|
The Real Estate Web Blog
Filed under: Real Estate News
— admin @ 9:08 am
LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–June 23, 2005–The median price of an existing home in California in May increased 12.8 percent and sales decreased 2.1 percent compared with the same period a year ago, the California Association of REALTORS(R) (C.A.R.) reported today.
“The California housing market passed an important threshold in April, when the median price rose above $500,000 for the first time,” said C.A.R. President Jim Hamilton. “This trend continued in May, with the median price approaching $525,000. At these prices, eroding affordability and concerns about rising interest rates are constraining sales.”
Closed escrow sales of existing, single-family detached homes in California totaled 618,920 in May at a seasonally adjusted annualized rate, according to information collected by C.A.R. from more than 90 local REALTOR(R) associations statewide. Statewide home resale activity decreased 2.1 percent from the 632,380 sales pace recorded in May 2004.
The statewide sales figure represents what the total number of homes sold during 2005 would be if sales maintained the May pace throughout the year. It is adjusted to account for seasonal factors that typically influence home sales.
The median price of an existing, single-family detached home in California during May 2005 was $522,590, a 12.8 percent increase over the revised $463,320 median for May 2004, C.A.R. reported. The May 2005 median price increased 2.5 percent compared with April’s revised $509,630 median price.
“Inventory levels, which have been at or above three months since July 2004, fell below three months beginning in March and have ranged between 2.6 and 2.8 months since that time,” said C.A.R. Vice President and Chief Economist Leslie Appleton-Young. “While not at the record low levels we experienced earlier last year, the tight inventory of homes for sale has impacted sales over the past couple of months.”
Highlights of C.A.R.’s resale housing figures for May 2005:
– C.A.R.’s Unsold Inventory Index for existing, single-family detached homes in May 2005 was 2.8 months, compared with 1.6 months (revised) for the same period a year ago. The index indicates the number of months needed to deplete the supply of homes on the market at the current sales rate.
– Thirty-year fixed mortgage interest rates averaged 5.72 percent during May 2005, compared with 6.27 percent in May 2004, according to Freddie Mac. Adjustable mortgage interest rates averaged 4.23 percent in May 2005 compared with 3.88 percent in May 2004.
– The median number of days it took to sell a single-family home was 27 days in May 2005, compared with 22 days (revised) for the same period a year ago.
Regional MLS sales and price information is contained in the tables that accompany this press release. Regional sales data are not adjusted to account for seasonal factors that can influence home sales. The MLS median price and sales data for detached homes are generated from a survey of more than 90 associations of REALTORS(R) throughout the state. MLS median price and sales data for condominiums are based on a survey of more than 60 associations. The median price for both detached homes and condominiums represents closed escrow sales.
In a separate report covering more localized statistics generated by C.A.R. and DataQuick Information Systems, 97.5 percent or 396 of 406 cities and communities showed an increase in their respective median home prices from a year ago. DataQuick statistics are based on county records data rather than MLS information. DataQuick Information Systems is a subsidiary of Vancouver-based MacDonald Dettwiler and Associates. (The top 10 lists are generated for incorporated cities with a minimum of 30 recorded sales in the month.)
Note: Large changes in local median home prices typically indicate both local home price appreciation, and often, large shifts in the composition of housing market activity. Some of the variations in median home prices may be exaggerated due to compositional changes in housing demand. The DataQuick tables listing median home prices in California cities and counties are accessible through C.A.R. Online at http://www.car.org/index.php?id=MzUxNTA.
– Statewide, the 10 cities and communities with the highest median home prices in California during May 2005 were: Los Altos, $1,620,000; Beverly Hills, $1,450,000; Saratoga, $1,428,500; Manhattan Beach, $1,375,000; Laguna Beach, $1,302,500; Newport Beach, $1,300,000; Burlingame, $1,237,500; Coronado, $1,225,000; Santa Barbara, $1,188,000; Palos Verdes, $1,147,500.
– Statewide, the 10 cities and communities with the greatest median home price increases in May 2005 compared with the same period a year ago were: Desert Hot Springs, 67.4 percent; Colton, 64.2 percent; Laguna Hills, 58.9 percent; California City, 57 percent; Taft, 55.4 percent; Visalia, 49.4 percent; Twentynine Palms, 47.2 percent; Barstow, 45.9 percent; Victorville, 45.8 percent; Montebello, 45.5 percent.
Leading the Way…(R) in California real estate for 100 years, the California Association of REALTORS(R) (www.car.org) is one of the largest state trade organizations in the United States, with more than 165,000 members dedicated to the advancement of professionalism in real estate. C.A.R. is headquartered in Los Angeles.
