Inman had news yesterday of REALTOR association mergers, and posed the question of the value of such moves. Given my involvement in a large territory spanning half a dozen MLS systems and many more boards, I feel that I should weigh in on the matter.
I am a big fan of large MLS systems, but not terribly jazzed about big boards. Ths state of Connecticut aparently agrees with me- aside from Fairfield County, they have a statewide MLS but have retained local boards, often on a town level. More on that later. Big MLSes are good, but so are smaller boards.
If you didn't click on the link, I favor large MLS systems because it is silly to have to pay separate fees to cross county lines or, in some cases, town lines. I could drive 35 miles and pass through 4 MLS areas. That is madness. It is data, and even if you don't have my business model why should you have to have 2 different sets of overhead because you straddle a boundary?
Large Realtor Associations, however, have different problems. Associations exist, in large degree, to oversee the membership and enforce the Code of Ethics. Small boards have the resources to oversee their town or county. Big boards simply do not have the resources to enforce member conduct. LIBOR, or the Long Island Board of Realtors, has the government intervening on both ends of their territory: In Queens, the state has issued a cease and desist order in a large area because of agent misconduct. On the East End, the Department of Justice is examining anti-trust practices, where brokers flaunt their antipathy about the MLS. My own experience confirms the problems of oversight in Queens. I have blogged about my frustration with agent conduct in the boroughs in the past. In some parts, it is the wild west, and the board is not effective in reigning in misconduct. Where the board fails, the government intervenes.
Connecticut, on the other hand, is a different universe from Long Island and the Boroughs. By and large, Connecticut agents and firms are as professional as I have found, and there is almost never an issue with cooperation, fair play, professional standards, or collegiality. It is no coincidence that they have small boards. My own board recently consolidated with another county's association, but have retained a regional office in each area. I am on the board for the MLS, which is growing, but I hope the association does not absorb any other boards.
The arguments for large boards include buying power and bulk discounts for membership, and I suppose that is nice. However, we have to choose our priorities, and in my view professional standards and oversight have to supersede getting a good deal on a rental car.
______________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to J. Philip's Real Estate Blog by Email
In 2012, I Will Sell a Home for US Veteran Facing Hardship Pro Bono
- We Are Westchester County & Metro New York Real Estate. Reach Phil at (914) 723-8900.
- J. Philip Faranda, Broker-owner, J. Philip Real Estate, LLC. Vice President, Empire Access Multiple Listing Service.
- I am one of New York's premier short sale REALTORS, serving Westchester, the Hudson Valley & Metropolitan New York.
- Free MLS Search! Register for a Free Listingbook account and search the MLS like an agent.
- I am hiring agents. We offer outstanding support, marketing resources, and pasta.
Local association boards and a uniform state-wide MLS would make a difference in efficient use of the technology and at the same time give the local boards time to focus on professional issues and educate the public. Good post.
I think you can have a larger board - you just need boards that enforce the COE and other rules and regulations. I don't want to have to join several boards and worry about what each of them are doing.
I HOPE that LARGER REGIONAL MLS/Associations can do more to promote housing LOCALLY so that the REAL story of the housing industry is NOT being diluted by the "national" figures being promoted by NAR.
GREAT post!
Hmmm...interesting post. Thanks!
I also work in an area that is served by 6 or 7 MLS's and a like number of boards. California is going to a state-wide MLS in the near future (or so they say...), which is creating a conflict between those who want to protect their local territory versus those who work regionally. As a regional broker serving some (though not all) of the San Francisco bay area, I'm frequently harassed by "local brokers" who want me to surrender a listing (to them) or co-list a property with a local broker, even though my office is closer to the property than theirs - it just happens to be across a telephone area code or board boundary. Board consolidations won't solve this problem, it will only make it worse as local brokers fight to protect their territories from poachers in the next town.
J Philip,
You've pretty much defined out area here in Maryland. One large Multi-State MLS, and Countywide boards. Seems to work just fine.
Rich
I too really am in favor of wider ranging MLS systems. For instance I work in Houston (Northwest Houston) and sometimes I need to go to Fort Bend or one of the surrounding counties. It's good to be able to find things in one of those surrounding counties that might just be what my clients need and it's good to be able to find it without extra harangue or fees. The local board is another matter. They charge a lot of money and sometimes it's difficult to see the value. Back in the old days they provided lots of free education and support but today it seems it more about the money "for them"..... as they have built a huge staff and have to continually figure out ways to feed the staff and the big building. But..... they're all nice people and I enjoy visiting them when I go down there.
