4 ms·

I guess I don't understand the economics of this entire process. Is this a pro or anti consumer move?

SlightlyLeftPad 1y ago
Pro consumer, delaying public listings leaves the door open for housing discrimination for one. Selling agents can use the delayed listing process to only show the home to pre-screened buyers of their choosing for a variety of reasons, some legitimate; many not. That can very quickly turn into a Fair Housing violation and swept under the rug because buyers just aren’t aware it’s happening.
- lazide 1y ago
  Huh? Sellers can always sell to individuals without ever publically listing, and Sellers always have the option of (non-obviously) discriminating this way. Hell, sellers can just tell people at their church group, madrasa, whatever that they’re thinking if selling. It’s common for less economically minded sellers to pick a lower offer from someone they like, or have some personal connection with their story on, etc. Even if listed publicly, they can pick and choose whatever buyer they want, as long as they don’t explicitly say they used a protected class as the justification for excluding someone. Doing so would be a dumb unforced error (no one has to tell a buyer why they rejected their offer!), but I’m sure idiots do it all the time.
- mensetmanusman 1y ago
  Anti-consumer, marketing homes to actual people instead of faceless corporations and investment arms (which have destroyed family housing) helps keep communities strong.
ParacelsusOfEgg 1y ago
I think this change is pro National Association of Realtors (NAR). My understanding is you need a REALTOR®'s license to list on the MLS or go through someone who has a license. The NAR has been historically pretty anticompetitive (see the recent Burnett v. National Association of Realtors finding) so my sense is this is likely anti consumer.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Why would it be anti-consumer though? An broken analog clock is right twice a day, and not letting there be a private market for the rich and well-connected is good for the individual realtor or firm that isn't well connected and is also good for consumers who aren't rich and well-connected. It means that property being sold get listed to a database that all consumers get access to, instead of conglomerates or large companies like Compass dominating the market with their private databases. it's like if there was a members only section of a store that sells specific things, and you have to know the right somebody to gain access to it. Regardless of the prices, the people running that corner of the store have advantages over the others, if they can generate demand for products only they can stock.
  - nerdsniper 1y ago
    It could be anti-consumer because Zillow isn't a market for just the rich and well-connected. If I own a modest home, I don't necessarily need a realtor to help me sell it. I might like to list it on Zillow myself and sell it without realtors taking 3-6% of the sale price. Now that isn't an option - I'm forced to go through a realtor and pay them 3-6% because only they can list on MLS.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      So use Redfin?
duxup 1y ago
Yeah I'm also trying to figure this out. I'm not seeing a clear pro or anti move here, and I'm also trying to figure out what the point of only listing a house via email or such ... not sure what is playing out here.
- fragmede 1y ago
  Only listing a house to buyers that can actually afford it and not having to waste time dealing people who need to get a mortgage with the bank who ultimately rejects the buyer. These aren't low end, low demand properties we're talking about. It makes it a "who you know" market, especially one where you don't want eg tabloids theorizing why you're selling the house. Eg if Beyonce was selling one of her mansions. The pool of qualified buyers for one of those it's a relatively short list, and the list of people she'd actually want to sell to is shorter still. in that kind of market, you don't need or want to publicly put it up for sale.
  - duxup 1y ago
    The tabloid thing seems more like a side concern most everyone would not have. The rest would be mitigated by your realtor/agent handling silly requests... I'm not sure I buy into that theory.
    - fragmede 1y ago
      Literally being in the tabloids is a minor concern, yes, but hopefully you are able to generalize beyond that. They aren't "silly" requests, and the realtor has a legal obligation to present offers to clients, so I'm not sure how you want your hypothetical screening to work.
      - x0xrx 1y ago
        Indeed, I recently was asked to sign an NDA to view an off market home; the seller was (apparently) a local business owner and didn’t want folks thinking the business might close — in many industries confidence in long term staying power is critical.

Pro consumer, delaying public listings leaves the door open for housing discrimination for one. Selling agents can use the delayed listing process to only show the home to pre-screened buyers of their choosing for a variety of reasons, some legitimate; many not. That can very quickly turn into a Fair Housing violation and swept under the rug because buyers just aren’t aware it’s happening.

lazide 1y ago
Huh? Sellers can always sell to individuals without ever publically listing, and Sellers always have the option of (non-obviously) discriminating this way. Hell, sellers can just tell people at their church group, madrasa, whatever that they’re thinking if selling. It’s common for less economically minded sellers to pick a lower offer from someone they like, or have some personal connection with their story on, etc. Even if listed publicly, they can pick and choose whatever buyer they want, as long as they don’t explicitly say they used a protected class as the justification for excluding someone. Doing so would be a dumb unforced error (no one has to tell a buyer why they rejected their offer!), but I’m sure idiots do it all the time.
mensetmanusman 1y ago
Anti-consumer, marketing homes to actual people instead of faceless corporations and investment arms (which have destroyed family housing) helps keep communities strong.

ParacelsusOfEgg 1y ago

I think this change is pro National Association of Realtors (NAR). My understanding is you need a REALTOR®'s license to list on the MLS or go through someone who has a license. The NAR has been historically pretty anticompetitive (see the recent Burnett v. National Association of Realtors finding) so my sense is this is likely anti consumer.

fragmede 1y ago
Why would it be anti-consumer though? An broken analog clock is right twice a day, and not letting there be a private market for the rich and well-connected is good for the individual realtor or firm that isn't well connected and is also good for consumers who aren't rich and well-connected. It means that property being sold get listed to a database that all consumers get access to, instead of conglomerates or large companies like Compass dominating the market with their private databases. it's like if there was a members only section of a store that sells specific things, and you have to know the right somebody to gain access to it. Regardless of the prices, the people running that corner of the store have advantages over the others, if they can generate demand for products only they can stock.
- nerdsniper 1y ago
  It could be anti-consumer because Zillow isn't a market for just the rich and well-connected. If I own a modest home, I don't necessarily need a realtor to help me sell it. I might like to list it on Zillow myself and sell it without realtors taking 3-6% of the sale price. Now that isn't an option - I'm forced to go through a realtor and pay them 3-6% because only they can list on MLS.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    So use Redfin?

duxup 1y ago

Yeah I'm also trying to figure this out. I'm not seeing a clear pro or anti move here, and I'm also trying to figure out what the point of only listing a house via email or such ... not sure what is playing out here.

fragmede 1y ago
Only listing a house to buyers that can actually afford it and not having to waste time dealing people who need to get a mortgage with the bank who ultimately rejects the buyer. These aren't low end, low demand properties we're talking about. It makes it a "who you know" market, especially one where you don't want eg tabloids theorizing why you're selling the house. Eg if Beyonce was selling one of her mansions. The pool of qualified buyers for one of those it's a relatively short list, and the list of people she'd actually want to sell to is shorter still. in that kind of market, you don't need or want to publicly put it up for sale.
- duxup 1y ago
  The tabloid thing seems more like a side concern most everyone would not have. The rest would be mitigated by your realtor/agent handling silly requests... I'm not sure I buy into that theory.
  - fragmede 1y ago
    Literally being in the tabloids is a minor concern, yes, but hopefully you are able to generalize beyond that. They aren't "silly" requests, and the realtor has a legal obligation to present offers to clients, so I'm not sure how you want your hypothetical screening to work.
    - x0xrx 1y ago
      Indeed, I recently was asked to sign an NDA to view an off market home; the seller was (apparently) a local business owner and didn’t want folks thinking the business might close — in many industries confidence in long term staying power is critical.