An Apple Is Withdrawn Without Selling (But Quickly Returns As New)

Where do you get the DOM info? I don’t see it in the Listing Detail page from MLS.

“Where do you get the DOM info? I don’t see it in the Listing Detail page from MLS.”
Our Realtor (TM) informed us that the “public” DOM available on most public access MLS sites indeed shows the “official” DOM, ie, the one that can be manipulated by talking a place off the market an putting it back on, usually with a minor tweak in the listing to make sure it can show up as a different listing. SUPPOSEDLY, the Realtors’ (TM) access to the MLS includes the total DOM, the original list date, and all price reductions.
Now how can one conclude from this asymmetry of information that its purpose is for anything other than to manipulate the data and pull one over on buyers?

Thanks greaterfool.
I am using http://www.sfarmls.com to view the listing, but I don’t see the DOM there. Is there another better MLS search website?

DS,
Unfortunately, I don’t know of a better site. The information listed on MLS is controlled by MLS, and every other search site uses that same database. I doubt there are any sites available to the public that will give you that proprietary “realtor only” info.

Re: “Now how can one conclude from this asymmetry of information that its purpose is for anything other than to manipulate the data and pull one over on buyers?”
Well put. This kind of data manipulation is beneath contempt.
Re: “[The MLS] is by members, for members. The public gets a limited access because they pay nothing.”
As a non-agent member of the public and a potential real estate buyer, it’s good to know where I stand.

fluj at May 2, 2008 5:32 PM
“The public gets a limited access because they pay nothing.”
True, but it would be nice if the public at least had the option of paying for greater MLS access.

Once again, all of you are so wrong about this. Why didn’t you just call a Realtor and ask them for the information.
Obviously none of you has ever had a relationship with a Realtor. If you had you would know that any Realtor has all the information and is compelled by a code of ethics and California Civil code to disclose all information regarding a property, especially when there’s a buyer in hand. BTW,one way a property could drop off is when the listing expires and if the seller wants to then can put back on with either a different realtor or the same one.
But if you are still going to have trust issues you could get a RE license, place your license with a broker Join the MLS, and pay the $1100.00 a year for it. Or you could make friends with a Realtor and ask thenm to get you the information.
Get over it, people. Get smart or get out.

Indeed Mark. I am not sure whether or not “coco” is a realtor, but it is the kind of attitude that he displays that makes many have so little respect for realtors.

“If you had you would know that any Realtor has all the information and is compelled by a code of ethics and California Civil code to disclose all information regarding a property, especially when there’s a buyer in hand.”
I would argue that not listing the true DOM is considered not disclosing all information regardnig a property. thus, the above tactic is a violation of the Realtor’s own code of ethics.
the above example is problematic even if the seller dropped the previous realtor and got a new one because the new realtor would have this information as well, so would know that this is not zero DOM.
I would also argue that prospective buyers ARE paying for MLS service through fees to the realtor. I myself paid around $25k to my realtor the last home purchase I made. It took the realtor about 3 hours tops for the entire deal.
and lastly: the NAR and local realtor associations publish this data as “fact” of “health of the market”.
there are a lot of good realtors, (mine is one, and I’ve given other examples of others in the past) but the bar is set too low, and most are not.
as they say, caveat emptor. simply know that in most cases the Realtor has fiduciary responsibility to the SELLER (not you) and that even if they represent you they have huge conflict of interest due to the payment process (% of sale price, so the realtor makes more $ if sale price higher)

Look at the first statement in the thread. It’s a pure flame. We pay for the public’s free usage of a powerful and extremely useful device. You’re all very welcome.
As to the DOM debate here, if the listing expired it may be that the property can be listed as “new.” That shouldn’t be though. If that’s the case then it is a loophole that needs to be closed.

