What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap(buildzoom.com)
buildzoom.com
What Zillow doesn't want you to know about its listing gap
https://www.buildzoom.com/blog/zillow-realtor-listing-war
27 comments
Congrats on the sale!
You could argue that "Zillow is going about this all wrong" if their goal was trying to improve the process of buying and selling homes or if they were trying to make it more affordable to buy a home. What you have to realize is that they have a business that's working very well within the real estate status quo: agents pay them money for ads to get leads, agents who are able to convert leads make a ton from commission, the cycle continues. A public company with an established business model (that prints money!) is not going to pivot and suddenly compete with their well-paying customers.
However, I totally agree that there's a huge opportunity to improve the buying/selling experience and lower transaction costs. My team is working extremely hard on that problem.
Edit: I should note that Zillow has done tremendous work on improving the home shopping process and I'm definitely not trying to knock them on that. They and their competitors have brought the shopping process online and given consumers access to listing info that was previously only available to agents. The actual offer/transaction (the buy button) is the extremely complicated piece we're trying to tackle. It just so happens that in tackling that piece and becoming a brokerage, we get access to a high quality broker-only data feed.
You could argue that "Zillow is going about this all wrong" if their goal was trying to improve the process of buying and selling homes or if they were trying to make it more affordable to buy a home. What you have to realize is that they have a business that's working very well within the real estate status quo: agents pay them money for ads to get leads, agents who are able to convert leads make a ton from commission, the cycle continues. A public company with an established business model (that prints money!) is not going to pivot and suddenly compete with their well-paying customers.
However, I totally agree that there's a huge opportunity to improve the buying/selling experience and lower transaction costs. My team is working extremely hard on that problem.
Edit: I should note that Zillow has done tremendous work on improving the home shopping process and I'm definitely not trying to knock them on that. They and their competitors have brought the shopping process online and given consumers access to listing info that was previously only available to agents. The actual offer/transaction (the buy button) is the extremely complicated piece we're trying to tackle. It just so happens that in tackling that piece and becoming a brokerage, we get access to a high quality broker-only data feed.
You make excellent points. I guess what I meant was that Zillow's model _should be_ to improve the process and to make it cheaper. Maybe 6%-7% commission is still appropriate for high-end properties that only have a limited pool of potential buyers (that's not my world, I don't really know) but for average homes in 2015, it is an anachronism left over from a time when buyers and sellers couldn't do a lot of the legwork themselves online. Its not hard to see that there is a ton of money to be made closing that gap.
Just perused your website and from what I read your company certainly seems to have the right idea. As it happens our buyer did end up having an agent and we paid that agent a 3% commission, so from what I read your system definitely could have worked in our transaction and saved our buyer some dough. The $300 we paid the agent to get us into the MLS truly paid off though... we saved literally thousands. Looking back I could pay triple that and it would be a no-brainer. Just something to consider - toss in some boilerplate forms or instruction guides or whatever and it could be a great product with excellent margins. I bet theres a bunch of tech savvy go getter millenials that would get licensed to do the local work necessary. Anyhow, I'm really glad to see someone doing what you're doing, best of luck to you... I truly hope you win
Just perused your website and from what I read your company certainly seems to have the right idea. As it happens our buyer did end up having an agent and we paid that agent a 3% commission, so from what I read your system definitely could have worked in our transaction and saved our buyer some dough. The $300 we paid the agent to get us into the MLS truly paid off though... we saved literally thousands. Looking back I could pay triple that and it would be a no-brainer. Just something to consider - toss in some boilerplate forms or instruction guides or whatever and it could be a great product with excellent margins. I bet theres a bunch of tech savvy go getter millenials that would get licensed to do the local work necessary. Anyhow, I'm really glad to see someone doing what you're doing, best of luck to you... I truly hope you win
Is 6-7% really the norm in the USA its 1 or 2 % in the UK if so damm that is a market that needs disrupting.
3% for the buyer's agent, 3% for the seller's agent
Yes, and yes.
One of the presidential candidates should have I will deregulate the Relator cartel as one of his/her manifesto key items.
Really appreciate the kind words. We'll do our best!
[deleted]
You just listed all the reasons Redfin (https://www.redfin.com) is killing it. Their value proposition is that their agents aren't paid on commission, they're paid on your satisfaction. Their website is also very data-intensive compared to MLS sites (which create information asymmetry between buyers, sellers, and brokers due to how they're setup).
Otoh, are the very best agents going to work for rf and make less money? Redfin looks like modern KW to me. Most great agents don't want to undersell their own industry. And while there are many markets where a mediocre agent will do, I wouldn't take that chance in sf, la, Nyc, Miami, etc
Would I use them to sell? Maybe. Would I use them to buy? Most definitely. As mentioned further down in this thread, buyer's agents have every incentive for the buyer to pay as high a price as possible (due to RE commission structure). I want someone earning a fee on my transaction because they got me the best price (as either buyer or seller).
Price of a service can be a form of signaling, but paying more for something does in no way mean you're getting better served.
Price of a service can be a form of signaling, but paying more for something does in no way mean you're getting better served.
Real-estate commissions don't incentivize squeezing out a maximum sale price. They incentivize closing the sale over everything else. For example:
Assume 7% commission.
Assume 50/50 buyer/seller agent split.
Assume 40/60 broker agent split.
Assume sale price of $190,000
Buyer agent commission = $3990
Assume market value of $200,000
Difference from market value is $10,000
Total commission $700 on $10000 sale price
Net difference to seller $9300
Net difference to buyer's agent $210
I agree with you. I edited my comment to make that clear.
Depends on the market. In a competitive market, I want my agent to be as dedicated as possible, not one taking a smaller cut. We won a 13-offer bidding war on a financed deal with only a SLIGHTLY higher price than the 2nd place, all-cash offer. anything could have made the difference in the deal, and I'm more than happy to throw another 10k at the agent to have it locked down.
You're right that traditional agents have incentives to get the highest price, but so does a Redfin agent.
You're right that traditional agents have incentives to get the highest price, but so does a Redfin agent.
>> SLIGHTLY higher price than the 2nd place
It's cool that you liked your agent but in our experience submitting hundreds of offers in SF and LA, 100% of the time we've come in with the highest price at comparable terms (waived inspections in SF) our buyer has won. In our case, we take a smaller cut because we do less upfront shopping/client prospecting work, not because we provide less service in the offer/close process. But at the end of the day, it's really your money doing most of the work, not the dude presenting it.
It's cool that you liked your agent but in our experience submitting hundreds of offers in SF and LA, 100% of the time we've come in with the highest price at comparable terms (waived inspections in SF) our buyer has won. In our case, we take a smaller cut because we do less upfront shopping/client prospecting work, not because we provide less service in the offer/close process. But at the end of the day, it's really your money doing most of the work, not the dude presenting it.
> but so does a Redfin agent
I don't see how - and anyway, a buyer's agent can be a big waste of money in a lot of markets. Traditional single-family housing transactions aren't that complicated, and a great many buyers could handle one on their own just fine. I applaud _any_ effort to undermine the NAR.
I don't see how - and anyway, a buyer's agent can be a big waste of money in a lot of markets. Traditional single-family housing transactions aren't that complicated, and a great many buyers could handle one on their own just fine. I applaud _any_ effort to undermine the NAR.
> I don't see how
redfin gets more money with a higher price. And there are some homes redfin will not show you at all because the price is too low (and a middle range where they use "partner agents" rather than their own). And I'm not talking your 5-figure houses in suburbia, I'm talking condos in the city of boston. I have a rooftop pool, fitness center, and concierge in my building, but the price I bought my condo in 2014 was too low for redfin. Meanwhile, my buyer's agent from century 21 got 10% knocked off the list price for me, despite list being 75% of what I was willing to spend.
redfin gets more money with a higher price. And there are some homes redfin will not show you at all because the price is too low (and a middle range where they use "partner agents" rather than their own). And I'm not talking your 5-figure houses in suburbia, I'm talking condos in the city of boston. I have a rooftop pool, fitness center, and concierge in my building, but the price I bought my condo in 2014 was too low for redfin. Meanwhile, my buyer's agent from century 21 got 10% knocked off the list price for me, despite list being 75% of what I was willing to spend.
That's an interesting data point, for sure. I've never had a Redfin agent turn down a showing because of price, but there are too many variables involved to read too much into it.
Buyers agency doesn't exist in many other countries
Can you define what you mean with best agents? My experience from NY is that they are all mostly using Street Easy and getting a fee for something I have already found myself.
And I don't live cheap.
And I don't live cheap.
Ex StreetEasy dev here (from a long time back). Is this buying or renting? If it is renting then I would agree with you, the market is so commoditized in NYC for renting that the current broker structure doesn't make sense.
For renting yes, buying is different I know. But I can still find many places myself and don't need an agent for that.
The best agents are really "only" good because they know of the good apartments it's not that the actual broker part itself requires some sort of special skills.
There is a reason why everyone who has the funds turn to buying real-estate.
The best agents are really "only" good because they know of the good apartments it's not that the actual broker part itself requires some sort of special skills.
There is a reason why everyone who has the funds turn to buying real-estate.
What differentiates real estate agents in terms of "skill"?
It seems like their access to information of products available for sale would be the only useful service a from a real estate company. Of course, granted knowledge of which houses are available, helping the buyer find something they like is important but could this not be done with a google street view type system?
It seems like their access to information of products available for sale would be the only useful service a from a real estate company. Of course, granted knowledge of which houses are available, helping the buyer find something they like is important but could this not be done with a google street view type system?
