RealTown's RealTalk

Blackburn of St. Pete is the typical sell your soul as a Non-Representative Listing Agent who list ignorant propwerty owners of St.Petersburg.

"the traditional Real Estate Model has to change - we have to Cross The Chasm, adapt or die. Most FSBOs I talk to don't need to be sold on offering a commission to the Realtor bringing a buyer - they're already doing it".

Blackburn is a Rouge Realtor of St. Petersburg Florida.  Blackburn is the typical new school Buyer's Broker who charges a FLAT FEE to list with boneheaded Real Estate Investors who are upside down on their property.  They obviously are NOT TRADITIONAL in any way shape of form.  Blackburn is a buyer's representative in a Listing Uniform.  They charge the typical flat fee for access without representing anybody.  Better known as Transactional Non-Representatives.  They basically don't represetent anybody but they demand to be paid upfront for ACCESS to the MLS.  Remember a Transaction Broker is NOT LOYAL to ANYBODY other than their own interest.  It's the typical Real Esate model of the 21st Century.  Who needs to be LOYAL when you can be a Transactional Broker.

Our RT spokesman Saul proudly claims:

"I am proud of the role I played in shifting a major information paradigm in the real estate industry at a time when hiding the data from the public was the norm."

Saul Saul I can't believe you are so ignorant as to say such a dumb statement as that!  You claim that traditional Real Estate Brokers were HIDING the DATA???  From who were we "hiding" all the "data: from?  Come on Saul you certainly don't believe that nonsense do you?  The DATA has always been available to the public.  All the public needed was a willing buyer's representative to tell the truth.  Isn't that what all the buyers got for their representation since the mid 90s?  So if the traditional listing agent was hiding all the data prior to the mid nineties then why is the market for that past 3 years in the tank????.  Is it because of this so-called PARADIGM shift that you claim exposed all the  "INFORMATION" that we traditional listing agents were HIDING?  Or could it be the consumer believed their representatives were representing their best interest after the shift too place?  Who duped all these buyers that are being short sold or foreclosed on since dissemination of information (paradigm shift)?  Hey Saul, get a clue; you can't have it both ways.  If your claim to fame is based on all the data that was once hidden, then how do you explain all the foreclosures and short sales?  WHY IS THE MARKET LIKE THE MARKET IS???  Maybe we are in one of those paradigm shifts again?  LOL So who provided all this ACURATE and UN-HIDDEN information these buyers moved on from 2000-2005?  I can only assume, prior to the paradigm shift of the mid 90s, that it was we Greedy Listing Agents who were screwing the consumers through Broker-to-Broker Cooperation.  Right?  But how do you explain this current market condition?  All these people who paid more than what their highest offer was worth.  I guess they got screwed from Greedy Sellers and Greedy Listing Agents and Greedy Loan Sharks! Right?  So tell us all Saul how could that happen when all the disseminated information and all the buyer's brokerage agreements were designed to protect the people from all the "HIDDEN INFORMATION".  Do you really believe that Broker-to-Broker Cooperating Agents were actually hiding all the DATA from the buyers?  Come on Saul, you really don't believe that do you?  If you do you are more ignorant than I imagined.  And I have a pretty good imagination.  But I also know you can't have your cake and eat too. 

Just a little snippet from Eileen Landau's claim

"this was a pre-1978 built home and it needed a signed lead paint rider. I had the buyers, sellers and myself sign it. But, if you can believe it, the "listing agent" refused to sign the form, saying he didn't have to! So, I added a rider to the contract to that effect. Found out later that he could have been fined by the Feds for violating their rulings".

Who told you later, that he could have been fined by the Feds for violating their rulings?  As long as he didn't represent the sellers and he told you to negotiate directly between you and the seller takes him out of the LOOP.  A flat fee broker who lists a property NOT REPRESENTING the seller means NOT REPRESENTING THE SELLER's INTEREST regardless of lead based paint notice or any notices for that matter.  This is why we have Exclusive Rights to Sell Non-Represented Listing Agreements.  The listing agent is not required to sign any documents if he or she didn't represent the seller.  Matter of fact if the seller decided to not pay you, you couldn't even go after the NON-REPRESENTED Listing Broker for your commission.  WHY?  Because a flat fee broker who doesn't represent sellers isn't responsible to collect the commission you negotiated.  This is why the Flat Fee Listing Broker doesn't represent the seller in the first place.  This is another reason we have Buyer's Brokerage Agreements.  Flat Fee Brokers are not PAID AT CLOSING, they get paid upfront.  Once a flat fee broker takes a listing they are out of the deal as long as they are NOT REPRESENTING the owner.  They get paid for "access" not representation.  Flat Fee  Brokers use the MLS as an Advertising Tool to catch ignorant Realtors.  They could careless about representing an owner or a selling agent.  You can thank NAR for these kind of real estate models and rouges of our industry.  It's role models like the Flat Fee Broker that gives Realtors a bad taste in everybody's mouth.  Biut as for responsibilty, the Flat Fee Broker is not responsible for the actions of those whom they did not represent.  You should  be happy you got paid at all regardless of the lead based paint notice.  I've seen agents who were stiffed at closing with non-represented flat fee listing brokers and were glad that it was over.