May 2005 Regional Sales and Price Activity(a)
Regional and Condo Sales Data Not Seasonally Adjusted
Percent Percent Percent Percent
Change Change Change Change
in in in in
Price Price Sales Sales
from from from from
Median Prior Prior Prior Prior
Price Month Year Month Year
May-05 Apr-05 May-04 Apr-05 May-04
-------------------------- ----------- ------- ------- ------- -------
Statewide
Calif. (sf) $522,590 2.5% 12.8% -5.9% -2.1%
Calif. (condo) $420,740 3.1% 14.9% -3.3% 1.9%
C.A.R. REGION
Central Valley $343,610 3.0% 27.5% 0.1% 17.2%
High Desert $282,510 3.6% 31.7% 9.9% 34.4%
Los Angeles $503,450 3.9% 15.8% -3.5% 8.3%
Monterey Region $689,050 1.6% 11.7% -8.2% -11.5%
Monterey County $639,000 2.1% 12.3% -12.7% -4.5%
Santa Cruz County $757,200 5.9% 18.5% -0.5% -20.2%
Northern California $410,500 -1.7% 17.5% -0.9% -9.0%
Northern Wine Country $622,660 2.4% 27.5% 5.8% 3.8%
Orange County $704,150 3.2% 6.3% -8.7% 6.3%
Palm Springs/Lower Desert $388,280 3.9% 6.5% -0.5% -0.2%
Riverside/San Bernardino $364,700 0.5% 24.9% -0.1% -8.4%
Sacramento $379,790 2.7% 24.0% 2.1% -0.6%
San Diego $608,300 2.5% 7.7% -4.8% -2.3%
San Francisco Bay $721,730 -0.2% 11.2% 3.1% -8.3%
San Luis Obispo $534,440 -0.4% 26.4% 12.4% 30.0%
Santa Barbara County $746,950 27.3% 9.1% 19.5% 15.9%
Santa Barbara S. Coast $1,247,500 -4.0% 11.9% 45.1% 10.2%
N. Santa Barbara County $468,520 4.5% 23.7% -2.6% 17.5%
Santa Clara $749,000 -0.1% 18.0% -0.2% -15.0%
Ventura $667,130 2.8% 8.5% -2.8% 10.0%
na - not available
(a) Based on closed escrow sales of single-family, detached homes only
(no condos). Reported month-to-month changes in sales activity may
overstate actual changes because of the small size of individual
regional samples. Movements in sales prices should not be
interpreted as measuring changes in the cost of a standard home.
Prices are influenced by changes in cost and changes in the
characteristics and size of homes actually sold.
sf = single-family, detached home
Source: California Association of REALTORS(R)
Median Prices By Region -- Current Month vs. Year Ago
May-05 Apr-05 May-04
----------------------------- ----------- ------------- -------------
Statewide
Calif. (sf) $522,590 $509,630 r $463,320 r
Calif. (condo) $420,740 $408,110 r $366,320 r
C.A.R. REGION
Central Valley $343,610 $333,650 $269,540 r
High Desert $282,510 $272,650 $214,470
Los Angeles $503,450 $484,590 r $434,790
Monterey Region $689,050 $678,000 $616,670
Monterey County $639,000 $626,000 $569,000
Santa Cruz County $757,200 $715,000 $639,000
Northern California $410,500 $417,670 $349,510
Northern Wine Country $622,660 $607,920 $488,210
Orange County $704,150 $682,200 $662,290
Palm Springs/Lower Desert $388,280 $373,830 $364,610
Riverside/San Bernardino $364,700 $362,780 $292,060
Sacramento $379,790 $369,760 $306,230 r
San Diego $608,300 $593,600 $565,030
San Francisco Bay $721,730 $723,070 $649,240
San Luis Obispo $534,440 $536,340 $422,660
Santa Barbara County $746,950 $586,540 $684,780
Santa Barbara S. Coast $1,247,500 $1,300,000 r $1,115,000 r
N. Santa Barbara County $468,520 $448,280 $378,890
Santa Clara $749,000 $750,000 $635,000
Ventura $667,130 $649,210 r $614,850
na - not available
r - revised
Source: California Association of REALTORS(R)
Sphere: Related Content
          
Comments (0)
Filed under: Real Estate News
— admin @ 9:06 am
ORLANDO, Fla., June 23 /PRNewswire/ — A strong labor market, continued low mortgage rates and a growing economy set the stage for a 7 percent increase in existing single-family home sales in Florida in May, with a total of 24,069 homes sold statewide compared to last year’s level of 22,496 homes sold, according to the Florida Association of Realtors® (FAR).
“Sales of existing single-family homes across Florida are maintaining a healthy pace,” says David Scott, executive director of the Dr. Phillips Institute for the Study of American Business Activity and professor of finance at the University of Central Florida (UCF). “Such sales rates are sustainable in an expanding national economy and Florida posts some of the strongest business conditions indicators in the U.S. Florida’s labor market, for example, is one of the firmest in the country.”
The statewide median sales price climbed 27 percent to $230,800; a year ago, it was $181,900. In May 2000, the statewide median sales price was $115,100 — a dramatic increase of about 100 percent over the five-year period, according to FAR records. In comparison, in California, the statewide median resales price in April was $509,230; in Maryland, it was $275,846; in New York, it was $242,000.