Here's what differentiates realtors.
The harder problem is selection--buyers/sellers tend to shop on referral or cost because, like any other profession, laymen have a hard time judging competency.
Source: I worked for a real estate brokerage as a software developer for a number of years.
[edit: formatting--geez, when can we get markdown here :) ]
* negotiation (they negotiate tens of deals a year, as opposed to your negotiating one every few years--they should know the ins and outs of all the levers of a real estate contract)
* property valuation/neighborhood knowledge (the school lets out and a crowd of slouching teenagers walks through here every day/this street isn't plowed by the city/etc).
* access to inventory (some agents will have access to extra houses because of past clients)
The harder problem is selection--buyers/sellers tend to shop on referral or cost because, like any other profession, laymen have a hard time judging competency.
Source: I worked for a real estate brokerage as a software developer for a number of years.
[edit: formatting--geez, when can we get markdown here :) ]
It could. But the last two properties we bought were purchased through an agent before they were listed on MLS. I've discovered that there is a pre-sales lag between properties being put under contract and being listed on MLS. Agents call and find out what hasn't been listed yet. It worked out great for us in the last two purchases. But it may also not be typical.
mooreds answer is spot on. I'd add that experienced agents also know how to spot potential issues when touring houses, what work you should and shouldn't do to prepare your house for sale, and can provide a network of providers to help you close your purchase/sale (lenders, contractors, landscapers, etc.).
I thought I'd also mention the company I work for, HomeLight (www.homelight.com). We're trying to provide transparency into real estate agent performance to help people select agents that will actually provide value to them during a property purchase or sale.
There are over 2 million licensed real estate agents in the US. The average number of transactions per agent per year is under 2. Good agents can provide tremendous value, but finding those gems is really tough, especially when agents, until recently, tried very hard to hide their past performance. Also, a lot of markets don't really require a lot of work from agents. In SF for instance, you can list almost any property and get above asking price for it after one weekend of open houses, but that doesn't hold for other markets, which can make the 5%-7% commission feel like you're being cheated.
When my wife and I were looking for houses in the East Bay (Oakland and Berkeley mostly) our agent was average. She would send us property dumps for the entire city of oakland (we had no interest in east oakland, but she kept sending us properties there) and she didn't respect the way I wanted to communicate with her (email...she called me all the time), and she didn't provide great guidance on what we should offer on properties we were interested in. But, she did a good job showing us properties and pointing out issues, figuring out all the open house times, communicating with other agents, introducing us to a great loan officer, etc. I /could/ have contacted all the listing agents for the 10 properties we wanted to see a week myself, but she did that for us, which saved a ton of time.
Agents that are "bad" are ones that won't return your calls, don't listen to your needs, try to show you properties you aren't interested in, don't know the area you are interested in well, can't identify when a roof probably needs to be replaced or if someone just painted over the black mold in the basement corner, hooks you up with crappy loan officers, etc. And unfortunately, there's a TON of those agents out there.
I thought I'd also mention the company I work for, HomeLight (www.homelight.com). We're trying to provide transparency into real estate agent performance to help people select agents that will actually provide value to them during a property purchase or sale.
There are over 2 million licensed real estate agents in the US. The average number of transactions per agent per year is under 2. Good agents can provide tremendous value, but finding those gems is really tough, especially when agents, until recently, tried very hard to hide their past performance. Also, a lot of markets don't really require a lot of work from agents. In SF for instance, you can list almost any property and get above asking price for it after one weekend of open houses, but that doesn't hold for other markets, which can make the 5%-7% commission feel like you're being cheated.
When my wife and I were looking for houses in the East Bay (Oakland and Berkeley mostly) our agent was average. She would send us property dumps for the entire city of oakland (we had no interest in east oakland, but she kept sending us properties there) and she didn't respect the way I wanted to communicate with her (email...she called me all the time), and she didn't provide great guidance on what we should offer on properties we were interested in. But, she did a good job showing us properties and pointing out issues, figuring out all the open house times, communicating with other agents, introducing us to a great loan officer, etc. I /could/ have contacted all the listing agents for the 10 properties we wanted to see a week myself, but she did that for us, which saved a ton of time.
Agents that are "bad" are ones that won't return your calls, don't listen to your needs, try to show you properties you aren't interested in, don't know the area you are interested in well, can't identify when a roof probably needs to be replaced or if someone just painted over the black mold in the basement corner, hooks you up with crappy loan officers, etc. And unfortunately, there's a TON of those agents out there.
Oh boy, this is my time to shine. I just left Redfin for a new job and had to explain to my co workers why Redfin is able to offer a lower rate without sacrificing service.
1. Real estate agents spend a lot of time prospecting. In fact, the spend most of their time looking for customers instead of closing deals. The typical work week might be 30 hours of prospecting and 10 hours of actually working on a deal.
2. The Redfin website attracts customers so Redfin agents don't spend anytime prospecting. They only work on deals and are able to generate more revenue. This efficiency funds the customer's rebate.
3. What does "best" mean? It could be someone with a lot of experience and has a strong repeat and referral network so she never has to prospect. Or it could be someone who closes a high volume of high end deals. There are plenty of these agents at Redfin.
4. I've heard some friends complain that Redfin doesn't provide enough handholding for first time buyers. I've also heard that traditional agents can be pushy. I suspect these are two sides of the same coin. I do know that Redfin agents will provide extra handholding if you ask for it.
5. If you show up to a traditional brokerage and want to buy a 200k house then do you think they will send their top agent? On the other end, someone with a 1~2+ million budget will get the best agent and they will bend over backwards to keep you happy. This is true for Redfin or any traditional brokerage.
6. Because of Redfin, other brokerages have lowered their commission fees too. Yeah for disruption!
Disclosure: I own Redfin stocks. At least I think I do. Their legal department hasn't responded to my email for confirmation yet.
1. Real estate agents spend a lot of time prospecting. In fact, the spend most of their time looking for customers instead of closing deals. The typical work week might be 30 hours of prospecting and 10 hours of actually working on a deal.
2. The Redfin website attracts customers so Redfin agents don't spend anytime prospecting. They only work on deals and are able to generate more revenue. This efficiency funds the customer's rebate.
3. What does "best" mean? It could be someone with a lot of experience and has a strong repeat and referral network so she never has to prospect. Or it could be someone who closes a high volume of high end deals. There are plenty of these agents at Redfin.
4. I've heard some friends complain that Redfin doesn't provide enough handholding for first time buyers. I've also heard that traditional agents can be pushy. I suspect these are two sides of the same coin. I do know that Redfin agents will provide extra handholding if you ask for it.
5. If you show up to a traditional brokerage and want to buy a 200k house then do you think they will send their top agent? On the other end, someone with a 1~2+ million budget will get the best agent and they will bend over backwards to keep you happy. This is true for Redfin or any traditional brokerage.
6. Because of Redfin, other brokerages have lowered their commission fees too. Yeah for disruption!
Disclosure: I own Redfin stocks. At least I think I do. Their legal department hasn't responded to my email for confirmation yet.
> 5. If you show up to a traditional brokerage and want to buy a 200k house then do you think they will send their top agent? On the other end, someone with a 1~2+ million budget will get the best agent and they will bend over backwards to keep you happy. This is true for Redfin or any traditional brokerage.
Do you actually know what redfin does for a $200k property in a city where that is "inexpensive"?
Let's look in Boston at a $229,000 property:
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Boston/198-Allston-St-02135/unit-1...
Quoting from redfin:
> Below Minimum Price > To ensure every client gets the highest level of Redfin service during strong demand, Redfin is currently unable to service this property. Get more details > > To learn more or see this home, contact the listing agent directly: > Jerome Bibuld: 617-642-5456 > Red Tree Real Estate
Yeah, redfin really is beating out traditional brokerages with that response.
Do you actually know what redfin does for a $200k property in a city where that is "inexpensive"?
Let's look in Boston at a $229,000 property:
https://www.redfin.com/MA/Boston/198-Allston-St-02135/unit-1...
Quoting from redfin:
> Below Minimum Price > To ensure every client gets the highest level of Redfin service during strong demand, Redfin is currently unable to service this property. Get more details > > To learn more or see this home, contact the listing agent directly: > Jerome Bibuld: 617-642-5456 > Red Tree Real Estate
Yeah, redfin really is beating out traditional brokerages with that response.
Regarding #5, that simply just doesn't make sense. There are "best agents" who spend most of their time buying and selling in homes in the 250K-500K range because they have a knack for doing it efficiently and in volume. It is a huge mistake to think that just because an agent only deals in "luxury homes" that they are a better or more capable agent than one who does volume in lower-priced homes.
As well, buyers and sellers in the luxury market are also more challenging to deal with because of very specific parameters and various exceptions that make doing deals more specialized (i.e. it is more difficult to compare House A to House B when both are $2.5MM each).
As well, buyers and sellers in the luxury market are also more challenging to deal with because of very specific parameters and various exceptions that make doing deals more specialized (i.e. it is more difficult to compare House A to House B when both are $2.5MM each).
[deleted]
I would just contest the notion that "most great agents don't want to undersell their own industry." Not only does that kind of thinking assumes that compensation and customer service are tightly coupled -- even though "getting more for less" is one of the best working definitions of innovation -- it does a real disservice to the folks who have enough vision to work at a place like Redfin.
