A reader asked the other day about listings being excluded from the internet.
Schahrzad has the story:
San Diego listing agents now have to choose ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ on whether or not they want their MLS listings to upload to other internet sites. Schahrzad said that there are 10% of the listings not on the ‘net.
The change began on April 3rd – maybe the word has been slow to get around?
There have been 2,174 new attached and detached listings inputted in July. Of those, there are 437 that are marked “No” or 20% of this month’s listings that are NOT being uploaded to websites like realtor.com, redfin, etc.
My guess is that it’s due more to ignorance, than blatant disregard for the power of the internet. Why would a listing agent want to advertise to local agents only, and NOT to the general public?
In the Sandicor FAQ’s, they say that the change was due to “a settlement between the U.S. Department of Justice and the National Association of Realtors” that has prompted Sandicor to make some changes.
Why would a listing agent want to advertise to local agents only, and NOT to the general public?
Because they already have a buyer and want to pocket the full 6%?
Well that explains things a little
Heck, file a fudiciary duty complaint against those 20% and watch things change.
Sorry to be so cynical, but this sure seems to me like nothing more than a blatant attempt to force people to use realtors. If listings aren’t on the internet sites, and I want to know about them, then I have to get a realtor even if I don’t want to.
But here’s what I’d like to know. What percent of seller’s whose listing is NOT on the internet are unaware of this? And if you were a seller and you found out that your listing was not on the internet but could be for free, wouldn’t you be pissed?
I’m half of the mind to try to get a list of listing that are not on the internet and send the owners a letter. Bet that would ruffle some feathers.
Spotty
Spotty, I’m sure there’ll be more than one agent who will extract the list and contact the sellers so (s)he can take over the contracts once the current expire.
I’m guessing from the listing agent’s perspective it just means fewer naive inquiries from looky-loos, more privacy for the current occupants, less work.
In the more active market niches it probably doesn’t affect the final selling price much. Especially because the banks all seem to be holding out for @#$%&! cash offers.
What’s questionable to me are the SD-area homes that list only on MRMLS or SoCalMLS, and therefore are invisible to many potential buyers … I’m not sure if the out-of-area agents are just too bleepin’ lazy to get on Sandicor, or if this is part of some short-sale scam. “We had it on the MLS for months and this is the only offer we got!”
Yes I’ve noticed this the last few months, and it’s probably a combination of reasons. Privacy is one. I can see what they paid, their tax basis, and their offer price (hence whether they’re making/losing money). There is definitely a shame factor in selling today. Or maybe they want to discourage casual buyers because they believe (justified or not) that the internet attracts lowballers or looky loos. Discretion/fraud is an occasional one, to attract least attention when you either already have a kickback buyer or want to discourage peasky “real buyers”. Then there’s obfuscation, the hope that by making it harder to obtain and compare information you won’t notice/realize key details until it’s too late.
I think there’s a combination of reasons, because on redfin and other sites it’s so easy to compare listings with each other. I always pore over key details like “subject to lender approval”, proximity to major streets, price history, DOM, HOA, google street view, etc.. Details that are hard to get from a realtor unless you ask specifically or have already decided to focus on a place. Hence with redfin I’m comparing about a hundred units manually, whereas if I did that through a realtor the most I could do simultaneously in detail is about five.
An extension of privacy is that it’s quite weird for strangers on the internet to see what the inside of your house looks like. It’s also a security issue. It’s a whole other thing if your house is limited to realtor’s and specifically interested parties.
Yes, privacy. I had a short seller freak out because I took a few photos with my phone. I thought they were overreacting. Then I found out a friend of a friend had toured 50+ houses and posted photos of most of them on her blog! I’m a bit more understanding now.
I can understand the issue of privacy if they weren’t planning on selling the home.
Isn’t the point of a short sale to attract buyers to buy their home?
They are getting out of a contract to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars.
It’s just like celebrities complaining about paparazzi.
You lose some privacy when you put your home on the market, but that’s the price you pay to reach the widest market potential and sell your home for the best possible price.
Jim’s reason is correct. DOJ/CAR agreement provides for sellers to “opt out” of internet display, no address on internet display, no blogging or comment feature on internet dislay and no automatic valuation feature display. The new formats for entering listings into the MLS are confusing agents as to which boxes to check. No MLS entry in most cases is an error due to this confusion. However, certain sellers of occupied homes do not wish to have their homes on the internet for pricacy and security reasons – celebrities, extensive art collections, antiques, etc.
I guess it’s one thing to see Britney Spear’s wardrobe malfunction on the street one time, it’s another for everyone to download it forever. 😉
To clear up a misunderstanding: If a home is listed with a real estate brokerage firm and featured on an internet site, anyone interested in that property can contact the listing firm or any other real estate brokerage firm and request an “in person” viewing or additional information and purchase that property thru any real estate broker of their choice. Just because its on a public internet site does not give the public a legal right to contact the seller directly and attempt to exclude the listing broker. To do so has legal consequences. If it is For Sale By Owner, buyers, obviously, can go direct.
Thanks DESERT, and I think you’ll also agree about all the knucklehead sellers who are so concerned about their privacy:
Get over it!
Your furniture is junk, your art and jewels I can find in the pawn shop, and your unwillingness to make it convenient for buyers is killing your chances of selling.
Frankly there’s nothing about your personal property that interests me in the least.
If you are so concerned, do us all a favor and MOVE OUT!
JtR – you missed my point. I was speaking as to some understandable reasons why some don’t want photos. Most clients have no problem with internet submission and photos, unless of course, they have a teenage son who plays the drums, has a pet snake and his room looks like an explosion took place. In that case the seller would be wise exclude THAT bedroom from the photo lineup.
Whenever I see a listing with no inside photos, I generally have a good idea what it looks like inside. Sometimes I check just to make sure and although every time I’m shocked, it’s always roughly what I expected. Things you’ve never seen before done to a house..
Thanks for posting this, Jim!
As a matter of fact, we’ve been surprised by the number of homes we see with for sale signs that are not on the internet. It’s been a major topic of conversation for us for at least a few months. Now, it all makes sense!
FWIW, when we sold a house some years ago, the agent didn’t put the pictures on initially. I called immediately and told them to get the pictures up ASAP. When the pic was finally uploaded, there was only one shot — the front. I called to ask why all the pictures weren’t there, and they said they had terminated a contract that allowed multiple photos on Realtor.com. I insisted they renew the contract because I expected the greatest exposure to the greatest number of potential buyers.
Quite frankly, the main reason I’d contract with a listing agent is because of the greater exposure through the MLS.
Sellers who play these stupid games are shooting themselves in the foot.
The settlement between the DOJ and NAR was nation wide. Every MLS has to make the changes to their listing inputs in regards to the internet advertising. It isn’t just California.