Keeping in mind the history of interest rates and mortgage rates, Scott took a look at their impact on median sales prices in the state. “The acceleration in median sales prices (both for the May comparison and for the 2005 year) of approximately 27 percent is not sustainable,” he says. “Such price increases are being driven by a once-in-a-lifetime low interest rate environment and opportunity. Thus, this is more of an ‘interest rate bubble’ than a ‘housing bubble.’ Most investors and consumers do not have a long-term perspective on the behavior of interest rates.
“But for comparison purposes, back in October 1981, conventional mortgage rates hit 18.45 percent compared to the rates of today, which are in the vicinity of 5.63 percent. In addition, at that same time in 1981, inflation at the consumer level was in the vicinity of 10.3 percent compared to the most- recent observation of 2.8 percent. The key point is that observed inflation and expected inflation rates drive long-term interest rates. It is, therefore, interest rate changes in the final analysis that will help determine the robustness of the Florida and national housing markets,” he says.
According to Freddie Mac, the average rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage was 5.72 percent last month, up from 6.27 percent in May 2004. FAR’s sales figures reflect closings, which typically occur 30 to 90 days after sales contracts are written.
Among the state’s larger markets, the Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater metropolitan statistical area (MSA) had the largest number of resales last month with 5,482 homes changing hands, a 27 percent increase over the 4,330 homes sold in May 2004. The market’s median sales price rose 25 percent to $196,100; a year ago, it was $156,800.
“It’s a strong market, and the reason for it is that the Tampa area is a great place to live with a good job base, a convenient location and a world- class airport,” says George Bodmer, president of the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors and co-owner of Brandon-based Bayside Realty Group Inc.
Other larger Florida MSAs reporting higher home sales in May include: Jacksonville, where 1,671 homes sold for a 9 percent increase; and Orlando, where 3,657 homes changed hands for a 5 percent gain. The median sales price in those markets also rose last month: in Orlando, 35 percent to $218,600; and in Jacksonville, 12 percent to $181,700.
Among the smaller markets across the state, Tallahassee had a strong double-digit increase in the percentage of resales last month with 513 homes changing hands for a 34 percent jump over the 384 homes sold a year ago. The market’s median sales price increased 6 percent to $164,700; a year ago it was $155,800.
“Sales have been going strong — the still very low mortgage rates are encouraging people to buy now rather than wait,” says Kenny Ayers, president elect of the Tallahassee Board of Realtors and a new-home specialist with Heritage Homes Realty of Tallahassee. “The universities and community college are bringing new residents in for jobs and school, along with the hospitals. People are discovering that the Tallahassee area has a lot to offer in terms of lifestyle, cultural events and educational activities.”
Other smaller MSAs reporting strong sales in May include: Gainesville, where 461 homes sold for a 39 percent increase; and Naples, where 476 homes changed hands for a 14 percent rise. The median sales price also rose in those markets during the same period: in Naples, 34 percent to $488,900; and in Gainesville, 6 percent to $169,600.
A chart showing statistics for Florida and its 20 MSAs follows. The chart compares the volume of existing, single-family home sales and median sales prices in May 2005 to May 2004, based on Realtor transactions.
The Florida Association of Realtors, the voice for real estate in Florida, provides programs, services, continuing education, research and legislative representation to its more than 125,000 members in 70 boards/associations.
Florida Sales Report - May 2005
Single-Family, Existing Homes
Realtor Sales Median Sales Price
Statewide &
Metropolitan May May % May May %
Statistical Areas 2005 2004 Chge 2005 2004 Chge
(MSAs)
STATEWIDE 24,069 22,496 7% $230,800 $181,900 27%
STATEWIDE-YEAR-TO-DATE 105,835 100,006 6 $215,900 $170,400 27
Daytona Beach 1,445 1,261 15 $197,900 $157,800 25
Fort Lauderdale 1,067 1,347 -21 $367,000 $273,800 34
Fort Myers-Cape Coral 1,309 1,011 29 $273,500 $195,300 40
Fort Pierce-
Port St. Lucie 662 647 2 $253,200 $187,800 35
Fort Walton Beach 466 474 -2 $261,600 $189,600 38
Gainesville 461 331 39 $169,600 $160,300 6
Jacksonville 1,671 1,527 9 $181,700 $161,800 12
Lakeland-Winter Haven 545 554 -2 $137,400 $113,200 21
Melbourne-Titusville-
Palm Bay (1) 401 410 -2 $222,100 $160,400 38
Miami 1,189 1,147 4 $354,900 $264,900 34
Naples 476 416 14 $488,900 $356,600 34
Ocala 526 530 -1 $137,100 $108,800 26
Orlando 3,657 3,495 5 $218,600 $162,000 35
Panama City (2) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Pensacola 582 542 7 $158,600 $130,300 22
Punta Gorda 398 444 -10 $216,200 $177,200 22
Sarasota-Bradenton 1,234 1,352 -9 $316,600 $240,800 31
Tallahassee 513 384 34 $164,700 $155,800 6
Tampa-St. Petersburg-
Clearwater 5,482 4,33 27 $196,100 $156,800 25
West Palm Beach-
Boca Raton 1,335 1,551 -14 $390,900 $290,200 35
(1) Data was not available from the Space Coast Association of Realtors.