In Central Nebraska there are three primary MLS areas and they overlap. You have a choice to either pay dues to 1 or 2 or all 3...which becomes quite expensive and painful and confusing in maintaining listings. 3 houses listed in one town can very easily have 3 listing agents from 3 different MLS'. How crazy is that?
When I moved to this area in 2003 (I was born and raised in the general area) I immediately got inovlved in the MLS and after 3 years was elected the Secretary/Treasurer. During that time I made the suggestion that we look at merging into one regional MLS. This MLS would have had between 300-400 members total. The powers that be thought I was nuts. "Why would we want to let those guys in to steal our listings and compete against us?" A quote from one of the top agents in Kearney.
From 2005 to 2007 I was one of a very small Handful of Realtors that belonged to more than one MLS. I tried to join the third and their guidelines were so complicated that I gave up hope of doing it.
So the members of the 3 MLS's continue to do a disservice to their sellers...
Now you are wondering how big of an area am I talking. Kearney is 38 miles from Grand Island which is 20 miles from Hastings which is 42 miles from Kearney. Think of a triangle and keep in mind no stoplights between city limits...a max of 45 minutes between downtown and downtown of each.
I am all for the larger MLS areas...it is to the benefit of the client and that is how it should be.
I agree with you almost 100%. Our Orlando Realtor Association is a big board. Covers 2 counties and something like 10,000 or so Realtor members. Very huge. Hard to get to know people. The vast majority of Realtors don't participate in events or even voting.
On the other hand, I am a member of a few of the smaller boards like Daytona and Ocala and they are much more homey and warm. When I took orientation in Ocala, the President of the association spoke briefly and invited everyone at the orientation over to some sort of cookout she was having at her house on Friday. You couldn't do that in Orlando.
On the other hand, our local MLS covers some 13+ counties which is fabulous. Consumers and Realtors should not be constricted simply because of a few miles of geography. The fact that Daytona and Ocala refuse to join in with our MLS is insane. There is so much overlap that it is ridiculous and both Realtors and consumers are hurt as a result.
I agree that local boards do a better job for enforcing the Code of Ethics, rules and Professional Standards. We are facing the question right now about merging with a larger board.
I agree completely. Our MLS covers MD, VA, parts of PA, WV and perhaps more. It's fabulous. However, data is input to the system by LOCAL agents/offices.
Associations, OTOH, really need to be local to provide information and support for local members.
We have a huge MLS, but many, many local boards.
Interesting to me mls and board are synonymous... Columbus is a big board. We are in the middle of the state. I think some of our outlying counties have a separate board. Do they have a separate MLS? I guess they must. Keybox issues. I am focused close to home, it does not affect me... not that I think covering a large terrirtory is a moral issue either.
;- )
Interesting I was disappointed to overhear more than one conversation from board / mls staff last week about preserving jobs at our local board / mls, during rebarcamp. Not discussions about the board / mls doing more for members, just about preserving jobs. One of the presentations at rebarcamp given by a board employee seemed to be about protecting board jobs. Or perhaps that is not fair. I have a hard time getting worked up over MN, NY etc. How things need to be... Inman worrying over it? I am not a fan of Inman, never have been.
Misconduct? I got a call from my board about one of my local posts on ActiveRain earlier this week... I asked permission to blog about the phone call. Permission was not forthcoming.
I started out in a board (Dayton Area Board of Realtors) that abutted other smaller boards south of Dayton and north of Cinci in the 1980s' I doubt that I thought of joining other boards, because I was a member of the largest board? Or lazy.
I think that large boards are an asset to large companies and a detriment to smaller ones. As the size and geography of the board increases, the mega-brokers' relative strength is felt more with a higher percentage of representation.
**The arguments for large boards include buying power and bulk discounts for membership, and I suppose that is nice. However, we have to choose our priorities, and in my view professional standards and oversight have to supersede getting a good deal on a rental car.**
Nice post and conclusion. I tend to lean on the side of local, all things being equal. Unfortunately, I don't believe most of us enjoy, or are aware of membership discounts. I know I don't.
