Notorious R.O.B.

Continuing the tradition that started when the earth was young (or last year… depending on your definition of “time”), I’d like to present this year’s version of “Predictions Guaranteed to be Wrong, Or Your Money Back”! As we saw in the report card post, last year, I went 4.5 for 7 in predictions. I hope to bat lower for this year’s predictions. Of course, I can guarantee 0 for 7 by making ridiculous predictions, like “The Jets will win the SuperBowl”.

Without further ado, the predictions for 2012…

Read the rest of this entry »

In 2009, I batted .600 in predictions for 2010.  And I thought that was fun. It’s one thing to make predictions; it’s another to look back and see how those predictions fared.

How did I do last year in predicting events of 2011? I was hoping to be maybe 1 out of 7, since most of my predictions last year were of the doom-n-gloom variety. Sadly, I think I’m 4.5 out of 7 for a .642 batting average. Hall of Fame (Infamy?), here I come.

We’ll review my take on the predictions for 2011 after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »

As a blogger, rather than a “credentialed journalist” (whatever that means), I have the freedom to just pass on rumors, as long as I label them as such. Well, consider this one of those rumors I have not confirmed yet. [UPDATE] I just got a second person to confirm the rumor. Two people saying the same thing now moves this past the realm of rumor into a confirmed report. More detail below..

I’ve heard from a reliable source earlier this evening that there are some major changes afoot at NAR. The biggest upshot of the changes is that starting in 2012, portions of the dues from NAR members will go towards supporting RPR, REALTORS Federal Credit Union, and other so-called “Second Century” Initiatives. A few minutes of Googling suggests that the original Second Century Initiatives program — which included a line item for “The creation of a national gateway for real estate information, not a national MLS” – was funded by a $16 increase in dues in 2008.

But from the start, RPR was presented as a wholly-owned for-profit business unit of NAR that would be self-sustaining, after the initial investment of roughly $25 million to buy the Cyberhomes assets from LPS and a few million for LPS data. The idea was that the data generated by RPR would be very valuable when sold to financial institutions, government agencies, and the like, and the operation would throw off enough cash not only to continue providing the system to REALTORS at no charge, but also to generate enough profit to pay back NAR.

For reference, here’s a report of a Q&A session with Dale Ross, CEO of RPR, back in March of 2010:

Why should Second Century need to be paid back?

NAR’s Second Century fund is a venture capital fund which must paid back for its investments. However, that’s not the source of RPR’s funding. RPR money comes from an NAR technology fund set up with $100 million fund (from investments); NAR’s Finance Committee stipulated that monies must be paid back to replenish fund.

Since you’re providing RPR for free, where is money coming from? What happens if your revenue models are way off?

Three scenarios: app doesn’t work, we shut down; app works and rev model works, win-win; app works but rev model off. We project we’ll need $50 million/yr to run it… if it is valuable and not generating cash, we’ll figure up another funding source. If members want it and NAR Directors decide that is best way, that could be a member dues increase. I have never seen pro formas work; I have pushed the numbers around based on a 36-month breakeven. We’ll see. (Underline added for emphasis)

Well, if the rumors that member dues will start paying for RPR starting 2012 are true, then I’m gonna take a wild stab and suggest that the 36-month pro formas were way optimistic. Since we’re looking at a dues increase in two years (launch in 2009, dues funding decision in 2011 to take place in 2012) to support RPR.

A few questions arise. The first of which is, “So uh, is this true?” I’d love for anyone who can confirm or deny the rumor. Please feel free to contact me privately via email, twitter, Facebook, phone, whatever. My contact information is on the About page. More questions follow, all of which assume this rumor of dues funding for RPR and other Second Century Initiatives is indeed true.

Read the rest of this entry »

Don't Tase Me, Bro!

Ah, the horse ain’t quite dead yet, Matt Dollinger. Nor is the discussion a moot point.

I testify, cuz at the September dinner of the Wired Straits Social Club (kinda like a Houston-based Lucky Strikes, which I started in NYC), we discussed this issue at some length. And got something out of it.

I figured I’d share at least one insight from that with you.

Read the rest of this entry »

RealTrends does some great work. I love playing with their numbers, when they become available. The most recent one is a project they did with the Wall Street Journal ranking the top 1000 real estate agents and teams in the United States. (And, no, I have no idea how they got the data, what their methodology was, etc.)

Click through to the RealTrends site to see the top 250 real estate agents and agent teams. Congratulations to all Notorious readers who made the list, in case such a person exists.

I had a few minutes so just played around with the numbers a bit. Some interesting, or not so interesting, findings there.

Read the rest of this entry »

Future REALTORS of America!

My good friend Michael McClure (@ProfessionalOne on Twitter) has been banging the “Raise The Bar” drum for quite some time now. Recently, he wrote a post accompanying a survey in which he wants to establish “the baseline for professionalism” in the real estate brokerage industry:

All that being said, let’s get to the point of THIS post: to begin to formulate some kind of consensus on what it means to be a “professional” in the real estate industry.