(2) Data was not available.
This information is based on a survey of MLS sales levels from Florida’s Realtor boards/associations. MSAs are defined by the 2000 Census. Source: Florida Association of Realtors® and the University of Florida Real Estate Research Center.
Source: Florida Association of Realtors(R)
Sphere: Related Content
Comments (0)
Filed under: Real Estate News
— admin @ 12:07 pm
Technology and competition have transformed the businesses of trading stocks and booking trips. Now they are opening the door to change in the business of helping to buy and sell homes.
Discount real estate brokers have emerged to offer a menu of options for less money. They are threatening to chip away at the real estate industry’s traditional business model: full-service help — from pricing to marketing — for a 6 percent commission on sales.
In the other service industries, changes brought more choices for consumers. Traders and travelers who want more help and advice are able to find it. Other businesses have carved out a niche catering to the do-it-yourselfers.
The Internet has made the discount model possible, said Randall Guttery, associate professor of finance and real estate at the University of North Texas.
“For the first time ever, there was a technology that could compete with the Multiple Listing Service,” Guttery said. “Whereas before buyers and sellers couldn’t really find each other quickly and efficiently, and now they could.”
Only licensed brokers can list properties on the Multiple Listing Service, a listing of homes on the market maintained by Realtor members. The MLS is the nation’s largest database of properties for sale.
Entrepreneurs, including several in North Texas, are taking advantage of the Web to offer a variety of services that cut costs for sellers. Among them:
• Putting houses on the Multiple Listing Service for as little as $99.
• Staging reverse auctions, in which agents bid for business by offering lower commissions.
• Giving rebates to home sellers who use their services.
Full-service brokers say the traditional fee structure works because there are costs associated with superior marketing and strong negotiating. They say that most customers value the help in what is usually the biggest financial transaction of their lives.
Discount brokers say that there’s room for everyone, and that the marketplace will sort it out.
It’s not easy to find a number that accurately quantifies how much of the market is occupied by discount brokers. But discount brokers say that they are seeing their customers grow and their companies move up Metroplex rankings of top-producing real estate companies.
The question now is whether the marketplace will get the chance to do that. The Texas Legislature just passed a bill that would require real estate agents to negotiate for their clients; Gov. Rick Perry has yet to sign it. The Texas Real Estate Commission is also planning to take up the issue this month. If they pass a similar rule, it would threaten the license of real estate agents who don’t follow it.
Some no-service brokers who are simply putting houses on the MLS say it will either push up their costs or force them out of business in Texas.
Lee Thurburn, president of flat-fee broker NetOffer.com in Richardson, said e-mail and fax machines have made presenting offers very simple. Most sellers can have their offers presented and questions answered within the 30 minutes of consultation that come with his service. Even if a client needs him to negotiate for $150 an hour, he said it’s still cheaper than what a full-service agent charges.
“They don’t care; they know they’re getting a bargain,” Thurburn said.
The U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission are also watching, stepping in when they believe that proposed rules threaten to hobble competition.
The front line in this battle is the traditional 6 percent commission, typically split between agents for the buyer and seller.
For instance, on the sale of a $200,000 house, the agent for the seller collects $6,000, as does the agent for the buyer.
For that money, the seller’s agent generally agrees to negotiate offers from potential buyers. The agents also list the house on the Multiple Listing Service, the largest collection of information about homes for sale in a market.
The buyer’s agent, in turn, generally agrees to show houses, negotiate prices and help the client through the many forms that go with the transaction.
Some discount brokers are letting their clients choose how much — or how little — of these services they want.
Ready Real Estate, started by Aledo resident Von Sutten last year, is offering a standard 4.5 percent commission structure. The buyer’s agent gets 3 percent and the seller’s agent gets 1.5 percent. The home buyer gets a check for 1 percent of the selling price of the home out of their agent’s commission if they use a Ready Real Estate agent or no agent. The Fort Worth-based company recently opened franchise offices in Chicago, Albuquerque, N.M., and Austin.
NetOffer.com offers a la carte pricing for services, starting at $99. Realty Baron, which is based in Dallas, puts agents’ commissions up for auction. It just passed its first anniversary.
Jack McLemore said his Euless office of Broker Direct MLS, a flat-rate discount brokerage, has seen significant growth in the Texas market. The three-person office had 600 listings in 2004, double the number from the year before and half what the office expects to do this year.
“We don’t go out and work buyers and do all that; we just stay here and list houses,” he said.
National agencies are joining the battle, too. ZipRealty, which is based in California, offers buyers 20 percent of its agents’ take, whether that is a 2.5 percent commission or a 3 percent commission. Nevada-based Assist-2-Sell offers to sell a home for a flat rate through its office in Denton. And New Jersey-based Help-U-Sell also offers full service for a flat rate through its local offices in Flower Mound and Mansfield.