What is your definition of "great?" If you're referring to actual outcomes, check out Redfin's agent reviews -- the overall NPS rating blows any other brokerage out of the water, and is comparable to some of the best known consumer brands in the world. Equity compensation, automation of mundane tasks, a real team mentality when the agent next to you is a fellow employed colleague, not an independent contractor who happens to share a split with the same franchise -- these are all reasons a "great" agent might want to work at a place like Redfin.
Finally, many agents realize that the status quo (6% fees and asymmetric information) won't exist forever; it's all the NAR can talk about these days. The most far-sighted among them would rather work at an institution that is embracing and driving change, not resisting it.
All of this also assumes your axiom that Redfin agents are compensated less than traditional agents. Without going into too many details, I can say the opposite is true in most cases.
Disclosure: I work at Redfin.
What is your definition of "great?" If you're referring to actual outcomes, check out Redfin's agent reviews -- the overall NPS rating blows any other brokerage out of the water, and is comparable to some of the best known consumer brands in the world. Equity compensation, automation of mundane tasks, a real team mentality when the agent next to you is a fellow employed colleague, not an independent contractor who happens to share a split with the same franchise -- these are all reasons a "great" agent might want to work at a place like Redfin.
Finally, many agents realize that the status quo (6% fees and asymmetric information) won't exist forever; it's all the NAR can talk about these days. The most far-sighted among them would rather work at an institution that is embracing and driving change, not resisting it.
All of this also assumes your axiom that Redfin agents are compensated less than traditional agents. Without going into too many details, I can say the opposite is true in most cases.
Disclosure: I work at Redfin.
i bought a house on redfin (my 2nd house) and if you are willing to put in time to scout out your house, it's a good cash savings. (which, probably you should, since you are going to live in it!)
I ended up touring maybe 15 houses. Reasonably sure that the house we got was the best deal out of them too.
I ended up touring maybe 15 houses. Reasonably sure that the house we got was the best deal out of them too.
Are you talking about the 2.5% they split with you or are there other ways to save with Redfin?
the "cash back" is nice, but I'm more talking about finding the right house (more important I think!)
With redfin you can (and, are required) to do your own discovery: finding the house you think are potential candidates and touring them. Redfin has an associate go with you to the houses you are interested in to show you around/answer questions.
For me, it took about 4 house tours before I figured out the house type I was aiming for. After that, then next 10 or so tours was just trying to find a house that offered the best bang for the buck (based on what I was looking for)
Ultimately, if you have the time available to do this kind of footwork, Redfin offers you "choice" that you won't get from an agent. However if you are time constrained or not willing to put in 40 hours over a few months to find your perfect house, then a traditional agent will be better.
Also keep in mind that I'm in the Seattle area, which is Redfin (and Zillow's) hometown, and as per the original article, maybe in other regions redfin's listings may not be as comprehensive?
With redfin you can (and, are required) to do your own discovery: finding the house you think are potential candidates and touring them. Redfin has an associate go with you to the houses you are interested in to show you around/answer questions.
For me, it took about 4 house tours before I figured out the house type I was aiming for. After that, then next 10 or so tours was just trying to find a house that offered the best bang for the buck (based on what I was looking for)
Ultimately, if you have the time available to do this kind of footwork, Redfin offers you "choice" that you won't get from an agent. However if you are time constrained or not willing to put in 40 hours over a few months to find your perfect house, then a traditional agent will be better.
Also keep in mind that I'm in the Seattle area, which is Redfin (and Zillow's) hometown, and as per the original article, maybe in other regions redfin's listings may not be as comprehensive?
Redfin is a good setup.
NAR is a strong lobby, they will fight tooth and nail to keep their position. Million + realtors are betting their livelihood on having a hold on buying and selling homes, and are not going to let that go easily.
Here is allegedly their letter to the president in 2011 (not related to Zillow but basically how they can throw their weight behind issues):
http://www.ksefocus.com/billdatabase/clientfiles/172/3/1359....
At some point perhaps they might strike a deal work together if they can't' see a way get rid of Zillow.
Here is allegedly their letter to the president in 2011 (not related to Zillow but basically how they can throw their weight behind issues):
http://www.ksefocus.com/billdatabase/clientfiles/172/3/1359....
At some point perhaps they might strike a deal work together if they can't' see a way get rid of Zillow.
There will never be a deal. NAR's prosperity absolutely depends on their exclusive control of market access. Professional licensing is the single reason why this market sucks donkey balls.
This is also why I would heartily support a total deregulation of real-estate-related professional licensing. It simply isn't that complex a task, and it doesn't really require much training to be competent at most transactions - and particularly the one kind of transaction you want to do. Anyone and everyone should be legally allowed to represent someone in selling or buying real estate.
In that world, the NAR continues to exist as a sort of "credibility certification", which I would fully support. But they shouldn't get to use the government to keep competitors out.
This is also why I would heartily support a total deregulation of real-estate-related professional licensing. It simply isn't that complex a task, and it doesn't really require much training to be competent at most transactions - and particularly the one kind of transaction you want to do. Anyone and everyone should be legally allowed to represent someone in selling or buying real estate.
In that world, the NAR continues to exist as a sort of "credibility certification", which I would fully support. But they shouldn't get to use the government to keep competitors out.
While I'm usually against certification, I don't think one weeks worth of studying and a $300 fee is a huge barrier to entry to be able to oversee a $300,000 transactions and have unrestricted access to 70% of houses on the market.
I don't think the market would change much if this barrier was removed. The median realtor is only $38,000 a year.
I don't think the market would change much if this barrier was removed. The median realtor is only $38,000 a year.
$300 fee? No, my friend. If you buy something on MLS, you pay at least half of a 6% commission on that $300k, for a cool $18,000 (if you have an easygoing seller, that is) How's that for a barrier to entry?
And yah - the market would revolutionize overnight* because without professional licensing suddenly MLS becomes just one of many sources of data - and judging by the technology of MLS, a quickly irrelevant one.
* - I exaggerate: it would take at least a fortnight.
And yah - the market would revolutionize overnight* because without professional licensing suddenly MLS becomes just one of many sources of data - and judging by the technology of MLS, a quickly irrelevant one.
* - I exaggerate: it would take at least a fortnight.
He's referring to the cost to become licensed as a professional Realtor, at which point you can sell your own home.
You can sell your own home without a license. He was referring to the "cost of entering the MLS market" (my paraphrase) being a mere $300 (for having an agent list the sale). My point is that's not true because any actual sale costs an additional 6% of the transaction.
In the end, do you know whether Zillow or the MLS listing led to the sale?
Wait a sec. When you say you paid the realtor $300 to put the listing on MLS, do you mean that you used the realtor only for that service? Or was this in addition to the other services that a typical realtor generally provides?
I am trying to understand how easy it is to go about selling your house on your own using zillow etc, while saving on the sale commission etc that a realtor would have made otherwise.
I am trying to understand how easy it is to go about selling your house on your own using zillow etc, while saving on the sale commission etc that a realtor would have made otherwise.
Yes, that is about right for a bare MLS listing and the agent withdraws from the sale. How to find such brokers? Just attend one of your local real estate investor meetings and they will tell you who can help. Such brokers might even be at the meeting.
This started to irritate the brokers in Texas a few years ago, so TAR got the legislature to change the real estate licensing statute to include a line about "minimum professional services". Oddly, that hasn't really slowed down this practice as far as I can see. The shadow broker does need to answer calls from other brokers/agents, as they can get quite testy when they find themselves talking directly to the seller. But they soon hand over the contact and move on.
This started to irritate the brokers in Texas a few years ago, so TAR got the legislature to change the real estate licensing statute to include a line about "minimum professional services". Oddly, that hasn't really slowed down this practice as far as I can see. The shadow broker does need to answer calls from other brokers/agents, as they can get quite testy when they find themselves talking directly to the seller. But they soon hand over the contact and move on.
Zillow has substantially mitigated the loss of Move.com/Realtor.com by forging direct relationships with numerous MLSs since the cutoff in April.
> Since January, more than 300 MLSs have signed agreements to send listings directly to Zillow and Trulia, providing their members access to the largest audience of home shoppers on mobile and Web 1.
http://investors.zillowgroup.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID...
The sampling methods used by the author are extremely poor. Miami, FL on Zillow.com and Realtor.com are substantially different areas. Just do a search yourself and look at the map. Realtor appears to be using the metro while Zillow's site defaults to "Miami" only. They need to extract 100% inventory and use exactly the same geofenced boundaries if you want actual 1:1 comparison. Their conclusion may very well be correct but the data sure as hell does not support it.
If you want to criticize Zillow, there are far easier methods than this one. How about that Trulia acquired MarketLeader for $355M (Apr 13), Zillow acquired Trulia for $2.5B (Feb 15), and Zillow just sold MarketLeader for $23M. How much of Trulia's $2.5B pricetag was in recognition of Market Leader's "value"? I'm guessing we'll see at least $200-250M or so drop from Zillow's goodwill ($1.8B as of 6/30/15) on their balance sheet for Q3-15.
> Since January, more than 300 MLSs have signed agreements to send listings directly to Zillow and Trulia, providing their members access to the largest audience of home shoppers on mobile and Web 1.
http://investors.zillowgroup.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID...
The sampling methods used by the author are extremely poor. Miami, FL on Zillow.com and Realtor.com are substantially different areas. Just do a search yourself and look at the map. Realtor appears to be using the metro while Zillow's site defaults to "Miami" only. They need to extract 100% inventory and use exactly the same geofenced boundaries if you want actual 1:1 comparison. Their conclusion may very well be correct but the data sure as hell does not support it.