Should it be based on experience? Number of transactions? Number of satisfied past clients? Perceptions of the agent’s peer group? Or some combination of these or other factors?

When the public – in the form of the Harris Polls – and Realtors themselves – in the form of the aforementioned Realtor Magazine survey – agree that there is such significant room for improvement, we think practical steps should be taken to begin to move the industry in a more professional, and more uniformly professional, direction.

Of course, I heartily agree with Michael’s goals. I did have a small quibble with him about the survey itself, as many of the questions were frankly leading questions, but I suspect we’d have seen mostly the same results anyhow.

There is one result, however, from the survey that’s frankly interesting given what’s going on outside the industry. Question #5 of the Survey asks, “How important is it that a Realtor provide evidence of some level of “minimum educational experience”? 57% of respondents say “Mandatory” and another 25% say “Very Important”; 84% of those responding have said that educational experience is at least very important to be a realtor.

Why?

Read the rest of this entry »

“No servant can serve two masters.”

- Jesus Christ, Luke 16:13

Judith Lindenau, a consultant to MLS and Associations with decades of experience, recently wrote a post in which she took up my modest suggestion of making brokers pay for the MLS. It’s worth reading the whole thing, as she presents some countering views both to things I have suggested, as well as to things I have not suggested.

I thought it worth musing on some of her points — as well as the points raised in the comments by luminaries such as Gregg Larson of Clareity and Victor Lund of WAV Group, men who have been in this industry far longer than I have, whose opinions I always take seriously.

In her post, she lays out two main counter-arguments:

1. Making brokers pay doesn’t solve anything, and it’s been tried before and is being tried today by various MLS’s.
2. The problems facing the MLS requires dynamic solutions, tackling complex issues such as governance, vendors, NAR policies, and the like.

As Gregg Larson puts it succinctly in the comments, “This is a lame discussion.”

Well, as much as I’d hate to extend a lame discussion, there is something worth exploring here, so I’m gonna indulge myself and do just that.

Read the rest of this entry »

Over at 1000watt, there is a rather interesting debate going on with some heavy hitters contributing, on whether big brokers should or should not support innovations and tools by the MLS or Association. Go check it out if you haven’t already.

The general thrust is that Brian Boero and Marc Davison both believe that innovations are an unqualified good, and that big brokerages have no reason to oppose innovation wherever it occurs — even if that is at the MLS, at the local Association, or at NAR. As Marc writes:

If you share this belief, then I submit it would be impossible for you to ever stand in the way of any innovation or impede anyone from offering that innovation. Even an MLS.

If you share this belief, never fear a tool. And always proceed by having supreme confidence in what you could do with any tool versus others.

The basic idea is that the big brokerage, with its superior execution ability will benefit more from any tool or feature offered by the MLS/Association.

The counterpoint, articulated well by a few folks who are in a position to know, is that brokerages invest heavily in technology, in tools, and in innovation. And that the MLS or Association offering those same capabilities out results in an unfair leveling of the playing field. For example, here’s Pam O’Connor, CEO of Leading Real Estate Companies of the World:

Many brokers (and not just the largest ones) invest heavily in tools for their agents for the purpose of differentiation with consumers and attracting the best and brightest. It’s called competition. To have their local association or MLS then offer the same thing dilutes that investment and competitive edge.

It’s an interesting discussion.

Well, I have a concrete suggestion to every MLS that I think would go a long way towards solving this particular conundrum. I happen to think it’ll help some other conundrums as well.

The MLS should cease collecting payment from the agent/member; it should, instead, collect payment directly from the broker, and only from the broker. Change the customer of the MLS to be the brokerages, and some of these problems become easier to think through.

Read the rest of this entry »

Image: Nick_T at http://www.flickr.com/photos/nicholas_t/

One advantage of long road trips, particularly with say… one’s spouse, is the opportunity to talk without interruption. The car moving down the highway at 75 65 miles per hour (or whatever the legal speed limit is, officer) becomes a sort of isolation chamber without TV, without the kids demanding attention, and without any other distractions.

So it was on a recent trip to San Antonio. Having left the kids home with the grandparents (truth be told, we were sort of asked to leave so they can monopolize the time with The Spawns), Mrs. Notorious and I found ourselves with all this time to talk about things and catch up. Eventually, you run out of the domestic, immediately relevant, personal topics… so being that the Missus has a MBA and some twenty years experience in fashion retail, we got to talking about business.

She raised a complaint, and an ancillary point, that I thought was interesting enough to share, especially with the audience of this blog that tends to be almost all real estate people.

She thought that the retail industry needed to “go back to basics” in a profound and fundamental way.

I agree, but it’s worth understanding what “the basics” are.

Read the rest of this entry »

Had a most interesting discussion with a REALTOR friend last night over dinner about professional ethics, and came across an interesting question. We didn’t know the answer, so I figured I’d blog about it and ask you all.

The question is whether a REALTOR has a duty to disclose bad acts by a client, or more importantly, by an ex-client, if she knows that what the client is planning on doing is (a) illegal, (b) unethical, and/or (c) fraudulent.

Read the rest of this entry »