Housing Doom

Sorry to be the cause of your choking and sputtering.

There are two problems with TV news: is it doesn’t have enough time to tell the whole story and it is audience/advertising driven. I know because I worked in television business for 20 years prior to real estate. There is grim truth behind the adage “if it bleeds, it leads.”. Audiences watch controversy. News directors know it and look for it, and when it isn’t there they have been known to create it. Thus the birth of the investigative reporter.

No slam on Brahm Resnik here. He did his job well. He asked provocative questions and got answers interesting enough to make a story. But I do have an issue with the editing of the sound bite. They clipped the part of my answer wherein I explained that the role of the MLS is to serve the brokers and agents, not educate the public.

Indeed, we go to great lengths to avoid conversations with buyers and sellers because most already have fiduciary relationships agents and brokers. We risk interference with that relationship and potential legal liability whenever we talk to them. ALL communication has to go through the broker, often via the agent.

Should the buyers be made aware of all elements of the sale that affect them? Absolutely. Does bonus commission affect them? Potentially. (Certainly not if they have a buyer’s representation agreement with their agent wherein the agent declines all cooperative commissions and is paid per contract directly by the buyer.). Is it the MLS’s job to tell buyers what offer the listing broker made to other agents, whether or not it affects them personally? I think not. It is the job of the agent to inform and when needed to disclose all facts relevant to the transaction. By putting this info in the agent remarks, not the public remarks, we give the buyer’s agent options as to if and when it is appropriate to disclose this information, rather than make that determination for them. That’s the part of the agent’s business I was referring to when I made that comment.

One more thought. When the payment to a buyer broker depends on a percentage of the sale price, and rises as the buyer pays more, not less, for the home, how is that being fiduciarily responsible to the buyer client? This seems to me to be a more important issue than one very large bonus payment that could probably never be earned given the condition of the short close window.

Bob Bemis
ARMLS

Mr. Bemis-

I’m afraid I’m going to have to beg to differ with you.  You state

It is the job of the agent to inform and when needed to disclose all facts relevant to the transaction. By putting this info in the agent remarks, not the public remarks, we give the buyer’s agent options as to if and when it is appropriate to disclose this information, rather than make that determination for them.

What about any selling agent that wants to disclose all facts relevant to the transaction?  Obviously you are making that determination for them. According to your message to agents:

All inappropriate language, as reviewed and deemed to be inappropriate by the Arizona Regional Multiple Listing Service, is immediately banned from inclusion in all listings on the MLS.
 
 d.      Any monetary value items potentially given to the buyer’s agent, which may appear to steer a prospective buyer’s agent to show his or her clients your property over another property.  This includes but is not limited to: Any type of bonus information (bonus information is allowed in the Realtor Remarks).

Clearly it IS the intent of ARMLS to interfere with an agents abiliity to disclose these bonuses- otherwise ARMLS would have no policy on these comments, and would allow selling agents to post bonuses in the public comments should they so desire..  According to the original message you sent to agents:

ARMLS, on the advice of its legal counsel, may refuse to publish information that may generate legal liability.

It appears from this remark that ARMLS is more worried about  "the legal liability of appearing to steer prospective buyers" than it is about leaving disclosure to agents. About your other point: