Is zilliow considered MLS ?

Milt, houses sells by themselves around most places in socal. My riding buddy just sold his place in San Marino. He listed lower then market rate and it sold 1.3 mil over asking. Crazy times, I tell ya. If and when you decide to sell, I bet you will have multi-offers and it will be sold with the first couple days in today's market. I have been out of the real estate game for about 8-10 years now but still keep up with market trend and pricing. I love to be an RE agent if I was not playing general contractor. It isn't the agent, its the house and it location and most importantly, pricing well. I staged every single one of my houses sold but one. The agent never pay for the staging, I do.

I went to an open house on my way home just to see what people are doing, talk to the agent on trends and market forecast. The owner was there and did most of the talking to anyone who came through the door. Middle eastern guy with shirt not button, smelled like cig. drinking wine on his kitchen counter. I could get a word in while he tells me about his house. It was a flip with poor taste. I fell sorry for that agent. The guy was a PITA and don't be that guy:D

I’ve built and sold six personal homes over the years. After the first two or three, I started asking about the commission and the agents always said they charge 6%. I did get one down to 5%. I always felt they listed it with MLS and that’s what sold the homes, other agents bringing buyers, not them beating the bushes.

Also, it seems like agents price the houses lower than they should be. What is a couple hundred dollars to them can be thousands of dollars to me

I used a "buyer's agent" for purchasing my first house years ago ... I found the house beforehand. Met her after work ... made an offer 3 hrs later ... I was a novice and needed help. Haven't needed one since ;).

Your last part rings true from what I've observed ... "priced to sell ... low hanging fruit" :(.

Market here has never been nutz for decades ... until the past few years .... listed and "under contract" within a day or so .... over asking price... but nuthin' like some areas.... I just can't relate :D....

A dozen years ago ... listing agents had it rough .... now it's ea$y by comparison ... list it on Friday... open house on Sunday from 1-5 with a stream of cars dropping by.... under contract on Tues.

The "game" has changed...

Out of the 4 houses we bought over the years, 3 of them were found by us on Zillow and we asked the realtor to show them to us. And the first one, I was already renting, so the realtor did not find me anything better when I decided to buy. I have never felt realtors offered much value for the money they make. All they have is access to the lockbox when we want to see a house.

No, but for the typical buyer it might as well be because Zillow pulls their info( with the exception of broker's notes) directly from the MLS. A property is listed on Zillow (and similar sites) within very short order after hitting the MLS.

In fact, if a buyer is looking across a large geographic area, he might see properties on Zillow that his agent can't see on the MLS. Brokerages must pay to access/use the MLS systems in the areas they do business. Some MLSs cooperate and share data, while others don't Try, for example, having your agent in the Denver area, access information about properties on the Vail or Aspen MLS. No can do. And even if you find a property yourself on Zillow and have your agent contact the listing agent, they're as likely to talk with him as not. Well, that's not exactly true: it's far more likely that they won't talk with him, knowing that if you're really interested in the property that you'll call them directly once you discover your current agent can't help you.

_

Trust me, I won't. I'll have a home inspector inspect the property and hand anyone a copy. And that's that, buddy. You're on your own.
It'll take me a year to sell off and pack up, so who knows what the market will be in '25?

Need a Makita table saw? :D

When I bought my last house, which was in 2013 and had been on the market for a year +, the owner insisted on being there for all tours. The agent balked at even showing it to me. I'd driven by though and was very interested. They'd just dropped the price 15%. The 40 year old carpets were weird colors (hardwood throughout underneath) and the owner followed us everywhere. Luckily for me his antics and the way the house presented had scared others off. I've bought and sold several primary residences and rentals so none of it mattered to me. The sellers weird behavior and the house's lack of prep surely scared off a great deal of buyers. Lucky for me.

I'm sure if the nuke bomb of 'anti-competative' has been considered: The MLS listings can only be accessed direct through NAR Realtors.
ie You have to physically go into an office.
No more surfing from the couch at home.

(When the industry has been squeezed enough that might become a possibility.)

This will lead to agents selling access portals. Attempts to quash that.
Friends of Realtors getting into the flipping business....even more so than already exists.
Greased palms demanding the whole can.
Chaos on the street level.
With AI the vulture brokers move in for control. Only corporate knows about the good properties.

Last house we sold was in 07 to buy this place. Mainstream (meaning large) full service realtor. We gave them 3% and both sides were ok with that deal.

When I sold my condo in VA a few years ago, that listing agent earned every single penny of that commission. I hadn't been back to that condo in years, he handled everything - paint contractor, new appliances delivered and installed, new carpets, everything. All I had to do was pay the bills, I think I did the closing either via POA or DocuSign, still haven't been back there, never met the realtor. He handled everything and was a godsend.

It’s an interesting case. I’ve read the actual complaint and several of the pleadings (motions to dismiss etc). That was necessary because most of the news articles aren’t really accurate on this.

The basic facts are pretty straightforward, whether the judgment against the NAR is legally correct is more complicated IMO. But it’s moot (or as many pelicans like to say, “mute”) now, as NAR has settled and dropped its appeals.

What’s interesting now is what the effects and fallout will be. One impact for sure is the class action plaintiff’s lawyers will get very rich, as they suck up hundreds of millions in fees (assuming NAR actually pays, and doesn’t file bankruptcy).