The discounters say that the Internet saves money that would otherwise go to maintaining large offices on high-traffic corners and advertising individual properties. Instead, they can take out general ads promoting their Web sites.
“It has a lot to do with overhead,” Sutten said. “We drive the customers to the Web site instead. The offices are there if they need contracts. We have conference rooms. But we don’t spend a lot of time in the offices.”
NetOffer.com’s Thurburn predicted that in the next few years, those savings on marketing will push commissions lower.
“Certainly, a dramatic reduction in fees is going to happen in some way, shape or form,” said Thurburn, a Fort Worth entrepreneur who founded and sold the Internet service provider Flashnet Communications in the late 1990s. “Traditional real estate operations will no longer be able to sustain the large operations that they have centered around the 5 percent or 6 percent commission.”
Guttery noted that discount stock brokerages helped force down commissions for stock trading. But he said full-service brokerages have adapted.
“If they’re going to offer the same level of service for a lower fee, basic economics tells you that others are going to have to follow suit,” said Guttery, who wrote a series of groundbreaking papers on this topic with fellow UNT professor John Baen in 1997.
Full-service brokers, for their part, say that real estate transactions are more complex than basic stock trading. Brokers offer their clients expertise and knowledge that can simplify paperwork and ensure that the sale doesn’t violate any laws.
“There is a cost that the Realtor incurs to provide full service,” said Inga Brown, a broker-owner of Keller Williams offices in the Hulen area of Fort Worth and Eagle Mountain Lake. “So when a discount brokerage firm is cutting the brokerage fee, they are cutting the money that they could spend for marketing costs. Something always has to go.”
She said discount brokerages might not provide a full range of marketing needed to sell a home. In turn, she said, the homes might take longer to sell, or the homes might be priced at the wrong level.
She also said that full-service brokers provide more attention to customers, and that she has gotten clients who first tried a discount broker.
Martha Williams, an owner of Williams Trew offices in the Hulen and Camp Bowie areas of Fort Worth, said she believes that all of the services that her agents offer are important. She said she won’t be cutting back on service to offer a lower commission.
At the same time, she doesn’t see discount brokers as a major threat.
“We know it’s out there, just like for-sale-by-owners are out there,” Williams said. “That’s just part of the market.”
Discount brokers say their customers often don’t want or need full service. Thurburn said many sellers want only one thing — a posting on the Multiple Listing Service — but they need a licensed broker to get it.
“The MLS is nothing but a database,” he said. “By the time you prepare all of the documents and do the data entry, you may have an hour invested. And to charge a person 3 percent for essentially doing an hour’s worth of work is ludicrous.”
Realty Baron customers can check off any of 25 services they expect their agent to provide when they sign up to have agents bid for their business.
Most people select 12 to 15 requirements, indicating that they don’t want every service an agent offers, said Marc Dugger, founder of RealtyBaron.com.
Ready Real Estate lists homes on the Multiple Listing Service at a 4.5 percent commission. It also offers buyers a 1 percent cash rebate when it’s the agent for both sides in the transaction.
“On a $200,000 home, we bring a check for $2,000 to give them for using us,” Sutten said. That check comes out of the Ready Real Estate agent’s cut, so it’s only available if they use this agent or no agent.
Kristi and Rick King, teachers in the Northwest school district, used their check from buying a three-bedroom home in Rhome to buy kitchen furniture and a refrigerator.
“It was just super, super easy,” Kristi King said.
With Realty Baron’s bid-for-the-lowest-commission model, agents use the service to augment their search for new deals, Dugger said.
Home sellers like getting the lowest commission they can find in a system in which clients rank the quality of the agent. A constantly updated ticker shows what the going commission is at that moment. Last week, the going rate was a commission of about 4.5 percent.
Both discount and full-service agents anonymously compete for the same business, and Realty Baron pockets a finder’s fee of 5 percent to 10 percent of the sales commission when the deal closes, Dugger said. For a $100,000 house with a 4.5 percent sales commission, that’s at least $225 from the agent’s cut.
“I feel like, given an open marketplace, those commissions will drop,” Dugger said. “And they’ll drop to a point where people will not choose for sale by owner.”
Sutten of Ready Real Esate concedes that his agency is not for everybody.
“But I think as time progresses,” Sutten said, “and the Internet grows and technology becomes even more useful, I think we’ll see continued growth of a business model such as ours.”
Source: Star-Telegram/Andrea Jares
Sphere: Related Content
Comments (0)
Filed under: VOW News
, IDX News
— admin @ 10:23 am
A revised IDX policy will serve as the foundation for NAR’s continuing discussions with the U.S. Department of Justice.
To resolve a 20-month dispute with the U.S. Department of Justice over certain elements of its Virtual office Web site (VOW) policy, the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS took initiative and authorized its leadership to develop a single, uniform policy governing the display of all Multiple Listing Service data on Web sites.
NAR has postponed the implementation of its existing VOW policy until Jan. 1, 2006, to allow time to develop the new policy.
