[quote=george]I’m perturbed by the practice of re-listing stale properties on the MLS, and as a buyer I would like to see it banned. The practice is deceptive and reflects badly on realtors in general. The current fiasco has dealt a major blow to the real estate profession’s credibility and prestige. Why continue a practice that reinforces the used car salesman stereotype.
As I understand it, bogus re-listing is done for 3 main reasons:
(1) To make a listing appear fresh, since it harder to sell a stale fish. Clearly this is blatantly deceptive. If a property has been on the market far longer than others in the area there is usually a good reason for it. Hey, why make the realtor go through all the hassle to re-list? Just let them reset the DOM to zero anytime they like.
[/quote]
This practice has been banned for years.
While there are ways to fraudulently defeat the rules (just like any rules) its not exactly easy. Also, reporting violations anonymously is easy for agents to do (I have done it many times). Also, the whole “stale fish” argument is not a good one. Long market times (in my experience) exist because it is a short sale (requiring a lengthy bank approval) or because its listed too damn high.
[quote=george]
(2) To change the price. Again, deceptive since you don’t need to relist to do this.
[/quote]
Correct. Changing a price by itself does not reset the MT (market time) or AMT (active market time).
If an agent shows a new listing he has to have a listing agreement (as well as prior cancellation or expiration) in writing to back it up.
[quote=george]
(3) To get a free parasitic marketing boost by leveraging the various services that alert buyers about new properties.
[/quote]
Or to make the claim that their listings never sit for more than 30 days (or some similar claim).
[quote=george]
Ironically, it probably hurts realtors as a whole. I would think it’s counter-productive for the following reasons:
(1) Damages their credibility.
[/quote]
Yup.
[quote=george]
(2) Encourages their clients to be unrealistic and waste their time.
[/quote]
Often they can do that without encouragement.
[quote=george]
(3) Probably have to pay a fee every time they relist.
[/quote]
Nope.
[quote=george]
(4) Screws their fellow realtor (and seller) down the street that’s being honest.
[/quote]
If it were allowed (which it isn’t) it would considered fair game. But since its not, your point is fair.
[quote=george]
(5) Wastes the timer of realtors (and buyers) who monitor new listings.
I’m told that there are MLS jurisdictions that actually do prohibit the practice. Unless I’m missing something here, I think re-listing should only be allowed if the seller has changed their agent or the listing has been off the MLS for at least three weeks. [/quote]
Its 30 days in our jurisdiction.
If you cancel a listing and re-list it with the same agent in the same office within 30 days of the cancellation, you need special variance permission (at least last I checked). The variance desk would notice if this happened a lot.
[quote=george]Until the current rules change, make sure to ask your realtor for the full listing history of the property. Better yet, wait to see if they volunteer the information. If they don’t they are probably crooked or inexperienced.
[/quote]
Listing history is not generally the most relevant aspect when establishing whether or not a property is a good deal. If a deal is a good one, the listing history of a given property may never come up. EG: I closed on that had been on the market for like a year. The seller wanted unrealistic numbers for it. The current listing (the one active when we went into escrow) was with a better agent and at a lower price. The listing history came up but it was not a major component. My buyers did not consider it relevant that it was for sale at a higher price a year ago.