If you want to criticize Zillow, there are far easier methods than this one. How about that Trulia acquired MarketLeader for $355M (Apr 13), Zillow acquired Trulia for $2.5B (Feb 15), and Zillow just sold MarketLeader for $23M. How much of Trulia's $2.5B pricetag was in recognition of Market Leader's "value"? I'm guessing we'll see at least $200-250M or so drop from Zillow's goodwill ($1.8B as of 6/30/15) on their balance sheet for Q3-15.
BuildZoom just updated their numbers to county vs county comparisons that get around the problem of inconsistent geographical boundaries in some cities.
The story remains.
The story remains.
BuildZoom is utterly incompetent. Take a look at this: http://imgur.com/a/X2ajc
Notice how Baltimore County, MD includes Baltimore + the county on Realtor.com (8,579 properties) and Baltimore County, MD on Zillow does not include the city itself? 4523 vs 8579 is indeed ~52.7%.
However when you include Baltimore, MD on Zillow too? An additioanl +4211 listings.
(4523 + 4211) = 8734 VS 8579.
Seriously BuildZoom. Get your shit together. You are still not comparing the same areas!
Notice how Baltimore County, MD includes Baltimore + the county on Realtor.com (8,579 properties) and Baltimore County, MD on Zillow does not include the city itself? 4523 vs 8579 is indeed ~52.7%.
However when you include Baltimore, MD on Zillow too? An additioanl +4211 listings.
(4523 + 4211) = 8734 VS 8579.
Seriously BuildZoom. Get your shit together. You are still not comparing the same areas!
Ok. So thanks to your post they will fix Baltimore.
But what about the other 50 cities? Once they fixed the initial geographic boundaries issue, you're just attacking the sidelines.
But what about the other 50 cities? Once they fixed the initial geographic boundaries issue, you're just attacking the sidelines.
I simply looked at the first city and found the exact same issue. Given that was the problem originally reported, the problem we still present after it was "fixed", at this point I think the onus is on you guys to prove it's accurate.
The problem is that if the MLS that covers your area didn't make a deal with Zillow, the overall stats don't really matter. Zillow will be useless for house shopping.
I bought a house in Salt Lake City in June. Zillow (and Trulia, etc.) have piss-poor integration in this market, which left our house marked available for weeks after our closing date. I had to chase someone away who was snooping around my back yard 6 weeks after moving in because they thought the home was unoccupied (we hadn't moved in because I was remodeling parts of the basement).
They may provide a better UI than the abysmal MLS sites your agent recommends, but they don't do much more in (as the article suggests) the +60% of markets they don't have listing contracts with.
They may provide a better UI than the abysmal MLS sites your agent recommends, but they don't do much more in (as the article suggests) the +60% of markets they don't have listing contracts with.
They can still get listings from brokerages.
If Zillow can solve the "problem" of putting all the docs (disclosures, inspections, offer docs, title docs later on, etc) up with the listing along with making a network of handymen (to help out with prettifying a house for sale), most buyers and sellers will be happy to pay them 0.5-1% instead of the seller having to pay the agents 4-5%. There's generally not a whole lot of work in buying or selling a house including agents doing events like open houses and helping with "discovery" and the buyer-seller matching problem. The offer process itself is also quite simple and can be done online. That said, the one benefit of an open house/tour hosted by a neutral party, is that it lets potential buyers easily assess a house without having a biased seller in attendance. This can also be managed and does not really require a real estate agent. Zillow and similar services like Trulia have a fantastic market opportunity in front of them.
This has been discussed ad nauseum by insiders to the industry for close to 10 years now. Nobody has yet pulled it all together, not for lack of trying, but because of the one major roadblock that you mentioned -- actually going to look at homes. Everything else can be put online, and most of it already is online in one form another, just not always through a single vendor.
I know I'm simply expanding on what you already said, but ... one way or another, you have to go look at a house that you intend to buy. And you don't want the seller there. So you need someone who is trusted by the seller to let you in.
If you can put together a service whereby someone other than real estate agents can do that task, then maybe you could gain traction on everything else.
But I have not talked to anybody who is interested in the work of automating everything else until the problem of physical access to homes is solved, because there isn't money in paperwork. The money in real estate comes from two sources - commissions and mortgages. And most marketing plans depend on reducing commissions, not just redirecting them to a new recipient. So it makes much more business sense to ignore the paperwork that agents normally do, and focus on the mortgage process than the inspection, title, closing process.
After all, that paperwork isn't a pain point for buyers or sellers - they don't do it anyway. The agents do. So the attitude becomes one of, "Who cares if an online service automates the paperwork, when you still needed that agent to open the door? Let the agent go do the paperwork, and at least do some work to earn their stupid commission."
I know I'm simply expanding on what you already said, but ... one way or another, you have to go look at a house that you intend to buy. And you don't want the seller there. So you need someone who is trusted by the seller to let you in.
If you can put together a service whereby someone other than real estate agents can do that task, then maybe you could gain traction on everything else.
But I have not talked to anybody who is interested in the work of automating everything else until the problem of physical access to homes is solved, because there isn't money in paperwork. The money in real estate comes from two sources - commissions and mortgages. And most marketing plans depend on reducing commissions, not just redirecting them to a new recipient. So it makes much more business sense to ignore the paperwork that agents normally do, and focus on the mortgage process than the inspection, title, closing process.
After all, that paperwork isn't a pain point for buyers or sellers - they don't do it anyway. The agents do. So the attitude becomes one of, "Who cares if an online service automates the paperwork, when you still needed that agent to open the door? Let the agent go do the paperwork, and at least do some work to earn their stupid commission."
[deleted]
> I know I'm simply expanding on what you already said, but ... one way or another, you have to go look at a house that you intend to buy. And you don't want the seller there. So you need someone who is trusted by the seller to let you in.
So... I am not familiar with this problem. But what about drones to fly inside and snap pics?
So... I am not familiar with this problem. But what about drones to fly inside and snap pics?
The problem is not one of physically opening doors. The issue is one of trust. Having drones opening doors instead of an agent doesn't really solve that problem - not to mention that lots of people wouldn't go for that.
Pretty much every startup is trying to solve trust. If you don't have trust, you ultimately don't have a business. It's a touch nut to crack/scale.
That doesn't tell you things like, "man it smells musty in here. I bet there's a leak somewhere!" or "when I'm downstairs and my spouse is upstairs, the noise when they walk around is unbelievable!"
A lot of the agents typically don't point out any of those things anyway. They're incentivized to make the deal and really paid by the Seller. If both the Buyer and Seller were paying, that might be an altogether different story and it might actually work out better. Having gone through the buying/selling process a few times, I would much rather deal with an unbiased automated system.
This is all a great idea - but state laws wouldn't permit it (I work in the industry).
Most of the features you described, and the fee structure associated with them, would be in violation of real estate licensing laws. Hence why no one has provided a modern, competitive alternative to real estate brokers: you simply can't under the current regulatory regime. Otherwise, what you've described would almost certainly already exist.
Most of the features you described, and the fee structure associated with them, would be in violation of real estate licensing laws. Hence why no one has provided a modern, competitive alternative to real estate brokers: you simply can't under the current regulatory regime. Otherwise, what you've described would almost certainly already exist.
In most places there's no real estate licensing law against the fee structure in question as long as they registered as a brokerage [0]. As an agent you can discount your fee as much as you want. At Open Listings we're actually operating a very similar deep discount model in California -- you find the home, make an offer on our site [1], then we have a digitally-enhanced agent team for advice, negotiation, and managing the close. The premise is that all of these great listing apps make house hunting (most of the work) accessible to non-Realtors but there's still some useful expertise we can provide in closing the deal, representing our buyer's interests, and making sure all the paperwork is in order.
Update: added sources
[0]: http://www.justice.gov/atr/rebates-make-buying-home-less-exp... [1]: https://www.openlistings.com/offers/new
Update: added sources
[0]: http://www.justice.gov/atr/rebates-make-buying-home-less-exp... [1]: https://www.openlistings.com/offers/new
Of course - you can totally offer discounts. Hence Redfin's existence. The key, however, is that you have to operate within the existing licensing law. You can't just act as a low-cost intermediary. This makes any innovation surprisingly difficult, since you incur substantial costs associated with regulatory compliance.
For example, the vast majority of your staff that interfaces with your customers would need real estate licenses in each state you operate in (along with the tens or hundreds of hours of state mandated education to get those licenses). This is in addition to a company brokerage license for each state.
EDIT: Just saw your edits, and that you guys are doing exactly this - good luck! The industry needs more innovation. :)
For example, the vast majority of your staff that interfaces with your customers would need real estate licenses in each state you operate in (along with the tens or hundreds of hours of state mandated education to get those licenses). This is in addition to a company brokerage license for each state.
EDIT: Just saw your edits, and that you guys are doing exactly this - good luck! The industry needs more innovation. :)
Depends on the local regulations, but yes, real estate has gone through quite a bit of regulatory capture. Might be possible to do an end-run via the same mechanisms that allow "for sale by owner".
> Might be possible to do an end-run via the same mechanisms that allow "for sale by owner".
I can't speak universally for every state (there's 50 different sets of regulations, after all), but no. The carve out for FSBO is predicated on selling your own home. If you're facilitating the sale or rental of someone else's home, it triggers the licensing requirements.