“I believe this house was listed with McGuire and is now listed with Vanguard therefore it would be new per the SFAR rules.”
then perhaps they should change the wording from “days on market” (DOM) to “days listed by this brokerage” (DLB)

>
Another way to look at it is this: When we bought our property, we viewed our agent as our partner. Though we fully realize that she had a financial interest in our purchase, we also know that she was committed, professional, and knowledgeable. While I know there are scammy agents out there, I am disappointed to see some of the generalizations that it’s all agents. Perhaps ours was an exception, but I would not hesitate to use the word “integrity” to describe her.
Anyway, back to the point. By taking an active role in our property purchase, we were able to be more informed buyers. DOM and basic data about a property is just that, data. We could use that data to preview and attend open houses on our own (without taking up our agent’s time and having to coordinate schedules until we knew that we wanted to go back and have another look), check out neighborhoods that we hadn’t considered before, and get a sense of the market and a sense of what we should be budgeting for what we wanted. We relied on our agent for her ability to interpret that data and for all the subjective knowledge that many years in the SF real estate market afforded her – had she seen a house we were looking at on the market before? what are the comps? have their been resale issues with this neighborhood or block? why is this house priced this way? what are opportunities for upside etc. etc. And then for help in the negotiation process.
I feel that she earned her commission, and also that she was able to focus on sharing her expertise with us because we were able to do the (relatively) easy stuff thanks to having basic data available.
So, I’d like to encourage agents to look at it from that perspective. While I don’t think that the public should be able to see everything on the MLS (e.g. agents comments and other sensitive items should be kept private), if your clients are informed with basic information, they are able to work with you as a team and to leverage your expertise much more effectively. Seems to me that an annual subscription of $1100 is a reasonable cost of doing business for the ability to close multiple deals with $30-60K+ commissions.

” We pay for the public’s free usage of a powerful and extremely useful device. You’re all very welcome.”
Sorry I just don’t see it that way. Redfin, trulia, movoto and a few other sites offer the same service and list DOM.
MLS doesn’t provide anything better. Realtors require it to do their job and I don’t think it does anything other than that. The free public access is extremely limited. That access can be considered advertising. If someone can go and look up a property it helps the seller and Realtors. It doesn’t help the buyer get a accurate picture for free as illustrated by this example.
The bottom line is the MLS is heavily tilted in favor of the seller and realtors. A buyer has to avail the service of a Realtor/agent to get more information. Consider the premium you pay a cost of doing business as it helps you do your job. The buyers have no need to feel obligated for that.

FYI-redfin, trulia and all the other websites that provide listing information are feeds from the MLS, so the MLS is still providing that data

I’m no fan of this tactic, but the seller’s agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller only, not the buyer. This means that they should do everthing in their power to get the higest possible price for the property. If manipulating the DOM is not illegal then the agent should do it if they think it will get a higher price for a property.
This is very similar to the tactic that has been used by a few agents recently of marketing a listing in the press & RE Times while not putting on the MLS. For example 2649 Green St. was on the cover of RE Times and had full page ads in the Nob Hill Gazette in January of this year, but was only listed on the MLS 2 weeks ago. DOM is currently displayed to the public as only 15, but anyone who has been looking for properties like this knew it was available in Dec/Jan.
Also I have to think that realtors probably like to advertise to potential clients that they can sell a house in as short a time-frame as possible. A low DOM helps to substantiate that claim.
In a slow market when things appear to sell within a month of the official list date and for above ask I have to wonder whether it is simply a savvy agent who has fully marketed a property and found a bunch of qualified buyers (and the prices they might be willing to pay) before they even put the property on the MLS. In my view while some may see it is slightly disingenuous I think that an agent should be able to use any legal means to enhance the sale (and their reputation).
As always when you are spending this amount of money it is advisable to thoroughly research the purchase.
If you think these practises should be outlawed then this downturn could be the perfect time to submit a proposition to the voters.