In my state of real estate origin (Colorado) there was 1 MLS for the front range, with a number of local boards. What on earth Realtor members are doing tolerating numerous mls's that simply extract money is beyond me...who are the genuises behind the chopped up MLS areas?
I think a big concern should be "CLIENTS" which I rarely hear.... which would be better for our clients?
From a whole new angle, mls listing services. They quickly get the basic run down, make up of each listing. But often there is a mass produced yes / no sameness and the distinction of the property is lost. Especially if you have one remarks line to try to in twitter like format describe the property to have it shine, makes its own unique property qualities sing out for all to hear, know about. Follow up listing with way more details always accompanies our outdoing emails of information, along with tons of rich imagery, full motion video link or embed.
Our Board has over 4000 users of the MLS and more numbers for the Board. We have two Boards in close proximity that have their own MLS system with less than 350 members. As someone who has served on the MLS Board I can attest to how expensive it is to have a first class system and you need many members. The members of those Boards end up paying for two systems because without Oklahoma City you have no exposure. Some add ons can cost $150,000 a year alone so the numbers can't work unless you keep increasing membership. Look at Houston and you will see the ideal on how to consolidate and give value to the membership and the public.
Connecticut has long proposed combining our two MLS's into one statewide one. The CEO of the CTMLS, Cameron Paine, has even written a white paper on a process for doing so. However, whether or not it will ever happen remains to be seen. I think the biggest obstacle is getting the 10 (yes, 10) associations in Connecticut to all buy into the idea. Also, many agents favor a single, statewide board with high fees that they contend would eliminate the part-timers and dabblers from the rolls, leaving only the serious agents with access to the MLS; but Mr. Paine's concept would create an MLS with lower fees, arguing that a consolidated MLS would create efficient operations and economies of scale that would allow charging a lower fee to members. Personally, we would love to see one MLS for Connecticut, but we just don't see it happening any time soon.
As for the Wild West you have on Long Island, all I can say is I'm glad we don't have to go there and try to conduct business. And lastly, you're right in saying Connecticut generally has little problems with agents and brokerages playing nice in the sandbox, but...there ARE exceptions! Thanks for a great post!
Very interesting points. Thanks for sharing. I don't have experience working across areas like mentioned, but there seems to be a consensus in the comments about the needs for local boards and broader area MLS systems.
Philip, very timely post for my area. I work in Sullivan County, NY. We have our own MLS. Because our MLS is small, we're not able to offer all the tech bells and whistles of the much larger neighboring MLS, Greater Hudson (of which I assume you're a member.) Our MLS vendor contract is up at the end of 2011, and one of the decisions we're facing is whether to remain independent or merge with one of the neighboring MLSs. Many of our members harbor the belief that our indetity as a county is tied into having our own MLS, that somehow we'll lose our own identity if we merge our MLS. So your comments are very helpful about separating the Board identity from the MLS identity.
I liken it to how we've evolved in terms of internet connectivity over the past 10 or 12 years. Way back when, in the age of dial up, many of us used local ISPs because of their local dialup numbers. In rural areas, in particular, going with one of the handfuls of national dial up ISPs like AOL or Earthlink, may not have been an option because they didn't have local dial-in numbers.
Today, as technology has evolved, the "localness" of an ISP is irrelevant. We go with the fastest cable or phone company DSL we can get, and it's almost always from a national player. I have the same feeling about the MLS. In this day and age, I don't really care where the listing data comes from, as long as the platform is robust and cost effective. I'm tired of paying to be in multiple MLSs and doing double work, when a single MLS would be much easier and cost effective. Not to mention it would be better for my clients, because I can offer a single, consolidated IDX feed and more advanced communication tools, because a larger MLS can demand that its vendor provide cutting edge tools.
I am from the DC area and have a large MLS System and a large Board. I like both!
Hi J Philip,
Very interesting perspective, in our area (Vancouver Island) Canada we have 2 boards. One for greater Victoria and services about 1300 Realtors and about 350,000 people in the general public. The other covers about 80 % of the total Island (the Size of Great Britain) both seem to be working okay, in fact I would say that the board for the 80 % of the Island is better organized in regions and divisions that look after each section and represent them very well at a directors level.
To be honest in my opinion Ethics, and misconduct should not be dealt with by boards but by independent entities to ensure that we are transparent and unbiased in the eyes of the genral public and our peers.