I can't speak universally for every state (there's 50 different sets of regulations, after all), but no. The carve out for FSBO is predicated on selling your own home. If you're facilitating the sale or rental of someone else's home, it triggers the licensing requirements.
Not what I mean. There are several services that provide materials and kits for doing such a sale; Zillow could let the owner control the sale, but provide services to the owner rather than sitting in the middle.
Ah, gotcha. I misunderstood what you meant. You can definitely offer limited services and advertising. You just have to be very careful not to engage in any activities the state might construe as creating an agency relationship, or that are specifically reserved for licensed agents.
Sure you can. I can quit claim my house over to you with no regulations impacting me at all.
There are certainly valid reasons not to do so. Not the least of which being that if the person quitting the title claims didn't actually hold a clear title, then no ownership will actually transfer. But if you think that it is illegal to bypass the processes, then you are too caught up in the processes.
There are certainly valid reasons not to do so. Not the least of which being that if the person quitting the title claims didn't actually hold a clear title, then no ownership will actually transfer. But if you think that it is illegal to bypass the processes, then you are too caught up in the processes.
> Sure you can. I can quit claim my house over to you with no regulations impacting me at all... if you think that it is illegal to bypass the processes, then you are too caught up in the processes.
You're talking about something totally different than I am here. Selling your own home is a distinct concern from facilitating others in the sale of their home in exchange for payment. The latter cannot be done without following state licensing regulations, which is what I'm talking about above.
You're talking about something totally different than I am here. Selling your own home is a distinct concern from facilitating others in the sale of their home in exchange for payment. The latter cannot be done without following state licensing regulations, which is what I'm talking about above.
> This is all a great idea - but state laws wouldn't permit it (I work in the industry).
Uber, AirBnB redux. Provide a service that people want more than one built on cronyism-type relations between entrenched industry and gov't, and the change happens even with the existing law base.
It's not like it's some secret as to how the laws got there in the first place.
Uber, AirBnB redux. Provide a service that people want more than one built on cronyism-type relations between entrenched industry and gov't, and the change happens even with the existing law base.
It's not like it's some secret as to how the laws got there in the first place.
> Uber, AirBnB redux. Provide a service that people want more than one built on cronyism-type relations between entrenched industry and gov't
Not trying to be a debby-downer here (I'd love to see innovation in the industry), but this would almost certainly get stomped on before it could ever reach critical mass. Uber and Airbnb were able to exploit loopholes in existing regulations, and move quicker than the disconnected, regionally focused incumbents. By the time the incumbents (taxi companies, hotels) caught on, they were left flat footed.
The real estate industry in the United States is a very different situation. The incumbent interests are tightly organized and politically active on a national level. The National Association of Realtors was the third largest spender on lobbying in the USA last year. The only groups that outspent them were the US Chamber of Commerce, and the American Medical Association: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000062
As a result, the regulatory framework in most states highly restrictive and robust. There are few, if any, loopholes to exploit, since the NAR lobbies heavily on a state-by-state basis for uniform, restrictive regulations: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112381069428011613
Not trying to be a debby-downer here (I'd love to see innovation in the industry), but this would almost certainly get stomped on before it could ever reach critical mass. Uber and Airbnb were able to exploit loopholes in existing regulations, and move quicker than the disconnected, regionally focused incumbents. By the time the incumbents (taxi companies, hotels) caught on, they were left flat footed.
The real estate industry in the United States is a very different situation. The incumbent interests are tightly organized and politically active on a national level. The National Association of Realtors was the third largest spender on lobbying in the USA last year. The only groups that outspent them were the US Chamber of Commerce, and the American Medical Association: https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000000062
As a result, the regulatory framework in most states highly restrictive and robust. There are few, if any, loopholes to exploit, since the NAR lobbies heavily on a state-by-state basis for uniform, restrictive regulations: http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB112381069428011613
Uber worked because you can be sneaky and give people rides without the government knowing about it. You can't be sneaky about buying and selling homes.
But the real estate agent serves little legal function. I'm not sure if their name will appear on any government document for a real estate transaction.
I see little difference between: A) Hiring a real estate agent to sell my home; and B) Selling it myself while hiring:
1) a photographer to take/post my pictures 2) an answering service to answer a throwaway phone number I create; and 3) a tour guide that does not even know their way around
I see little difference between: A) Hiring a real estate agent to sell my home; and B) Selling it myself while hiring:
1) a photographer to take/post my pictures 2) an answering service to answer a throwaway phone number I create; and 3) a tour guide that does not even know their way around
How are you going to find buyers and get the best price in most markets without listing and offering commission split to the buyer's broker?
The second someone unlicensed starts to regularly interface with other agents, they will get ratted out and stomped on. If you don't interface with other agents, then you are excluding most of the market.
The second someone unlicensed starts to regularly interface with other agents, they will get ratted out and stomped on. If you don't interface with other agents, then you are excluding most of the market.
Mostly I was trying to highlight how Uber and Airbnb take a monetary-intermediary approach, while the entire RE industry sits out of the actual transaction itself.
This is probably why I trust the average Airbnb host/Uber driver more than the average RE.
As a buyer, I was never "found". Without representation, I would seek the listing agents directly and have them give the tour. I figure the listing agent would be very eager to earn a bonus/double commission from their selling client, perhaps to my benefit even though I have no exclusive with them.
This is probably why I trust the average Airbnb host/Uber driver more than the average RE.
As a buyer, I was never "found". Without representation, I would seek the listing agents directly and have them give the tour. I figure the listing agent would be very eager to earn a bonus/double commission from their selling client, perhaps to my benefit even though I have no exclusive with them.
When I was searching for a house I used 5 or so apps to do so. I found that Zillow had many, many listings that were very old, but were placed up top and the dates changed to make it look like it was just listed. However, checking the actual data for that listing shows that it was not pulled from the market and relisted, it was just Zillow constantly boosting really crappy houses that had been on the site for a long time.
In short, trust none of them, use multiple services, and keep looking constnatly. I found my house through my agents MLS system, which was about the time it showed up on the aggregates.
In short, trust none of them, use multiple services, and keep looking constnatly. I found my house through my agents MLS system, which was about the time it showed up on the aggregates.
I had the same problem this summer.
I was working with an agent and I told him I saw several houses I wanted to look at on Zillow. Sent him the list and all but one was sold. He said the listings were in some cases as much as 6 months old.
After that, he just plugged me into the MLS listings directly and then every time a new house would show up, I'd know about it and could email him if I wanted to see it or not.
I totally agree about not trusting 3rd party apps. MLS, unfortunately is the only reliable source I know of.
I was working with an agent and I told him I saw several houses I wanted to look at on Zillow. Sent him the list and all but one was sold. He said the listings were in some cases as much as 6 months old.
After that, he just plugged me into the MLS listings directly and then every time a new house would show up, I'd know about it and could email him if I wanted to see it or not.
I totally agree about not trusting 3rd party apps. MLS, unfortunately is the only reliable source I know of.
My area (Atlanta) is a very hot market. I found my house on Cinco de Mayo, emailed my agent, and we were looking at it that afternoon. By 9 AM the next morning the owners had accepted our offer. The house had not been on the market 24 hours. If I had not jumped on that house the moment it hit The MLS system, I would not be sitting in the backyard enjoying it right now. :-)
> In short, trust none of them
To amplify: I don't think it's any accident that the 2005 housing fiasco happened in this industry. Terrible pricing information (gaps + timeliness), as well as terrible conflicts of interest (buyers brokers are incentivitized to make the buyer pay as much as possible) make me wonder how much longer these dinosaurs are going to continue to operate the same way.
To amplify: I don't think it's any accident that the 2005 housing fiasco happened in this industry. Terrible pricing information (gaps + timeliness), as well as terrible conflicts of interest (buyers brokers are incentivitized to make the buyer pay as much as possible) make me wonder how much longer these dinosaurs are going to continue to operate the same way.
Do you mean the 2007-08 housing crash, or something else in 2005? If the 2008 one, it had a lot more to do with the financial side than the actual real-estate side, so changes in the real-estate sales process aren't likely to fix that problem. The "primary" dollar value involved in housing-price declines was significant but not really enough to cause an economy-destabilizing financial crisis. But the primary price declines in actual real-estate were multiplied many times over because the mortgages were all piled into heavily leveraged securities, priced based on risk models that turned out to be very inaccurate. That caused a crisis that ultimately involved dollar amounts greater than the total value of all the involved real estate.
A loose analogy: if you buy stock with 100:1 leverage, and the stock price declines 10%, you lose 1000% of your original investment. The big problem here wasn't really the 10% decline in stock values (significant but not catastrophic), rather the fact that you had 100:1 leveraged exposure.
A loose analogy: if you buy stock with 100:1 leverage, and the stock price declines 10%, you lose 1000% of your original investment. The big problem here wasn't really the 10% decline in stock values (significant but not catastrophic), rather the fact that you had 100:1 leveraged exposure.
>"make me wonder how much longer these dinosaurs are going to continue to operate the same way."
As long as the regulations are in place that protect them from market competition and innovation.
As long as the regulations are in place that protect them from market competition and innovation.
Very good point.
Another advice is to go drive around the neighborhood that you are targeting and find by-owner listings and such...
When I was looking for a condo this past summer, I used RedFin. Since RedFin ties into MSLs (basically a list that all realtors use), I knew about listing before my agent could email me about them.
I highly recommend it, even if you have a non-RedFin agent.
I highly recommend it, even if you have a non-RedFin agent.