NAR’s VOW policy, adopted in 2003, is based on the premise that real estate brokerage can be conducted online. It regulates the display of listing data on a Virtual office Web site, which typically provides more detailed property information and requires consumers to register, disclose certain information about themselves, and agree to terms of use.
NAR’s Internet Data Exchange (IDX) policy, adopted in 2000, governs the advertising display of abbreviated listing data on MLS participants’ sites. Today, IDX displays of listings are the dominant method through which brokers share their listings with one another over the Internet.
New Policy Merges Key Provisions
NAR General Counsel Laurie Janik says that an enhanced IDX policy that incorporates key aspects of the VOW policy would serve as the foundation for continuing negotiations with the Department of Justice.
Janik spoke to NAR Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee on this issue during the the 2005 REALTORS Midyear Legislative Meetings & Trade Expo, which was held May 9-14 in Washington, D.C.
Janik met with DOJ officials May 11 as part of the ongoing investigation. The meeting was preceded by a flurry of media attention that speculated the DOJ was prepared this week to sue NAR for antitrust violations over aspects of its VOW policy.
Contrary to the media reports, Janik said she was told by DOJ officials that a lawsuit against NAR has not been authorized yet by the department, and negotiations will continue. “We are exploring with the DOJ the concept of blending the IDX and VOW policies into one that would govern all internet display of listings,” Janik said.
Enhancements to the IDX policy, which require brokers to update listing data weekly and employ appropriate data security procedures, among other things, were approved Thursday by the Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee, but are still subject to approval by NAR’s Board of Directors on Saturday.
No More Selective Opt-out
The enhanced IDX policy retains an opt-out, but not a selective opt-out, provision. It allows brokers to choose not to have their listing data displayed on all competitors’ Web sites, but it does not allow brokers to select which competitors’ to not participate with, as the VOW policy had provided.
NAR and the DOJ will discuss other policy modifications that could be added to the enhanced IDX policy. That includes the “clean page” provision, which prohibits advertising around the display of another broker’s listings online, and the referral fee provision, which prohibits brokers from operating a VOW primarily to obtain referral fees.
The Multiple Listing Issues & Policies Committee also authorized NAR’s leadership team to negotiate with the DOJ on listing display policy modifications in the interest of expediency. “It is in NAR’s best interest to reach agreement with the DOJ as soon as possible,” said Janik.
–NAR
Sphere: Related Content
Comments (0)
Filed under: Real Estate Web Design
— admin @ 8:20 am
A new survey by the National Association of Realtors(R) has identified key areas where Realtors(R) believe technology can play a significant role in improving the real estate transaction process.
The 2005 Realtor(R) Technology Efficiency Survey, conducted jointly by NAR’s Center for REALTOR(R) Technology and FBS Data Systems, found that technology has become more prevalent throughout the real estate transaction life-cycle, allows for Realtors(R) to better serve clients and points out areas of technology that are still emerging.
The survey reveals that Realtors(R) have embraced the Internet and that high-speed Internet access has become the norm, with almost nine out of ten respondents indicating they use high-speed Internet access. Of the Realtors(R) polled, 68 percent indicated they use the Internet to generate leads, but six out of ten of this group only get 10 percent or less of their leads through the Internet. The top sources of Internet leads are company and agent Web sites.
“The Internet is vital to a growing number of Realtors(R)’ success; more than two-thirds of Realtors(R) indicate they have a Web site,” said Mark Lesswing, NAR vice president of CRT. “And while many Realtors(R) have Web sites, only 40 percent of respondents are able to direct maximum traffic to their site.”
The survey indicates that while agents realize the importance of the Internet for generating leads and most are using the Internet in some way to do this, only 12 percent are using any system to qualify leads, Lesswing said. “About three-fourths said they were not satisfied with the number or quality of Internet leads. We see this as indicating areas that are ripe for innovation using technology.”
The survey indicated that referrals and repeat clients are most important for generating leads. More than 40 percent of those surveyed indicated that half or more of their business is based on referral or repeat clients. Even though referral and repeat clients are the most important methods of generating new business, only 22 percent of respondents were “very pleased” with the methods they use for staying in touch with past clients.
The study reveals that only 13 percent of respondents report they use any form of automated transaction management system. Sixty-eight percent, however, expressed interest in using transaction management systems in the future.
“With the increased documentation required by a transaction, it’s understandable why so many Realtors(R) see they’ll need automated transaction systems. It will simplify the homebuying process for both consumers and Realtors(R),” said Vince Malta, a broker with Malta & Co. in San Francisco, who participated in the study. “It smoothes the process and makes important transaction elements like communications, follow-up, disclosure and document storage easier,” said Malta, president-elect of the California Association of Realtors(R).
The survey was based on data from field research conducted earlier this year. The survey respondents included agents (81 percent) and brokers (16 percent). The survey was e-mailed to 50,000 NAR members in April and generated a 5.1 percent response rate with 2,554 usable responses. The 2005 Realtor(R) Technology Efficiency Survey is available at http://www.realtor.org/crtweb.nsf/pages/CRTsurvey?OpenDocument.
