Moving on to #2 (my comments in bold type below).
2. California REALTORS� should have universal access to all MLS data.
2. California REALTORS� should have universal access to all MLS data.
C.A.R. members are licensed by the state Department of Real Estate and as such are able to sell property throughout California. Consumers have access to statewide and even nationwide listings through a variety of data aggregation sites on the Internet. In order for REALTORS� to provide their clients with the information they want, California REALTORS� should have access to all listing data in the state. Shared databases and reciprocal agreements should be strongly encouraged.
Here's where things start to get really strange. Did anyone edit this stuff? First sentence is certainly true. We are ABLE, in a licensing sense, to sell real estate throughout California according to California Real Estate Law. Does that mean we should? Maybe not so much, because there's the small issue of fiduciary duty which we'll get back to shortly. Next sentence----Consumers have access to statewide and nationwide data--yup! Remember this was written in 2005--access to information is way better now. Unfortunately, MLS data is about the same as it was in 2005--ie falling behind in quality when compared to various aggregators and certainly the RPR effort by the national association and LPS (which is basically an MLS system, minus compensation--add a widget and presto!). Ok, now we take an excursion far from logic and rationality. Agents should have access to all listing data to give their clients the information they want. Didn't the previous sentence say the public already had access to nationwide data? In fact, that data and a diversity of applications offer more information and tools than MLS listing data, except for compensation info and the public doesn't see that anyhow.
So the statewide listing data access doesn't really provide the public anything they don't already have and the agents also have access to all the info the public does -- so if they want information about property at the other end of the state (or the nation) both the public and real estate community can easily get it.
Perhaps this Principle is NOT about information, but about the size of the area within which agents do business. The implication is that any agent in any part of the state should have all listing data so they can range far and wide throughout the state to represent a client.
You guessed it! It's time to return to fiduciary duty, as well as to recall the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER concept from last post. Which agent is better equipped to deliver a full measure of fiduciary duty consistent with the BEST interests of Buyers or Sellers in locating the RIGHT HOUSE or RIGHT BUYER? An agent familiar with the immediate vicinity of the property in question, it's vicinity, the history of that market, the planning environment, etc.,etc. or one from another part of the state who may know the client, but doesn't know the area? I'll concede that it's possible for a skilled and diligent agent from far away to do their homework and eventually bring serious expertise into play to achieve results similar to those provided by a local expert. Likely? NOPE! Excellent agents are very busy keeping up to speed in their OWN market area and because they do, they probably have plenty of business right in their own backyard. It doesn't make sense for an agent to do the work necessary to become and remain a local expert in order to competently represent clients during occasional transaction in other areas.
It seems that the state association is promoting an expansion of market coverage that must inevitably lead to a decrease in the average quality of service Buyers and Sellers receive. So, where's the benefit fall? A statewide MLS benefits the state association in terms of control, power and profitability. The are concerns that the state association is becoming an increasingly aggressive business endeavor seeking to expand its activities into all aspects of real estate to become the preeminent force in every residential transaction. The old saying that the state association's goal is to keep the REALTOR at the center of every transaction has evolved into keeping the state association and it's products at the center of every transaction. That's fine if public best interest is positioned on the same path. Unfortunately Principle 2 suggests public best interest may be positioned on another part of the landscape entirely.
Here's the key point. Does the state association offer business products and services that set new standards and enhance the ability of members to provide a full measure of fiduciary duty to their clients? We're not talking about gross closed commission success, we're talking RIGHT HOUSE and RIGHT BUYER. We'll save that mega topic for another post--more of the Principles to come first.
So the statewide listing data access doesn't really provide the public anything they don't already have and the agents also have access to all the info the public does -- so if they want information about property at the other end of the state (or the nation) both the public and real estate community can easily get it.
Perhaps this Principle is NOT about information, but about the size of the area within which agents do business. The implication is that any agent in any part of the state should have all listing data so they can range far and wide throughout the state to represent a client.
You guessed it! It's time to return to fiduciary duty, as well as to recall the RIGHT HOUSE/RIGHT BUYER concept from last post. Which agent is better equipped to deliver a full measure of fiduciary duty consistent with the BEST interests of Buyers or Sellers in locating the RIGHT HOUSE or RIGHT BUYER? An agent familiar with the immediate vicinity of the property in question, it's vicinity, the history of that market, the planning environment, etc.,etc. or one from another part of the state who may know the client, but doesn't know the area? I'll concede that it's possible for a skilled and diligent agent from far away to do their homework and eventually bring serious expertise into play to achieve results similar to those provided by a local expert. Likely? NOPE! Excellent agents are very busy keeping up to speed in their OWN market area and because they do, they probably have plenty of business right in their own backyard. It doesn't make sense for an agent to do the work necessary to become and remain a local expert in order to competently represent clients during occasional transaction in other areas.
It seems that the state association is promoting an expansion of market coverage that must inevitably lead to a decrease in the average quality of service Buyers and Sellers receive. So, where's the benefit fall? A statewide MLS benefits the state association in terms of control, power and profitability. The are concerns that the state association is becoming an increasingly aggressive business endeavor seeking to expand its activities into all aspects of real estate to become the preeminent force in every residential transaction. The old saying that the state association's goal is to keep the REALTOR at the center of every transaction has evolved into keeping the state association and it's products at the center of every transaction. That's fine if public best interest is positioned on the same path. Unfortunately Principle 2 suggests public best interest may be positioned on another part of the landscape entirely.
Here's the key point. Does the state association offer business products and services that set new standards and enhance the ability of members to provide a full measure of fiduciary duty to their clients? We're not talking about gross closed commission success, we're talking RIGHT HOUSE and RIGHT BUYER. We'll save that mega topic for another post--more of the Principles to come first.
No comments:
Post a Comment