Zillow used to tie into MLSs but their access was cut in most areas (as described in the article) due to a dispute. Used to be an awesome resource, now it's a ghost town.
Would think it's only a matter of time before realtor.com shuts down similar sites like RedFin.
Would think it's only a matter of time before realtor.com shuts down similar sites like RedFin.
I worked at Redfin. MLS is an agreement between all of the brokerages to share their listings. As long as Redfin has a real estate office in the region then they will have access to the local MLS.
On the other hand, Zillow requires agents to manually upload listings.
This is why Zillow is nationwide and Redfin is limited to a (growing) list of cities.
On the other hand, Zillow requires agents to manually upload listings.
This is why Zillow is nationwide and Redfin is limited to a (growing) list of cities.
Redfin is a brokerage and thus has full access to the MLS. I'm not sure anyone can shut off Redfin's access so easily because of this?
Ah good info, thanks.
Which is also why they have very spotty coverage; if they're not a licensed broker in your area, they have zero listings.
To be precise on this: Redfin covers 75+ metro markets and the vast majority of the United States by population. "Spotty" is fairly inaccurate if your intent is to describe the % of the population that can use Redfin to find a home.
(I work at Redfin).
(I work at Redfin).
Some time in the last 6 months you added Portland Maine, but you didn't have coverage for me while I was searching for houses.
I think "spotty" is fair, though I root for your company and hope the coverage becomes universal.
I think "spotty" is fair, though I root for your company and hope the coverage becomes universal.
I know that vast majority by population will cover a lot of where people are buying in the US. But when you're looking at areas outside of those population centers, then sparse could apply
Sparse coverage in sparsly populated locations.
For example, Redfin does not cover my home town, nor any of the Eastern CT cities I put in the search box, so for my parents selling their house, or anyone looking to buy in that area, it's not useful.
Maybe I was searching it wrong?
Sparse coverage in sparsly populated locations.
For example, Redfin does not cover my home town, nor any of the Eastern CT cities I put in the search box, so for my parents selling their house, or anyone looking to buy in that area, it's not useful.
Maybe I was searching it wrong?
I think you're misinformed. They used to get listings via list hub. But their new owner Rupert Murdoch chose to freeze out Zillow. Now z has forged direct mls deals for most of the markets. I'm curious where you're looking that it's a ghost town?
Realtor.com has no leverage over anybody.
Realtor.com has no leverage over anybody.
Realtor.com is more like Redfin in that it's owned by a third party, but it does have the blessing of Realtors to get all of the MLS information.
"realtor.com shuts down similar sites like RedFin"
Realtor.com cannot shut down redfin
Realtor.com cannot shut down redfin
MLS --> Multiple Listing Service
Getting and keeping real estate listings up to date is a big pain in the ass. There's no standardized residential listing data, and while you might get RETS feeds or data dumps from the MLS nightly, it's still on you to ensure that all of the information is parsed correctly and displayed in accordance to the MLS'es standards (or risk being cut off).
Often, MLSes have terms in their contract that say that regardless of the source, that their information must be the canonical source for information in some cities -- which is a huge problem with dealing with REO'ed (Real Estate Owned) properties and the banks that want to sell them.
I know of a startup that eventually just resorted to scraping realtor.com (and I'm sure that they're still doing it to this day) instead of dealing with the various headaches of managing the contracts with the MLSes and RETS providers.
Often, MLSes have terms in their contract that say that regardless of the source, that their information must be the canonical source for information in some cities -- which is a huge problem with dealing with REO'ed (Real Estate Owned) properties and the banks that want to sell them.
I know of a startup that eventually just resorted to scraping realtor.com (and I'm sure that they're still doing it to this day) instead of dealing with the various headaches of managing the contracts with the MLSes and RETS providers.
It's a nightmare. I used to work for one of the industry dinosaurs; they have an MLS team that was as large as their development team. They pull data from over 600 MLSes, with different requirements for each. Managing 600 business contacts is a big pain, then there are different data conventions that change without notice. They have had a long-standing arrangement to feed data to Trulia too.
The word is most MLSes use CDNs, so scraping might not be the best way.
The word is most MLSes use CDNs, so scraping might not be the best way.
Supposedly in January there will be a new "standard" so vendors can stop mapping individual MLS fields
http://www.realtor.org/policy/mls-policy/real-estate-transac...
http://www.realtor.org/policy/mls-policy/real-estate-transac...
Link doesn't work -- do you have another source?
you gave me flashbacks thinking about "RETS", and how many times, it was a XML formatted CSV.
thankfully, someone else was managing the contracts, and we had built a fairly decent feed management system.
i still have nightmares, though.
thankfully, someone else was managing the contracts, and we had built a fairly decent feed management system.
i still have nightmares, though.
yep, and even something as 'simple' as images is difficult. If an image gets removed from the feed, it typically must be removed from the listing page. Tons of little things like this make the data incredibly prickly.
aren't they still at risk of displaying mls data in a non-canonical format?
If they're scraping the site, then I'd assume they backed out of their contract for the MLS dumps and thus don't have a contract that says they have to display data in any format.
The MLS system is a disaster. Think Alien 2 levels of mucousy, dark and dank ventilation shafts. Zillow has never not worked really well for all of my uses (shopping, price checking, looking at neighborhoods, etc), and it's done so in a way that no other realty website ever has.
The reality is that realtors have a huge vested interest in making it more difficult to shop for a house and generally rely on information asymmetry in a massive way. Zillow is a massive blow to that barrier and I hope they succeed.
Disclaimer: I've worked for a handful of realtors and with several MLS systems in the past.
The reality is that realtors have a huge vested interest in making it more difficult to shop for a house and generally rely on information asymmetry in a massive way. Zillow is a massive blow to that barrier and I hope they succeed.
Disclaimer: I've worked for a handful of realtors and with several MLS systems in the past.
One point that this analysis misses is that there's often a significant delay between the time a property hits the market (lists on MLS) and the time it hits aggregators like Zillow [0]. If you're looking at week old listings in hot markets like LA and SF, then you're looking at a batch of inventory that has already been picked through by savvier buyers.
For this reason, we always recommend that our buyers use a brokerage-quality data feed like ours [1] or Redfin's to monitor for new listings. If you have a reliable data feed and check what's new once a day, then you never miss out on the best properties -- much less stressful than clicking and re-clicking tiny icons on a map.
[0]: http://www.inman.com/2014/02/14/los-angeles-claw-is-first-ml... [1]: https://www.openlistings.com/setup
For this reason, we always recommend that our buyers use a brokerage-quality data feed like ours [1] or Redfin's to monitor for new listings. If you have a reliable data feed and check what's new once a day, then you never miss out on the best properties -- much less stressful than clicking and re-clicking tiny icons on a map.
[0]: http://www.inman.com/2014/02/14/los-angeles-claw-is-first-ml... [1]: https://www.openlistings.com/setup
Right, in our market and for our home search, Redfin was as fast as the broker's feed and the other sites were delayed several days. We went under contract on our house after seeing it on Redfin and before the listing even showed up on Zillow.
That first link threw two interstitial ads at me back to back. The only thing more egregious they could have done would have been to make one of them an auto-play video.
Truth be told, if you're looking at day old listings on the MLS you're looking at a batch of inventory that has already been picked through by savvier buyers.
Sure, but typically offers have 3 day expirations so you'll still have a window to go see the home and get an offer in if you like it. That said, the advice stands even if you're checking more than once a day -- only look at the new stuff (sort by listing date), and don't stress :).
FYI: To add some color to the article, here's more information about the different relationships of MLS with Zillow and Redfin from a former Redfin intern (posted July 28, 2014):
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096912
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8096912
That's a very interesting read. So that means that in my market (Houston, TX), Redfin actually has all the listings? I wasn't aware of that. har.com usually has 100% coverage and some nifty features, but the mobile app is pretty awful
In a very simplified nutshell - yes. HAR is the MLS in Houston, and Redfin is a brokerage in Houston. That allows Redfin to sign an agreement with HAR to access their listing data and show it publicly. HAR will have 100% of listings from participating brokerages (non-participating brokers are a very, very small percentage). Now, as long as Redfin follows some rules they'll have no problem keeping up to date listings (after all, getting them directly from the MLS is the best source you'll get).
Zillow, on the other hand, has an agreement with some MLS's, but for the most part they rely on alternative methods of getting listing data. The only reason that have any (IMO) is because they have consumers looking for property there - which gives the Realtor incentive to upload/update their listings. So as everyone else is saying, Zillow can fall out of date - whereas Redfin can actually get penalized for being out of date.
Zillow, on the other hand, has an agreement with some MLS's, but for the most part they rely on alternative methods of getting listing data. The only reason that have any (IMO) is because they have consumers looking for property there - which gives the Realtor incentive to upload/update their listings. So as everyone else is saying, Zillow can fall out of date - whereas Redfin can actually get penalized for being out of date.
Actually the vast majority of their listings come from direct mls. I'm not sure if this includes the Houston mls.
> So as not to violate Zillow.com’s terms of service we have done so manually (hence the limited number of cities).
Can sites have a legally enforceable terms of service that ban automated access? I understand if the automated traffic is high and impacts server performance and cost, but they can ban it even if it's limited? I understand sites need to protect their servers, but if it's publicly accessible and the traffic is reasonable, I'm surprised it's legally enforceable to ban it. And as shown by this blog post, it still can be done manually so the ban isn't very effective.