It’s funny how a property can be relisted three times with gradually descending prices, then get banged out when the sellers come to their senses –result: sale ends up on broker’s postcards as “sold in one week $50000 above asking!!!”
BTW, the MLS is the big brokerage firms’ way of squeezing out non-traditional competition. The FTC has been suing local MLSs for years over the issue. If you’re interested, here’s a story on the most recent:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/12/mls.shtm

“I believe this house was listed with McGuire and is now listed with Vanguard therefore it would be new per the SFAR rules.”
– Nope. Saw it last week and it was Vanguard.
“It’s funny how a property can be relisted three times with gradually descending prices, then get banged out when the sellers come to their senses –result: sale ends up on broker’s postcards as “sold in one week $50000 above asking!!!”
– Exactly!

I’m no fan of this tactic, but the seller’s agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller only, not the buyer. This means that they should do everthing in their power to get the higest possible price for the property. If manipulating the DOM is not illegal then the agent should do it if they think it will get a higher price for a property.
no. this is expressly forbidden by the Realtor Code of Ethics.
When representing a buyer, seller, landlord, tenant, or other client as an agent, REALTORS® pledge themselves to protect and promote the interests of their client. This obligation to the client is primary, but it does not relieve REALTORS® of their obligation to treat all parties honestly.

“The gripe you all have, then, is how DOM is defined, not how it is presented.”
Not exactly. “Days on Market” is a term that anyone would understand to mean the number of days a property has been available for purchase. The problem is that the MLS does not define it this way and does not disclose that it uses a different definition. Anyone with common sense can see that there is a gap between what people would assume DOM to mean and what it actually means, but the industry seems to be perfectly happy with this gap.
Just because a competent, ethical realtor can look further into the data and get a better grasp of the property’s history doesn’t make the fact that DOM can be/is intentionally manipulated OK.
I’m not going to say that there’s this evil realtor conspiracy to fool buyer’s. It’s much more benign than that. It’s the incompetence/sloth that automatically is created from a monopoly. MLS has no reason to improve the accuracy of its information until its business model is threatened.
A similar example is the NYSE. It hadn’t changed for decades before viable competitors showed up. The NASDAQ was created because there was an opportunity created by NYSE’s not meeting all of the needs of its users. As soon as NASDAQ opened its doors, NYSE was like a giant woken from its slumber.
Sooner or later, the same thing will happen to MLSs unless they get their act together. Even worse for them, they are all localized. If someone has the guts and money to create a well funded national competitor to all of these little MLSs and gets some big national realtors on board, bye bye MLS.

I think ex SF-er made a great point about clarifying access and accuracy. I think that most of us are in complete agreement with this – limited public access for this proprietary system is OK, but accuracy and compliance with listing policies are very important. In the case of 1515 Lyon, withdrawing the previous listing on May 1 and then immediately creating a new listing (on May 2) with zero DOM appears to violate the MLS listing policy. (Vanguard is the agency in both listings.) fluj pointed this out early in this thread, but I think many may have missed that post. In my opinion, the only valid reasons for re-listing and thereby re-setting the DOM clock would be; 1) if, per the rules, the property were pulled off the market for 30+ days and then put back on or 2) if a new real estate company now has the listing. In the case of a new company now representing the seller, a new listing must be created (with a new listing # and maybe a new price) so re-setting the DOM seems valid (and transferring the previous DOM isn’t really feasible). If the property sits off the market for a month or more, then the new listing can be viewed as a new event. The appropriate off-market duration time can be argued – but 30+ days seems OK to me.
fluj has also made a good point that a good realtor (using the property history feature available on the full MLS) will give his/her clients the complete listing history regardless of DOM resets. DOM is an important data point for buyers. 1515 Lyon’s DOM should now be at 65 days and counting.
Deleting a listing: Each listing must carry a status code. If it is not active (or pending or under contingency) then it must sold, expired, or withdrawn. If it is expired or withdrawn, the listing (and its DOM) are still preserved in history. As we mentioned, full users have access to the history. That’s how we know the “true” DOM for 1515 Lyon. However, it is theoretically possible to completely delete an inactive listing from the database. My understanding is that deletions are rare and require MLS administrative action. So, barring such a drastic step, the true DOM history for a property is preserved and available to full users.