CRT is a division of NAR that provides advocacy, implementation and information on technology to the real estate industry. Further information on CRT is available at http://www.realtor.org/CRT.
FBS Data Systems Fargo, N.D., is the creator of the flexmls(TM) system and has served Realtors(R) and MLS systems for more than 25 years.
The National Association of Realtors(R), “The Voice for Real Estate,” is America’s largest trade association, representing more than 1 million members involved in all aspects of the residential and commercial real estate industries.
Information about NAR is available at http://www.realtor.org. This and other news releases are posted in the Web site’s “News Media” section in the NAR Media Center.
REALTOR(R) is a registered collective membership mark which may be used only by real estate professionals who are members of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS(R) and subscribe to its strict Code of Ethics.
Source : Moneyplans.net Archives
Sphere: Related Content
Comments (0)
Filed under: Real Estate Web Design
— admin @ 11:29 pm
Web Design:
The communication gap between techno-head web designers and the real estate industry can cause all kinds of project problems and mis-understandings. What means “Custom design” to you may not mean “Custom design” to your web developer. So, let’s learn in real estate terms what each web design aspect refers to and how to ask for those by name.
Web design can be defined by these main elements:
1. The design - how your will site look, the colors and images. Think “interior decoration”.
2. The layout - the positioning of the elements on your pages. Think “floorplan”.
3. The content - the words and pictures that fill your site. Think “furniture”.
4. The functionality - how your site will give your visitors and you access to the information and tools you need. Think “amenities”.
Just as the interior decoration, floorplan, furniture and amenities can make or break a real estate deal, the design, layout, content and functionality will do the same for your web site.
Sphere: Related Content
Comments (0)
Filed under: VOW News
— admin @ 9:33 pm
Virtual Office Website (”VOW”) Policy (adopted May 17, 2003)
The following Virtual Office Website (”VOW”) policy was approved by the NAR Board of Directors at the 2003 Midyear Meetings and amended at the 2003 Annual Convention.
The NAR Board of Directors also adopted model MLS rules and regulations that will enable MLSs to implement the Virtual Office Website policy. These model provisions supplement the existing NAR model rules and regulations.
For more information on VOWs, visit NAR’s Virtual Office Web Site Education Center
Policy governing use of MLS data in connection with
Internet brokerage services offered by MLS Participants
(”Virtual Office Websites”)
1. Definitions and Scope of Policy.
1. For purposes of this policy, the term Virtual Office Website (”VOW”) refers to a Participant’s Internet website, or a feature of a Participant’s Internet website, through which the Participant provides real estate brokerage services to consumers with whom the Participant has first established a broker-consumer relationship (as defined by state law) where the consumer has the opportunity to search for MLS data, subject to the Participant’s oversight, supervision and accountability. As used herein “Participant’s VOWs” and “VOWs” also refers to such websites, or features of websites, operated by non-principal brokers and sales licensees affiliated with MLS Participants, where permitted by this policy.
2. The right to display listings in response to consumer searches is limited to display of MLS data supplied by the MLS(s) in which the Participant has participatory rights. This does not preclude a firm with offices participating in different MLSs from operating a master website with links to such offices’ VOWs.
3. Participant’s Internet websites may also provide other features, information, or services in addition to the VOW (including the Internet Data Exchange function), which other features, information, or services are not subject to this policy. Use of MLS active listing data on a VOW is subject to the permission of the listing brokers whose listings may be available to consumers via a VOW. Unless prohibited by state law or regulation, such permission is presumed unless a listing broker “opts outâ€? by directing that his or her listings not be available for search or display on the VOWs of other participants. A listing broker may independently elect to opt out of (i) the VOWs of all other participants in the MLS (“Blanket opt outâ€?), or (ii) the VOWs of selected other participants determined independently by the listing broker (“Selective opt out.â€?)
4. Except as permitted in Sections III and IV, MLSs may not adopt rules or regulations that are more or less restrictive than, or otherwise inconsistent with, these policies.
2. Policies Applicable to Participants’ VOWs.
1. Participants may provide brokerage services via a VOW that include making MLS active listing data available, but only to consumers (hereinafter “Registrants”) with whom the Participants have first established lawful consumer-broker relationships, including completion of all actions required by state law in connection with providing real estate brokerage services to clients and customers. Such actions shall include, but are not limited to, satisfying all applicable agency, non-agency, and other disclosure obligations, and execution of any required agreement(s).
2. Participants’ VOWs must obtain the identity of each Registrant and obtain each Registrant’s agreement to Terms of Use of the VOW, as follows:
1. A Registrant must provide his or her name and a valid email address. The Participant must send an email to the address provided by the Registrant confirming that the Registrant has agreed to the Terms of Use (described in subsection c below). The Registrant may be permitted to access the VOW only after the Participant has verified that the email address provided is valid and that Registrant received the Terms of Use confirmation.