Can sites have a legally enforceable terms of service that ban automated access? I understand if the automated traffic is high and impacts server performance and cost, but they can ban it even if it's limited? I understand sites need to protect their servers, but if it's publicly accessible and the traffic is reasonable, I'm surprised it's legally enforceable to ban it. And as shown by this blog post, it still can be done manually so the ban isn't very effective.
A better question: Can they back up a Cease and Desist on a blog post based on data you've already gathered, through automated access that may have broken the TOU?
Yes. Sites can ban traffic for any reason they choose. You're using their servers and they have the right to determine how those servers are accessed.
They don't need a specific "right" to control their servers. Likewise, users on the internet have no "right" to access anything.
They don't need a specific "right" to control their servers. Likewise, users on the internet have no "right" to access anything.
> Likewise, users on the internet have no "right" to access anything
Yes, they have a right to block you, but that doesn't imply that a terms of service which prohibits automated access is legally enforceable. A TOS is not a contract so you can't put whatever you want in there and expect a court to honor it. To my knowledge US courts have not decided ohitsdom's question, but I could be wrong.
However, if the site makes an attempt to block you from automatic access (even an IP block) and you circumvent it, you're in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. See Craigslist v. 3Taps. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)
Yes, they have a right to block you, but that doesn't imply that a terms of service which prohibits automated access is legally enforceable. A TOS is not a contract so you can't put whatever you want in there and expect a court to honor it. To my knowledge US courts have not decided ohitsdom's question, but I could be wrong.
However, if the site makes an attempt to block you from automatic access (even an IP block) and you circumvent it, you're in violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. See Craigslist v. 3Taps. (disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer)
Thank you, this is the type of info I was looking for.
I'm not sure sites can sue journalists for investigating them. Or rather, I don't think they will win. In the U.S., anyone can file a suit against anyone, merited or not, of course. Sometimes in cases like this defendents can get damages from plaintifs under anti-SLAPP laws. But it's still gonna be a long road to get there, if your opponent has the bucks for it and you don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_publ...
What annoys me about Zillow is that their "number of days on Zillow" is totally bogus. A house down the street was on the market for 2 months (at a highly inflated value). Time on Zillow? 2 weeks.
Maybe the time on Zillow is based on repricing or taking it off the market and putting it back on? Either way if you were looking for homes unless you kept track of an individual house you wouldn't be any wiser.
Also amusingly the house was a tear down, so the Zestimate was based on the old crappy house. Which I'm sure the builders loved -- it was half the price of the newly built home.
Maybe the time on Zillow is based on repricing or taking it off the market and putting it back on? Either way if you were looking for homes unless you kept track of an individual house you wouldn't be any wiser.
Also amusingly the house was a tear down, so the Zestimate was based on the old crappy house. Which I'm sure the builders loved -- it was half the price of the newly built home.
I had this problem a lot. I really wish Zillow allowed you to block houses from your search, regardless of price changes, relistings, etc. I came across the same lot of sad, crappy, and overpriced homes over and over, because Zillow kept erroneously marking them as "just listed!"
Zillow does have a "hide" feature, which I used extensively when house-hunting this year.
Well you're not buying the house to be built. You're buying the land and the crappy house. By your logic, you'd be paying for the new house twice. Once you when you pay the builders, and again when you just throw money at the seller of the tear down.
What I meant was that the sellers of house didn't like potential buyers saying "Your house is only worth half of that according to Zillow"
Of course this is an extreme example, I'm not sure how much people use Zestimates when negotiating the price of a house.
Of course this is an extreme example, I'm not sure how much people use Zestimates when negotiating the price of a house.
It's also possible the Zillow listing didn't happen at the same time the home went on the market. It may have been on Realtor.com for 6 weeks before going onto Zillow.
..aand it's gone.
I just got:
"–This post has been temporarily removed at the request of Zillow. We are collaborating with them to write a more complete version of the story, and will have an updated version posted on October 7th.–"
Nothing creepy about that. Certainly doesn't leave me feeling that whatever it is the article said about Zillow apparently hit them pretty close to home.
I just got:
"–This post has been temporarily removed at the request of Zillow. We are collaborating with them to write a more complete version of the story, and will have an updated version posted on October 7th.–"
Nothing creepy about that. Certainly doesn't leave me feeling that whatever it is the article said about Zillow apparently hit them pretty close to home.
Archive.org has the original (for the time being) - https://web.archive.org/web/20151006173818/https://www.build...
Looks like it has even been taken down from Archive.org!
Yeah this has made me MUCH more interested in what the article said.
Looking at the C&D letter, it seems that Zillow is saying any use of their site for commercial use is prohibited. Wouldn't that cover traditional print journalists doing a similar story, or any story that made use of information gleaned from Zillow?
Why didn't Bloomberg receive a C&D for this story which says "Bloomberg used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Zillow Group Inc. and Bankrate.com to quantify how much more money millennials would need to earn each year to afford a home in the largest U.S. cities." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/these-are-...
I guess nobody except the EFF really wants to take on this type of fight.
Why didn't Bloomberg receive a C&D for this story which says "Bloomberg used data from the U.S. Census Bureau, Zillow Group Inc. and Bankrate.com to quantify how much more money millennials would need to earn each year to afford a home in the largest U.S. cities." http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-08/these-are-...
I guess nobody except the EFF really wants to take on this type of fight.
[a] Journalists using Zillow's site would likely be viewed as personal or editorial use, not commercial use.
[b] Bloomberg probably worked with Zillow.
[c] I'm not sure EFF would be interested in this. It's pretty standard TOS language, and when EFF did get involved in the Craigslist/Padmapper case, it was (correctly) interested in stomping on idiotic CFAA theories of liability and the exclusive license point. If Zillow tried to strongarm journalists, that would be a different story, but they have not done so as far as I know.
Background: I was a journalist before founding https://recent.io/ and would often get approached by companies like Zillow to write about what their data showed.
[b] Bloomberg probably worked with Zillow.
[c] I'm not sure EFF would be interested in this. It's pretty standard TOS language, and when EFF did get involved in the Craigslist/Padmapper case, it was (correctly) interested in stomping on idiotic CFAA theories of liability and the exclusive license point. If Zillow tried to strongarm journalists, that would be a different story, but they have not done so as far as I know.
Background: I was a journalist before founding https://recent.io/ and would often get approached by companies like Zillow to write about what their data showed.
Anybody know of any good sources of MLS data for programmatic consumption (even if not free)?
There aren't any. All the regional MLS' are separate entities and make it as annoying/difficult/expensive as possible to access their data programatically. Think having to be a licensed broker, then paying for access to download a daily CSV with all active listings.
Who'd have thought that an industry of middlemen would make it hard to reduce friction in their marketplace...
(Source: building websites with MLS integration for real estate offices)
Who'd have thought that an industry of middlemen would make it hard to reduce friction in their marketplace...
(Source: building websites with MLS integration for real estate offices)
There are, ListHub, unless you don't think it qualifies as a "good" source? We've been happy enough with it, but we're only on the rentals side of things.
Without having direct access to an MLS (ie, being a brokerage), you're pretty much SOL for getting access to decent listing data.
If you DO have access, and you're looking for a solution to use the MLS data via a more simple API - SimplyRETS (https://simplyrets.com) can help with that :) (Disclaimer: I'm a cofounder).
Past that, ListHub, as another user mentioned, is probably the best bet if you're not a member of an MLS - but it's not free.
If you DO have access, and you're looking for a solution to use the MLS data via a more simple API - SimplyRETS (https://simplyrets.com) can help with that :) (Disclaimer: I'm a cofounder).
Past that, ListHub, as another user mentioned, is probably the best bet if you're not a member of an MLS - but it's not free.
I bet Zillow would love to know, too!
Yep. If it were easy to have the MLS data, they would have it. (Disclaimer: work for Trulia/Zillow on exactly this problem.)
See this post I wrote a few years ago: http://geekestateblog.com/real-estate-tech-question-getting-...
Still accurate today.
Still accurate today.
You could try Listhub, but they charge. Any other source would most likely not be legally obtained.
Listhub has its own problems -- specifically when MLS'es update data, Listhub has to ensure that all of the applications that use its data are updating their information as well. Listhub is also one HUGE xml file that is a pain in the ass to process. (We explored with a python based parser that chunked the file up into smaller listings and then imported that into Elasticsearch; but ultimately gave up and resorted into a C based parser that threw everything into MongoDB.
I'm curious, did you look into streaming XML parsing, StAX-style? It's not hard to process infinitely-long files with constant memory: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/9809469/python-sax-to-lxm...
Redfin is more accurate than zillow, They list new listings much faster and the interface is better. I'm in LA and redfin is superior.
Redfin is pretty different from Zillow, since they directly sell homes. So they will have better/faster listings directly from the MLS.
But they only have listings for the regions where they sell homes, so they have nothing for most of the United States.
But they only have listings for the regions where they sell homes, so they have nothing for most of the United States.
Most Americans currently live in areas served by Redfin.
Most of the US is very sparsely populated, so I don't think that's a good measure of coverage. Rural areas and smaller cities deserve service, too, but that'll come with time.
(I'm currently employed by Redfin.)
Most of the US is very sparsely populated, so I don't think that's a good measure of coverage. Rural areas and smaller cities deserve service, too, but that'll come with time.
(I'm currently employed by Redfin.)
Zillow has had direct mls feeds in most markets since the spring.
Edit: most markets by aggregate size. That is, they've signed the largest mls'.