John:
You’re missing the point — this isn’t about lawsuits. It is about intentionally misleading prospective buyers and engaging in unethical behavior that the NAR specifically prohibits.
Playing buyers for chumps — manipulating DOM numbers, “aggressive” Photoshopping of properties, etc — only lends credence to the view that you and your profession can’t be trusted. And if we – buyers and sellers – can’t believe a word that comes out of your mouth, then what value to you provide to anyone?

dch – your comment about the impact of this “reset” practice on the overall market DOM caused me to do some analysis. There have been 352 SFH’s and 491 condos with expired (or withdrawn) listings since Jan 1 for San Francisco. For the 352 expired SFH’s, 71 are now back in an Active or Pending status. In addition, 13 came back and have been sold. Of the 13 sales, all of the re-listings look legitimate (ie, they were off the market for 30+ days and/or the listing company changed – and, in most cases, the price was dropped). Of the 71 active and pending re-listings, all but 5 appeared to meet the above criteria for “legitimacy”. In addition to 1515 Lyon, other “violaters” include: 1901 Diamond got its DOM clock reset from 48 days to zero on May 2 (albeit with a 5% price reduction) after being withdrawn on May 1; 1135 Fitzgerald got its whopping 290 DOM reset on March 14 after laying out for just 15 days (price was cut by 1.2% too); 5915 California laid out 19 days (after 82 DOM) before coming back on Feb 4 – its DOM are now back up to 85; 182 Majestic sat out for 21 days (after just 35 DOM) before coming back on April 30 at the same $675K price.
I will look at the condo re-listings later, but the SFH re-listings so far this year have not had a significant impact on the overall DOM for the market and, for the most part, they have followed the rules for re-listing.

anon at 5:08PM – your point is that an “error” allowed the new listing of 1515 Lyon. Well, as I point out above, there are 4 other such errors for SFH’s and at least 10 for condos.

Sorry. Missed your post.
I believe that a 5% price reduction and a removal also allows for “new” status. Not sure about how your other examples did it. There must be some way around the system and a few people are exploiting it.

“but the way houses are bought and sold and the commission structure will change dramatically over the next five years”
This sounds a whole lot like
“The SF market will undergo a 20 % correction in 2008”
How can you guys say stuff like this? Really.

So real estate agents have come together as an industry and agreed to define “DOM” as meaning something totally different than what a normal person would define as “days on market”? It doesn’t mean days on the market (I don’t know where one would get that crazy idea), it means days listed on the market through the current brokerage and not taken off market for 30 days or more or re-listed after a 5% reduction. Wow. I’m glad you guys managed to come together and set some tough “ethical” rules on yourself and then enforce these rules on yourself.
This example of deception right here in San Franciscoo is why so many people view the National Association of Realtors and other trade groups with utter contempt: http://bigpicture.typepad.com/comments/2008/03/how-counter-pro.html
It sure seems like real estate professionals are manipulating data–as a group and on an institutional level. Just listen to how guilty the realtors on this thread sound. Their defense has been, to paraphrase: “I don’t know how we currently have over a dozen violations on our monopolized listing service–you see we put these rules in place because we’re ethical and we put these really hard enforcement mechanisms in place, so it’s a mystery how any violations occurred, let alone over a dozen, currently–or it could just be a few bad apples out there–so nothing to worry about. Oh, and forget about the fact that we conspired as an industry to conceal the real DOM from the average buyer. We are providing a valuable service to you when you come to us and pay us for the “real” information. We are concealing the “real” information from you in a deceptive manner only so we can add some value later–it’s for your own good–oh, and it’s a wonderful time to buy. I personally have been on the ground and seen some crazy market action taking place. Trust me.”)
It’s all there for us to see in the open. The realtors in San Francisco have conspired to conceal important market information from buyers. Buyer beware indeed. And it’s clear from the cocky statements like the one from fluj, above, that realtors have no intention of making the market more fair. No. They are in protect mode so they mock anyone that dares suggest their compensation system is inherently corrupt. Instead of dealing with the evidence of unethical behavior by fellow realtors in the very same market, the realtors defend and obfuscate and pass the buck. Nothing to see here. Just a mysterous violation of the rules by a few bad apples. And anyway, San Francisco realtors came together and decided on a really deceptive definition of DOM anyway, so move along. And what do you know? You’re just a bitter renter!