YES! That is typical here too. Our biggest promoter of
that type of service and he is a BIG PROMOTER, even with
his own radio show touting all his merits, has only a 15%
sale to listing ratio!!!! FIFTEEN PERCENT! Now that is a
number he isn't promoting!

Rates are LOW, there is a lot to choose from, THE TIME TO
BUY IS NOW!! Ask me about the NEW $7500 tax credit for
buying a home OR how to get a HUD house for HALF PRICE.
Call me today!

Pat Tasker, CRS, G.R.I., ABR, SRES
Shorewest Realtors

NEW PHONE NUMBER!!!! 262-437-5853
$ELL PHONE 414-588-4907
Fax 262-782-6190
Ptasker@shorewest.com
WWW.PatTasker.com

I SERVE THE ENTIRE METRO AREA! OVER 70 FAMILIES MOVED
LAST YEAR ALONE!

Named a FIVE STAR: Best in Client Satisfaction
Real Estate Agent for 2008 by MILWAUKEE MAGAZINE

I hate to say I told you so, but I told.................

Some of the old timers may recall the many posts I made here on RT back in the 90's and up until maybe 3 years ago, warning everyone what was happening to them. If you think back, you will recall how I warned that if NAR got away with having the agency relationship abrogated and replaced with a variety of relationships with consumers, including a non agency relationship (transaction brokerage or facilitator) that in time the listing side of the industry would face extension. I mentioned how in our market that as soon as the State of Tennessee legislature, at the pushing of NAR and TAR, abrogated agency, our local FSBO operator opened a small brokerage firm, and then his FSBO company began offering entry in our Board operated MLS of his customer's properties for an additional fee.

Frankly, I have never believed that there needed to be a national Realtor.Com that had local listings. Realtor.com should have been nothing more than a free referral director for consumers wishing to buy or sell property. Realtor.com should only ask what state and community/town/city county the consumer wants to look for real estate in. Then Reatlor.com should like that consumer to the a local board run electronic MLS that includes the names of the members. Then each member should be allowed to have their own IDX access.

If NAR and the state associations and local associations had exhibited any smarts at the time they would have kept the requirement that all licensees were required to represent either the buyer or seller and they would not have given away the farm as described above. If this had been the way things had happened, there would not be this problem today. By they way, all this screw up could be reversed you know.

Enough time has passed for the NAR and state associations to now say the abrogation of agency is not in the best interest of the consumer and then get the states to abrogate the laws they passed abrogating agency. Next the membership, local boards and state associations could take back their MLS within 90 days if they had any guts.

I will finish by saying, I hate to say I told......

Tom Hathaway

Tom, I agree totally with your "I told you so" post.... and I think many of us did agree, "back then"... but it was also considered "alarmist", and I don't think any of us ever imagined in our wildest dreams that it would actually come to pass. 

I find it commendable that you are defending the listing agents' side.... as most EBAs & ABRs, & common BAs are relatively unaffected, and so long as they have their Buyer Rep agreement, don't care what happens to the trad listing agents.

The fact that our MLS(s) are already infiltrated with quasi-FSBO listings, with little or no representation, not to mention some ridiculously low commissions, is a situation I never thought would happen. I thought the brain trust at NAR and on my state & local boards, would protect us, even with the DOJ....  why didn't they anticipate this? 

We even have listing agents, located in other cities, listing properties here in Houston. Ryland Homes and a few other builders use listing agents that are NOT in Houston. 

I suppose the MLS as we once knew it, is gone.... evolving is to be expected.... but it''s turning into a free-for-all...  
who can we blame? the DOJ? NAR? ourselves?
 
Lindy in Houston
 

Lindy,
What is happening is not the DOJ's fault. For years the DOJ had no problem with the MLS being a private service that local Realtor organizations provided themselves. The overwhelming majority of the consumers and Realtors all benefited from the MLS. It was not until the industry began tampering with agency that things changed. As you probably have read in the past, I was a regulator in this industry for years and Agency was the key to how the industry operated. The regulators knew that as long as agency services were required, they kept their hands off. The only issues they had was that the buyers did not understand that they were not being represented, hence the required passage of agency disclosure laws. That of course created a perceived demand for buyer agency. A few of us began offering that services as Exclusive Buyer Agents. Organized real estate refused to accept buyer agency (I could proved ide dozens of examples) and finally when they could not stop the movement, they decided to abrogate agency to "level the playing field" out of concern that EBA could offer services that listing firms and their agents could not. So NAR traded the agency insulation they had from regulator interference with the MLS in their failed attempt to kill off buyer agency.

So, the blame must fall directly on NAR for all of the resulting problems. But keep in mind that even in Saul's own words in a post a few years ago, NAR does not represent we members. NAR represents NAR. And who do you think has and is benefiting from all of what is gong on? Not you and me for sure.

Tom Hathaway