Edit: most markets by aggregate size. That is, they've signed the largest mls'.
Looks like this article has been taken down by the authors now due to a cease and desist:
http://www.inman.com/2015/10/06/buildzoom-calls-zillow-out-f...
Article is gone from original source too... Obviously nothing to see here folks ;)
http://www.inman.com/2015/10/06/buildzoom-calls-zillow-out-f...
Article is gone from original source too... Obviously nothing to see here folks ;)
As a recent home buyer, I found Zillow information to be at least one week out of date. In most cities, that probably isn't a big deal; however in the San Francisco Bay area I found the site pretty useless because all of the homes I was interested in, I was unable to see because they were usually off the market, pending or very late in the process where I was unable to visit the home.
I ended up using a Sotheby's owned site, with accurate data.
Additionally, their Zillow Estimate information is at least 20% low in SF, even by admission of their own analysis: http://www.zillow.com/zestimate/#acc
The benefit I should mention is that I met a great Realtor through their ads, which he admitted to spending thousands of dollars on per month on.
I ended up using a Sotheby's owned site, with accurate data.
Additionally, their Zillow Estimate information is at least 20% low in SF, even by admission of their own analysis: http://www.zillow.com/zestimate/#acc
The benefit I should mention is that I met a great Realtor through their ads, which he admitted to spending thousands of dollars on per month on.
To be fair... in a lot of SFBA locales, homes are selling for 20% over list anyway. So even sellers (and agents) are having a hard time pricing the demand.
I think that's a quirk of how this type of auction pricing works more than anything. If everything in the area is going for 20% over asking, then posting a listing for what you actually think it's going to go for will make it look 20% more expensive than comparable properties, so you may get less offers. So there's this strange feedback loop that happens in local pricing, magnifying the list vs sold price disparity.
Realtors are often encouraging sellers to list below market rate to encourage bidding wars. When you have to go through several of these before you can get into a house, it causes quite a frenzy in people. This isn't the norm across the country.
In other markets, realtors usually have clients list houses above market value with the expectation the sellers will come down.
In other markets, realtors usually have clients list houses above market value with the expectation the sellers will come down.
my realtor was able to estimate the price better than Zillow, I feel like they need a better machine learning model to accommodate different markets. (Denver, SF and Ohio are very different places)
In my recent long home search period, I didn't trust Zillow's price estimates at all. But i used Zillow religiously because it's UI/UX is just so good, so much better than the competition, I could do a survey of what's out there easier and quicker, and find out more of what I wanted to know about interesting listings.
Zillow "zestimate" seems to be something they're known for, but I don't think it's actually their strength as a product.
Zillow "zestimate" seems to be something they're known for, but I don't think it's actually their strength as a product.
It doesn't seem surprising that Zillow is pump-and-dumping in an already extremely bubbly market.
While you didn't provide any evidence, I agree with you. The housing market didn't "rebound" per se; investors soaked up all of the distressed inventory while previous owners fled to rentals. This masked the underlying fundamentals of the real estate market.
In some markets (SF, Texas), you have a lot of foreign (read: Chinese) money flowing in fleeing less than favorable jurisdictions. That should hold prices up there (as well as the other obvious reasons SF pricing will be held high; Texas is a new phenomenon).
Other markets though are (in my opinion) being held up by extremely low mortgage rates (<4%), and as soon as the Fed starts their march upward, you're going to see home prices come down. This doesn't even begin to address Boomers who are going to want to downsize to unlock their equity for retirement, flooding the market.
In some markets (SF, Texas), you have a lot of foreign (read: Chinese) money flowing in fleeing less than favorable jurisdictions. That should hold prices up there (as well as the other obvious reasons SF pricing will be held high; Texas is a new phenomenon).
Other markets though are (in my opinion) being held up by extremely low mortgage rates (<4%), and as soon as the Fed starts their march upward, you're going to see home prices come down. This doesn't even begin to address Boomers who are going to want to downsize to unlock their equity for retirement, flooding the market.
I think xacaxulu was referring to Zillow, the company - not the housing market.
Ugh, I really need to not touch HN until I drink a cup of coffee in the morning.
I lost all faith in Zillow when I realized their estimate was just a number based on their guess at a price per square foot times the square footage...
A properties historical "Zestimate" changes if you update the current square footage. Whatajoke!
A properties historical "Zestimate" changes if you update the current square footage. Whatajoke!
I somehow doubt it's that simplistic, though I imagine price/sqft is a heavy factor. And it should be, really. If you can find sales in the neighborhood and compute their price/sqft, there should be some relationship, modifiable by other features (pool, central air, etc.)
Case in point, my house's Zestimate comes out to $105/sqft, and my neighbor's comes in at $100/sqft. A neighbor without a pool's house comes in at $96/sqft. That would indicate that their "guess" is where the magic is - a price per square foot is computed based on factors that are not readily apparent.
Case in point, my house's Zestimate comes out to $105/sqft, and my neighbor's comes in at $100/sqft. A neighbor without a pool's house comes in at $96/sqft. That would indicate that their "guess" is where the magic is - a price per square foot is computed based on factors that are not readily apparent.
It's most certainly not that simple. Valuation models have been around a long time and none are that simple. Perhaps it considers updates to be corrections to incorrect data. In which case recalculating the history seems reasonable to me
Redfin is not even listed. Snubbed.
Personally, I've always found Redfin so much better than Zillow in the areas that are covered by Redfin (better data, better UI, overall better user experience). Having lived only in such areas for more than 10 years, I was surprised a few years ago to discover that Zillow was the industry leader.
The article's conclusion left me feeling kinda meh. The article made me feel like it was leading up to something and then "... is destined for an uphill battle.". Well, yeah? Anytime you base your business on someone else's data, you run the risk of the carpet getting yanked out from underneath you.
Semi related. In Portland every single house on Zillow was actually already sold. I'm not exactly sure how this works, but it was very annoying. The only app that would show houses that were actually still on the market was Redfin. Has anyone else in a different area experienced this?
Post deleted upon Zillow's request?
Article was taken down. Does anyone have it archived/alternative link?
Mods: the title of this HN post is not the title of the linked article, which at this writing is the somewhat less clickbaity "What Zillow Doesn’t Want You To Know". In fact, the c&d part, while important, could almost be seen as a distraction from the larger issues of MLS listing access discussed in the article.
I like the HN title better, "What Zillow Doesn’t Want You To Know" is the definition of click-bait (it doesn't let you know what they don't want you to know!).
What do you mean? The current title is factual, the actual title is clickbaity.
Ok, we reverted to the original title plus a representative phrase from the article.
Submitted title was "Zillow using cease-and-desists to kill posts about their listings". I don't think it broke the rule—more likely the submitter was trying to follow the rule by rewording something linkbaity. But since people don't agree about this we've taken another shot.
Submitted title was "Zillow using cease-and-desists to kill posts about their listings". I don't think it broke the rule—more likely the submitter was trying to follow the rule by rewording something linkbaity. But since people don't agree about this we've taken another shot.
Ok, we reverted to the original title plus a representative phrase from the article.
It combines the clickbait of the original title with a specific industry term that people will have to look up separately! I genuinely don't understand how you could think that this is a better title for this post.
It combines the clickbait of the original title with a specific industry term that people will have to look up separately! I genuinely don't understand how you could think that this is a better title for this post.
I don't, particularly; just trying to make the dreaded title fever subside.
If you can suggest an accurate, neutral title that uses representative language from the article, we'll happily change it again.
Edit: deleted "MLS" since "listing gap" means much the same thing without it.
If you can suggest an accurate, neutral title that uses representative language from the article, we'll happily change it again.
Edit: deleted "MLS" since "listing gap" means much the same thing without it.
The title may be clickbaity but it's true, and it's the biggest takeaway I'd have gathered from the post had I found it through other means.
True, this is true, and technically against the rules. Post Title and Article Title must agree. The poster must be popular or someone affiliated with the mods, else they would've had their posting rights revoked by now.
> Post Title and Article Title must agree
No, the rule is "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkabit." That "unless" is critical. I wish we had some linguistic superglue to keep the two clauses stuck together—they always fall apart in shipping and the first bit is the only one people remember.
> The poster must be popular or someone affiliated with the mods, else they would've had their posting rights revoked by now.
Don't assume omniscience! We miss things. Also, we don't revoke posting rights because of titles unless people break the rules a lot.
No, the rule is "Please use the original title unless it is misleading or linkabit." That "unless" is critical. I wish we had some linguistic superglue to keep the two clauses stuck together—they always fall apart in shipping and the first bit is the only one people remember.
> The poster must be popular or someone affiliated with the mods, else they would've had their posting rights revoked by now.
Don't assume omniscience! We miss things. Also, we don't revoke posting rights because of titles unless people break the rules a lot.
I'm not popular nor affiliated with HN. I was actually linked to the article from PG's tweet https://twitter.com/paulg/status/651289253742161920.
The actual post's title was click-baity and the tweet title too long to submit to HN, so I truncated it.
The actual post's title was click-baity and the tweet title too long to submit to HN, so I truncated it.
Zillow is going about this all wrong... their advantage is that they aren't the MLS system, they are the best positioned to be an alternative to the NAR cartel. If anything THEY should have agents in every town who will put your house into the MLS for you for $300, as well as allow enhanced listing on their site at the same time... they might actually make some money that way, and also it would solve their MLS problem. Instead they seem to want to beg the cartel for a seat at the table. Pretty sad.