Another ironic result, imo, is justice warriors who are applauding it may very well actually end up complaining about the result. As it is now, buyers don’t directly pay a penny to their brokers. Buyer’s broker’s pay comes out of the seller’s broker’s commission (if a buyer’s broker brings a buyer and the transaction closes, the seller’s broker agrees to split his or her commission), so buyers don’t currently have to come out of pocket or front broker fees.

Now that sellers are prohibited from making commission split offers on the MLS, presumably buyers will have to pay their broker directly. But what about “poor people” an other victimized classes who can’t afford that? They will be forced, or at least encouraged, into not hiring a broker to represent them, or they will have the seller’s broker represent them (a “dual agency”), and in either case they will be taken advantage of. If they go it alone, they have no experience and will be taken advantage of. If they go dual agency, there’s an inherent conflict of interest, because the agent really represents the seller. And of course it’s going to have a “disproportionate effect” on certain races etc etc. so the result is “racist.”

Another interesting thing to see is what happens. The allegations, and the settlement, is actually much more narrow than 99% of people realize. For example, it doesn’t “ban 6% commissions,” or require commissions to be lowered. It simply says that unilateral offers of commission splits can’t me made on the MLS listing. But there’s many possible workarounds that. Some very easy. For example, commission split arrangements could simply be made on a broker’s webpage, and it would be totally legal after the judgment/settlement.

So, for example, every brokerage could simply make their commission split offer publicly known, but keep it off the MLS. It would say it on their websites, and everyone in the industry would know, for example, that Keller Williams will pay a 2.5% buyer’s broker commission on all of their listings. The current status quo would be maintained.

Another possibility is it just makes things worse for buyers and sellers. Selling brokers could just keep their commissions at 5%, and not split it with buyer’s brokers. So now in the transaction you have 5% being paid by the seller, plus whatever the buyer directly pays his or her broker. So instead of 5% total commissions in the deal, you have 5% + X.

On the other hand, it could be a catalyst for change in how buyer’s brokers are paid, and maybe lower total commission costs.

Nobody knows, but it will be interesting to see how it plays out. The only likely guaranteed winners are the plaintiffs’ lawyers.

Thanks, G.

Was it your brokers idea to under price them for a quick sale or yours?

+1

Nice try at a dig, but you're clearly unfamiliar with Golden real estate (this isn't Parker or Aurora) where, although I suppose it's possible to under price a home, the extreme competitiveness of the market pretty much guarantees that won't happen. If you're smart, you set the listing price close to, but lower than, where you think it'll end up, then watch competition do its job - or rather, work its magic.

Both homes had multiple offers, with buyers upping their respective antes until we reached numbers with which we were more than satisfied.

Sounds like you're an advocate of pricing a home at the maximum you hope to get, attracting far fewer prospective buyers in the process, then watching the home languish on the market. This understandably then gives pause to other buyers entering the market who assume there must be something wrong with a home that's been listed-but-unsold for so long. Finally, three to four months later, after a couple of price drops, you settle for less than you would've gotten had you only priced it at a level that would have immediately attracted more qualified buyers. Not a winning strategy in a competitive market, but good luck employing it.

It's a lot easier to over price a home in a red-hot market than it is to under price one.

_

“ Back when most houses cost 30 to 40K, the 6% was not horrid. With so many 500K and up houses, 6% is insane expensive.”
Absolutely. When I was in the real estate business, I was happy to accept a lower commission rate for more expensive houses. It was getting ridiculous. It is now even more ridiculous. 6% on a 700,000 or million dollar property for the same paperwork as an $80,000 property is not right. The 6% or 5% commission has always been negotiable though.. So I don’t know what this uproar is all about.

I have always believed in free market where a person
should charge what the market will bear. No less or more.

If the system was like that, normal houses would typically sell
with less than one percent commission and really
crappy trash-houses would reap a much higher commission
because they would be harder to sell and take much more effort.
Same would apply to agents and locations.

IOW it would be FAIR AND REASONABLE
and significantly cheaper than the artificially
manipulated market is now.

It's time to correct the problem.

We moved to El Paso in 2012 (from Hawaii). While looking for a house, we ended up with a realtor that was basically a part timer, we found out a bit late.

In the process of making an offer on a house, I wanted to lease back prior to closing. This idiot told me that you couldn't do that. Ultimately the broker came in and apologized for the realtor's lack of knowledge, even though she had been on the job for several decades. We walked away from the transaction.

We moved about 10 times in 15 years towards the end of my Army career. Bought houses sight unseen. Saw all kinds of realtors. Some good, some that were not, some that were just doing it to occupy time while the husband was at work during the day.

I don't pretend to have all the insights, but the real estate process is well overdue for a disruption. It think the industry has been good at protecting their self interests in the face of improving technology. In my local market houses are mostly a commodity I can go online and see just about everything I need to know about a property. Almost no value add by the realtor, besides having the secret docoder pass. Transaction prices are absurd when houses sell themselfes.

How about title companies? They are always in the fancy areas, skimming thousands off each transaction providing not much value. We have manditory title insurance rates locally, a couple K guaranteed profit for the underwriters. How often are claims settled against title insurance?