MLS members who are Realtors to subordinate the wishes of their clients to the rules of the MLS?
For example, already, a couple of agents from two different competing brokerages who each joined the MLS got into trouble with their sellers over the wording in the commentary sections of their online listings in the MLS because the clients required certain wording in their listing agreements and the MLS rules were in conflict. This happens with relocation companies and bank foreclosure listings and with some individual sellers as well. In addition, there have been threats of lawsuits to the agents from both the MLS and the clients, sort of a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. The agents both individually chose to side with their clients and risk the wrath of the MLS. One broker withdrew from the regional MLS and reverted to just belonging to a smaller local multiple listing service.
I happen to belong to the privately owned and operated local multiple listing service that caters to an area that is also covered by the larger regional MLS and which does not have all these requirements. Anyone, realtor or not, is allowed to join the smaller multiple listing service and this is a great service to the public since the appraisers, all the real estate agents, the mortgage brokers and anyone with a complementary type of business can pay the fees and have access to the local listings, including the "help you sell" agents.
The local multiple listing service owner/provider is responsible for maintaining the user friendly programming but the individual agents and companies are solely responsible for the content online of their listing descriptions and for the data entry. The main argument from some of the local larger real estate offices has been that they don't "own" the multiple listing service in this area so they can't control it.
Personally, I think this keeps all the real estate agencies on an even competition level. The larger companies can't dominate the smaller agencies except for sheer volume of listings, and everyone has equal access to all the listed properties. Recently, the largest agency withdrew from the local listing service and joined the regional MLS instead. That has wrecked havoc with our local multiple service by virtually removing about a third of the active listings and undermining our comparable sales database.
It was the intent of that larger broker to dictate to all the rest of the agencies that they should all join the regional MLS (which many did) and also a direct effort to drive the local multiple listing service provider out of business. Fortunately for the local owner, many of the agencies now belong to both multiple listing services, but not all.
Personally, I am really irritated that one broker has taken this route because it is a real disservice to his clients and I doubt very seriously if he has let his listed sellers know that he no longer advertises his listings with the Mid-Columbia Listing Service (MCLS) and only belongs to the Portland/Vancouver Regional Multiple Listing Service (RMLS).
I, along with a few other holdouts, have not joined the larger RMLS, because I think it's in the best interest of my clients to keep their listings local and not have them "get lost" in the whole regional Portland-Vancouver market 65 miles west of this area. I could join both multiples, but the RMLS is aggravating to the public because the main purpose of their website is to drive the buyers to the listing agent, so they don't give anyone who goes online much information. If you want to see quickly the difference in the two services and the ease of use for the general public, I urge you to visit both sites and decide for yourself which one is serving the public the best:
I maintain that the larger MLS is acting more like a monopoly and that is not in the best interests of the public. I think they should be investigated at the very least and sanctioned if they are breaking the law. I also think that the broker should be investigated for making a serious effort to control a small local market and artificially inflate the local real estate values. Right now, I'm concerned that buyers are coming into this area unaware that the largest "realtor" is not telling the truth about the value of the properties and as a result, buyers are likely to end up instantly upside down in their mortgages if the market flattens at all.
Let the buyer beware is not good enough. It is incumbent upon the selling agent to inform their buyer as to the real market value of the property they are considering buying just as it is the obligation of the listing agent to make the seller aware of the realistic probable selling price of their property being marketed. There is some leeway, but agents should be relatively close in their estimates. I have spent lots of time counseling my clients against overpriced properties and against listing their properties to high as well. It's not in anyone's best interest to have the prices wrong.
Just thought you might have some feedback on this situation or some thoughts about ethics in real estate and our service to the public. In my opinion, too many real estate agents are too busy thinking about how much money they will get paid for the transaction and not enough time thinking about what is in the best interests of their clients. And brokers who want to dominate a market and chastise and humiliate their agents for co-broking are even worse.
Thanks for listening. Designated Broker Is Upset
Realty Times responds:
Whew! I hardly know where to start.
Consolidation is such a typical path for MLSs to take that it's hard for me to accuse a single broker who opts out of a small MLS to join a larger MLS of nefarious intent. Without knowing more about the situation, it simply looks like a business decision to me, where the broker believes he or she will have more exposure for his/her listings in a bigger fishbowl. Yes, there are more listings, but the glass is bigger, too.
I disagree with you that listings get lost in a larger MLS. Depending on how an MLS is organized, listings can be catalogued by zip code, neighborhood and street. Listings don't get lost because they're in a database designed for brokers to show to other brokers so they can show them to their clients. If you are looking at the MLS as an advertising medium for your own customers, you are not only undervaluing the MLS but you're devaluing yourself in the eyes of consumers. MLSs don't sell listings, Realtors do, through networking, marketing, and advertising and usually in that order.
That said, the MLS does offer an advantage to the listing broker if the listings are broadcast to the public in any way. And why shouldn't they? The listing agent went to the time, trouble, expense and risk to get and market the listing -- why in the world shouldn't the MLS "drive the buyers to the listing agent?" Why in the world would any listing agent and broker use an MLS if it weren't to their economic advantage to do so?
No broker owes another broker a business model or business advantage. That's why I get very tired of hearing buyer's agents, "discount" brokers and third-party service providers who want to charge referral fees to listing brokers whine about how restrictive the MLS is and how it only serves the double dip. Of course it does. And why shouldn't it? If it's legal in your state for a broker/agent to serve both sides of the transaction, then that's the end of the discussion.
If you have built a business model on trying to get listing brokers to part with this right out of the goodness of their hearts then you need to wake up and smell the coffee. An MLS is a broker cooperative, one of the most consumer-friendly stockrooms around, but it's intended for brokers to help them sell their listings. That's all it's for, and if you try to make something more out of it, you're wasting your time. An MLS is not a social commentary -- it's a business back room. Period. End of story.
As far as the wording in an MLS goes, I don't believe the client is always right. The MLS has rules and the agents who agree to use it to their benefit should be willing to follow the rules. While I admire the open nature of your smaller, privately-owned MLS, I don't think the purpose of the MLS is for large companies to dominate and control smaller companies. What they do impacts other companies, as you learned when the large broker pulled out of the smaller MLS, but if it were simply about control, why share listings at all?
The MLS organizational business model has come under a lot of scrutiny by the Federal Trade Commission and Department of Justice. If it keeps up, we'll see a lot more large brokers pull their listings from local MLSs. In fact, many may be strong enough in market share not to use MLSs at all.
I haven't agreed with a single complaint of yours, but that's not to say I don't hear your frustration. Unfortunately, you're between a rock and a hard place. You're going to have to sit down and decide if it's worth it to you to "hold out" or if you can't beat 'em, join 'em.
