Welcome!
Sol Sek, If you spin my my statements out of context any more forcefully, you're likely to knock the earth of it's axis... I agreed with you regarding limited service listings being a legitimate business model, that has co-existed for years just fine with other models. Do you get that? I agree with you. Now here's your incessant spin: "...so why the need to change rules and why the need to review old rules that have been working fine?" EXACTLY! THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I'M SAYING! Why is the DOJ and the FTC brow beating ,and strong arming, MLS's and State Legislatures coast to coast into changing rules, regulations, and codes of conduct to accommodate that which already existed and had been working just fine? Answer: Because without changes in laws, rules, regulations, and codes of conduct, the NEW EXTREME VERSION of limited service will not work. The NEW EXTREME VERSION of limited service will only work if Sellers Agents can waive their professional duties and, consequently, Buyers Agents can waive liability. Just how solid do you expect a business model to be that requires waiver of duties and liability. You say you can provide testimonials from satisfied limited service clients; I've seen the actor testimonials also (not so much lately, though.) But that's beside the point; what are the numbers from consumers that said "yes, I want less assurance of peace, health, & safety, and more exposure to waste, fraud, & abuse?" You also asked: "Where do you see harm? What is the probability of harm?" RIGHT HERE: FIVE CONSEQUENCES OF THE NEW EXTREME VERSION of LIMITED SERVICE LISTINGS • Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct. • Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees. • Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process. • Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. Waiving liability doesn't eliminate harm. • With a waiver of liability, unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller. ----Also---- When a Buyers Agent has no choice, but to answer an unrepresented Seller's relentless questions in order to facilitate a deal; will those answers be in the Seller's best interest, or the Buyer's? Remember, the Buyer's Agent now has a waiver of liability.
Sol Sek, I asked that you not parse my statements out of context, and yet you continue to do so; which is the only way you can continue your argument. I can say however, that you do seem to be slowly, maybe surely, getting the point. In your own words "...the industry has been providing limited service for years." BAM! There it is my friend; my point exactly. Consumers have, and always have had, CHOICE! Commissions are, and always have been NEGOTIABLE! It isn't necessary to change state laws to relieve one Agent of responsibility, and relieve another Agent of liability, to create that which already existed. Laws and 'duties' that protect peace, health, and safety while limiting waste, fraud, and abuse do not prevent Buyers, Sellers and Broker/Agents from negotiating agreeable fees! The MLS is not a public utility! It is a CO-OPERATIVE paid for and supported entirely by Brokers & Agents (including limited service Broker/Agents 'for years.') The fact that it works so well (and why Sellers want access) is a testament to the legitimacy and effectiveness of the licensing requirements, professional codes of conduct, and statutory rules and regulations that have been in place 'for years.' To repeal or dismiss essential Agent responsibilities that those licensing requirements, codes of conduct, and rules/regulations are meant to insure, kind of defeats the purpose; no? Like you said; "...the industry has been providing limited service for years." The difference now, is that the limited service concept is being taken to an EXTREME, under the guise of giving consumers choice. BOGUS! It isn't about consumer choice; it's about making a quick buck and avoiding liability! Pretty much the same concept that brought about the sub prime debacle. If the business model is truly in the public interest; why are waivers required for the model to work? Likely similar to discussions with borrowers before they accepted an adjustable rate mortgage; Sellers are now being led to believe that cheap, unrepresented access to the MLS won't be a problem. How long will you refuse to address the following? FIVE CONSEQUENCES OF LIMITED SERVICE LISTINGS • Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct. • Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees. • Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process. • Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. Waiving liability doesn't eliminate harm. • With a waiver of liability, unscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller. ----Also---- When a Buyers Agent has no choice, but to answer an unrepresented Seller's relentless questions in order to facilitate a deal; will those answers be in the Seller's best interest, or the Buyer's? Remember, the Buyer's Agent now has a waiver of liability. ----And should you return to your irrelevant analogies; then answer this: When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, mechanic or what have you; do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who has a waiver of liability (should you be harmed), to service your needs?
The DOJ & FTC are just lockstepping with a certain federal administration's hellbent penchant for deregulating anything and everything; pandering to special interest greed at the publics detriment. The limited service model does nothing to protect the peace, health, or safety of Buyers and Sellers and only increases the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse. It's a cut your nose to pad your pocket practice under the guise of giving consumers choice. Oh heck, why worry about a little DDT in the water supply? There are five elephants in the room that limited service proponets, along with the FTC and DOJ, all seem to be perfectly willing to ignore. Five Consequences of Limited Service Listings • Listing Agent is not required to provide their Seller client the benefits and protections of licensing, continued education, and professional codes of conduct. • Sellers are not bound by licensing requirements, continued education requirements, professional codes of conduct, or other rules and regulations governing licensees. • Buyers Agent now has the burden and liability of educating and consulting BOTH their Buyer client, AND the Seller, on each and every negotiable point in a purchase agreement, each and every issue of the due diligence period, as well as each and every issue of the escrow process. • Even with a waiver of liability, a Buyers Agent is still compromised when negotiating with both principals. You can't waive the potential consequences of dual agency; they're inherent. • With a waiver of liablility, uscrupulous Buyers Agents are free to ride roughshod over an uneducated or inexperienced Seller. It's a fact that in order for the limited service model to work, two waivers are required; one relieving the Sellers Agent of most of their responsibilities, and one relieving the Buyers Agent of liability when speaking directly with the Seller. Kind of reminds me of one of those hillside mansions resting on two skinny stilts. So now when a Buyers Agent is faced with answering a Sellers 20 questions or killing the deal; what choice do you think they'll make? And if they choose to answer the Sellers 20 questions; will those answers be in the Sellers best interest, or the Buyers? Remember, the Buyers Agent now has a waiver of liability. When you go to your dentist, doctor, lawyer, accountant, mechanic or what have you; do you pay them a fee to post your need on some database and then wait for someone you don't know, who doesn't represent your best interest, and who has a waiver of liability (should you be harmed), to service your needs?