2. The Registrant must supply a user name and a password, the combination of which must be different from those of all other Registrants on the VOW, before being permitted to search and retrieve information from the MLS database via the VOW. The user name and password may be established by the Registrant or may be supplied by the Participant, at the option of the Participant. An email address may be associated with only one user name and password. The Registrant’s password and access must expire on a date certain but may be renewed. The Participant must at all times maintain a record of the name and email address supplied by the Registrant, and the username and current password of each Registrant, such records to be kept for not less than 180 days after the expiration of the validity of the Registrant’s password. If the MLS has reason to believe that a Participant’s VOW has caused or permitted a breach in the security of the data or a violation of MLS rules related to use by one or more Registrants, the Participant shall, upon request, provide to the MLS a copy of the record of the name, email address, username, current password, and audit trail, if required, of any Registrant identified by the MLS to be suspected of involvement in the violation.
3. The Registrant must be required to affirmatively express agreement to a “Terms of Use” provision that requires the Registrant to open and review an agreement that provides at least the following:
1. That the Registrant acknowledges entering into a lawful consumer-broker relationship with the Participant;
2. That all data obtained from the VOW is intended only for the Registrant’s personal, non-commercial use;
3. That the Registrant has a bona fide interest in the purchase, sale, or lease of real estate of the type being offered through the VOW;
4. That the Registrant will not copy, redistribute or retransmit any of the data or information provided;
5. That the Registrant acknowledges the MLS’s ownership of and the validity of the copyright in the MLS database.
After the Registrant has opened for viewing the Terms of Use agreement, a “mouse click” is sufficient to acknowledge agreement to those terms. The Terms of Use Agreement may not impose a financial obligation on the Registrant or create any representation agreement between the Registrant and the Participant.
The Terms of Use agreement shall also expressly authorize the MLS, and other MLS Participants or their duly authorized representatives, to access the VOW for the sole purpose of monitoring compliance with MLS rules.
4. An agreement entered into at any time between the Participant and Registrant imposing a financial obligation on the Registrant or creating representation of the Registrant by the Participant must be established separately from the Terms of Use, must be prominently labeled and may not be accepted solely by mouse click
3. A Participant’s VOW must protect the MLS data from misappropriation by employing reasonable efforts to monitor for and prevent “scraping” or other unauthorized accessing, reproduction or use of the MLS database.
4. A Participant’s VOW must comply with the following additional requirements:
1. Listings or property addresses of sellers who have directed their listing brokers to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet (including, but not limited to, publicly-accessible websites or VOWs) shall not be accessible to Registrants. Notwithstanding the foregoing, listing brokers may display on their VOWs or their other website(s) the listing or property address of a consenting seller.
2. If authorized by the MLS, non-principal brokers or sales licensees affiliated with Participants may operate VOWs if their Participant consents , such VOW to be subject to the control of the Participant. In such cases both the Participant and the non-principal shall be accountable for compliance with these policies.
3. MLS data available on a VOW shall be refreshed not less frequently than every seven (7) days.
4. Except as provided elsewhere in this policy or elsewhere in an MLSs rules and regulations, a VOW or a Participant operating a VOW may not distribute, provide or make any portion of the MLS database accessible to any person or entity.
5. A Participant’s VOW must display a privacy policy that informs Registrants of the ways in which information obtained from them will be used.
6. A Participant may exclude listings from display on the Participant’s VOW based only on objective criteria such as geography, list price, type of property or cooperative compensation offered by listing brokers.
7. A Participant may not provide the identity of a Registrant to any other entity for compensation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a Participant may provide the identity of a Registrant to another broker for compensation if (1) the Participant’s residential real estate brokerage activities principally consist of listing or selling the types of properties required to be filed with the MLS (2) the Registrant is seeking property of a type, in a price range, or in a location for which the Participant does not ordinarily provide real estate brokerage services and (3) the number of Registrant identities provided or the corresponding revenue generated is an insubstantial portion of the Participant’s real estate brokerage activities.
For purposes of this paragraph, selling does not include making referrals of prospective purchasers to other real estate brokers and listing does not include making referrals of prospective sellers to other real estate brokers.
5. MLS Participants must notify the MLS of their intention to establish a VOW and make their VOW directly accessible to the MLS for purposes of monitoring/ensuring compliance with applicable rules and policies.
3. Policies Applicable to Multiple Listing Services.
1. Associations of REALTORS® and their Multiple Listing Services shall enable MLS Participants to operate VOWs, subject to the requirements of state law and the requirements above.
2. MLSs shall, if requested by a Participant, provide basic “downloading” of listing information sufficient to operate a VOW, but excluding the listing or the property address, respectively, of any seller who affirmatively directs that the listing or the property address not appear on the Internet or other electronic forms of display or distribution. For purposes of this policy, “downloading” means electronic transmission of data from MLS servers to Participants’ servers on a persistent or transient basis, at the discretion of the MLS. In addition, Associations and MLSs can also offer alternative display options includin | 