Philip: Congrats on the Feature -- great blog. Way back in the day, when I was first licensed, I was a member of what was then one of the largest boards in the world. Things have a way of coming full circle.
Philip.
We have multiple boards here as well. My local one has about 2000 members.
It seems that Large MLS systems with localized Associations is favored by most !
I agree with you ...statewide MLS but retain local boards
I love our large MLS system in the Houston area, that covers a HUGE geographical area. It is great. I'm not sure about the board. It seems very distant to me. Infact, I know my state Reps and House Reps better than my Real Estate Board. I know the school board members in several school districts and the County School organization, but I don't know anyone on the HAR board. Maybe if we broke that board into something smaller...I'm not sure. But it sure seems huge and scarry to me from this vantage point.
I like the idea of having a large MLS and the boards can be small. I used to belong to the Miami-Dade board and I like it, but when I changed offices I had to switch to a different board but I still have same MLS. I work the border of two MLS, South Palm Beach and North Broward counties. I have access to listings in the other MLS PB county -RMLS, I use Ft Lauderdale SEF. I would like a bigger MLS, I do not know if a state MLS would work (even though I can view listing through MLSAdvantge by way of FL Realtors) there is somebody working in two areas. I can see RMLS listing from SEF, which belong to the new merged boards Miami & the Beaches with Miami-Dade, but some info is missing or in different places.
A statewide MLS would be fine since we are licensed to work in state all info is uniform, but maybe the board you belong to lets you work in that area. Is that too complicated? Sorry if this is too long or confusing.
You know we don't have MLS here in Manhattan New York. I told you this few times and will tell you again. Ask me in person.
I used to work in a MLS state, now Manhattan New York is a complete different ball game.
The Toronto Real Estate Board has 30,000 members and also operates the MLS for its members. It covers Toronto as well as significant portions of the surrounding regions (i.e. the local version of counties). TREB is one of the largest boards in North America. I think it is in the largest 3 or 4 boards. This setup in the Toronto area seems to work quite well compared to the multiple MLS systems in relatively small geographic areas throughout much of the USA.
I'm a member of 3 seperate MLS systems. They all three ask or require different things for proof of listing, data input, etc, and the search criteria is all different and on different operating systems. They also all have large overhead with new buildings and multiple staff members, etc. I'm for a statewide MLS, and boards that cover 5 or 6 counties, depending on region of course. Having multiple boards/mls systems in the same county does not make good business sense. These are all nice people, their just trying to hold on to an outdated model, now that the technology has changed. Unfortunately, there is lots of Realtor politics to get this done. The days are gone for just sticking a sign in the yard and having the board print mls books in paper every week!
I didn't realize there were places without a MLS. Interesting.
Phil,
Spot on, as always! Especially with regards to ethics and standards of conduct. I tell ya', having originated mortgages in the Five Boroughs of NYC for twenty years, and, having been exposed to all the varying practices regarding listing homes for sale in those areas, I'd be happy if Buyers and Sellers could just get working with an MLS that is TRUE BLUE. Too often I've seen Realtors treat MLS as their private marketing engine and NOT a device to make more sales happen. That's a short-sighted and rather greedy approach to how a TRUE MLS should work, IMHO. Cooperate with your fellow MLS agents people, you'll make MORE money!
As for Connecticut, WOW, you are so correct! I've been originating mortgages in that wonderful state for just about a year now, and across the board, the level of professionalism and ethics is so much higher than here in NY. Let me take an old slogan and re-cast it, if I might, "I LOVE CONNECTICUT!"
tcurranmortgage
To Trevor: the problem that NY poses is that even with a single MLS, the local boards have to be ethical, CURRENT, and able to work in 2010 cooperatively...while some areas in NY are doing just that, others are not in that place at all.
Great Blog on an Important Topic.
As everything goes Global due to the Internet, the Smartphone, the GPS, and other technology, it is inevitable that real estate information systems (including MLS) will go regional.
The concept of a Local Agent being the gatekeeper for a particular area is rapidly fading away.
Some will cling to the old ways; they will defend their turf as they fade into oblivion. Others will adapt to the changes and live on.
A DBMS could easily handle the entire state of Texas; however I like the idea of local support from a local board.
Yes we have a large North Texas area MLS and area boards. I don't know if it is the best way but it's just how things are so that's how we operate.