SF hawk guy,
Believe that we don’t know how they snuck this past the sfarmls admin, or not. You do not know that the seller didn’t insist the realtor use this tactic. Nor does anybody else. You took a lot of statements out to your own logical conclusions and passed judgment. I said several times this seems to indicate a loophole that should be shut.

Yeah, I’m saying DOM is primarily realtors fooling other realtors. Less “fooling” than manipulating the system to increase exposure to other realtors. It’s about getting it onto the top of the tour sheet and the top page of the MLS. It’s about attaining high visability to hopefully another wave of realtors’ clientele. And again, any realtor who delves just one click of a hyperlink deeper will readily see the true total DOM and tell his/her clients.

These MLSs have no obligation whatsoever to provide DOM. If provided, they do have an obligation to make it accurate. I agree with SFHwawkguy that changing brokers or taking off for 30 and putting back on should allow you to reset DOM. Maybe 60 days is better, but that’s just my preference anyway. There’s no law that states “DOM should be calculated as follows.” So while I think DOM is quite weak as is, as long as metrics are used consistently and the methodology is communicated, there’s really no legal basis for condemning it. These “gaming” tactics are unethical and should be dealt with, but that’s an issue with the broker, not the MLS. That’s from a legal/ethical perspective.
Still, as I mentioned above, the actions -or inaction- of the MLSs are just a sign of a monopoly that’s unresponsive to its market. All realtors would benefit in the long term from an open market with full disclosure where buyers expect to receive all of the necessary information to make their decision. But when you’re living high on the hog in a booming real estate market, you don’t need to think about these things.
Either MLS addresses issues like this, and quickly, or someone else will. That would either mean the demise of the MLSs due to a competitor exploiting this vulnerability or as this market declines and shocked homeowners realize how much they lost, lawsuits will come flying looking for someone to blame.
I’m definitely more in the buyer beware camp in terms of homeowners lawsuits. I’m not advocating lawsuits. I’m simply saying they will happen. That’s what Americans do when they lose money. They look for someone else to blame.
Not being proactive about providing the most relevant, accurate, and up to date data set for all market participants is a major vulnerability, and if I were a due paying customer of MLS, I would be shouting it to them on a daily basis. It’s simply short sighted and does no one any good.

DOM is such a joke. Yet another reason not to trust real estate agents.
How anyone can argue with a straight face that the public does not deserve better data (“You see, we give you the fake data for free, but you have to *pay* if you want accurate information”) is beyond me.

Well, I think agents would be well-served not to discount the views of a potential customer, but I guess that’s just me.

OK, deal.
What’s your real name so I can avoid unintentionally giving you my business in the real world?

It may be too late to commment on this thread but I’ll just say this.
the NAR sounds exactly like the RIAA and electronic music. That industry fought the progression of technology and user empowerment and look what happened, record sales down, brick and mortar stores closing, and 99 cent songs on Apple.
If the RIAA had acted sooner they would have participated far more in the spoils and most likely have blocked Apple’s rise. Now Apple is the largest seller of music in the world, even more than Wal Mart.
The NAR should wake up and smell the coffee, eventually, you will be disintermediated. The internet, the people, will push out those who feed at the trough without doing any work.
Either get with the program see what’s happening, or, quite simply, your profession will die. Listing a house can and should be a simple as selling a used book on eBay. Some day it will be. And slimy realtors will be out of business.

Property shark shows that this one sold for $1,250,000 in October 2008, a little under its 2006 sale price of $1,275,000. Pretty flat, really, but it still caused a $100K loss to the seller (after selling expense). Not too bad – IMO they got out in the nick of time.