I suppose at this point most people don't remember that in the 20th century the Multiple Listing Service was a private database that only registered agents could access. So your average buyer had to hire an agent just to get a good idea of what was on the market. The upside of this is that the MLS did a lot to make the housing market rational, with more accurate and consistent pricing. So a house became a better investment. A lot of people thought that was worth the commissions. YMMV.
In the early 2000's the NAR made a bet that they could make MLS listings accessible to the public via the internet and maintain their business model. For decades the bet paid off, and people got the convenience of being able to do their own real estate shopping. But time seems to have run out on the payoff.
The smart move for the NAR at this point would simply be to take the MLS private again. Then buyer's agents would have leverage to contract for a minimum commission regardless of what sellers were offering. If sellers decided to offer little to no buyer's agent commission, then a lot of deals would fall apart when buyers realized how much they'd have to cough up in cash to cover the buyer's commission at closing. The alternative would be either for sellers to offer competitive buyer's commissions, or for the buyer's and seller's agents to make a side deal to roll the buyer's commission into the mortgage financing agreement.
The net result would be the same as the current situation, less buyer's money going to the seller -- but instead of everyone seeing the commission numbers up front, the question of whether the buyers could actually afford the house would be pushed later into the deal process, more money would go to lawyers to sort things out, and more time wasted by all parties in busted deals.
If the DOJ forbids taking the MLS private, then the NAR would simply have no incentive to maintain it. Without it, I expect the market would revert to the previous wild-west status, where it would be much harder to value a house, and financing would be more difficult and time-consuming to arrange, with many deals falling apart amid such difficulties. If this scenario were to come to pass, I expect there would eventually be public clamor for a new deal that would be equivalent to the current arrangement, except for names and who referees.
The most interesting question in that scenario will be whether the new deal happens before or after a real estate market crash.
I have no idea what equivalent system if any there is be in Europe for fair and consistent pricing of houses, and listing of available units, and who pays for MLS equivalents, if they exist. I never hear that discussed in articles on this topic. I'd be interested to know more.
Zillow and Redfin get their listings from the MLS. Realtor.com is run by the NAR.
The practical effect of the MLS has been to rationalize and normalize real estate information across the market.
The downside is that people have gotten the impression that this information just appears. They may be surprised what effects the disappearance of the MLS may have on the market.
Fair enough, forgive my imprecision of terms. But the NAR established and enforces the MLS data and management standards among its member associations that make aggregation and dissemination viable.
I will hazard a guess that the biggest and most active MLS's are run by NAR-associated groups.
I did some searching to answer my own question about what happens in Europe, and found the following [0]:
---------------------------------------
> Is there an MLS or other database of Paris apartments for sale?
The short answer: No.
The fragmented French market can make that a formidable task. The French real estate market does not operate through a Multiple Listing System, or MLS, with agents sharing all the listings of available properties (this is the system in most US markets). Rather, individual agencies only list their own properties. They can’t and won’t show you properties listed elsewhere, though sometimes properties are listed with more than one agency – which makes for even quicker sale, before you have a chance to make your move.
There are also a number of listing sites in France, each with their own property ads, each with their own search capabilities. Some agencies list on all of them, or one of them, or none of them, depending on how they choose to market the individual property. Many properties change hands without ever being publicly listed; many sellers choose not to work with agents at all.
Buyers intent on doing a comprehensive search must contact one agency after another, leaving their contact information and hoping for the best. Should you happen to walk in at the right time, you might be in luck. Good properties sell quickly, competition among buyers is fierce and agencies have no real incentive to maintain a relationship with you as a buyer.
Furthermore, France has the biggest private seller market in Europe: nearly half of the properties change hands without the use of a real estate agent. So even if you had first access to the properties listed in the 3500 real estate agencies in Paris, you would still not see all the properties on the market.
For a fairly good overview of what’s available on the market, there are a handful of major French-language listing sites worth a look. None of the sites are comprehensive, and in many cases they will have the same listings as the others. Since each site charges to list on their site, each real estate brokerage (or selling owner, if they are not using an agency to list their property) is faced with the decision as to which of the many different sites they should list their properties.
---------------------------------------
So as a nation, we're going to have to ask ourselves: is a system like the above preferable to what we have now?
In addition each agency shows the available units on their sites. Then there are some in newspapers and I think there is some papers from some group of sellers.
Ofc, there are some private sellers on Facebook, and some local craigslist equivalents.
If the MLS didn't exist and we relied on private corporate sources of information, then it's likely the experience would be like in France: many competing listing services, none comprehensive.
This is already true in the US; there are multiple things called "MLS", some regional. MLS is a generic term, not a single organization. This is also visible as e.g. Zillow and Redfin sometimes having different listings for one area, because they talk to different MLSes.
Each MLS is franchised by the NAR, which enforces standards and interoperability, and get funds to do it from real estate agent membership fees.
That allows Zillow, Redfin etc. to offer listings free. If they had to carry the weight of all the expenses themselves, it's likely that access to listings would be far more restricted, and/or much less comprehensive.
MLSes are bound by an antitrust lawsuit (that they lost) to provide access to online services like Zillow. I would assume that there is an appropriate payment involved, just like with the MLS's other clients.
I think you're overestimating the costs of running a listing service like this -- there are several hundred companies in the US doing it! -- and underestimating how prone this industry is to inflating costs by illegal anti-competitive practices.
Not saying you're wrong in anything you've stated, but if there are many independent MLS's and it's easy and cheap to set them up, that undermines the whole antitrust argument against the NAR, doesn't it?
If alternate MLS's are easy and cheap to set up and run, and they can provide a much more attractive value proposition than NAR-aligned MLS's, wouldn't the NAR MLS's have been pushed out of existence long ago?
Just running a listing service doesn't mean the local realtors give you listings, that's why the Zillows etc needed to get access to the MLSes that they do use. Getting access equal to other brokers in the area, even if they weren't part of the good ol' boys network, was exactly why there needed to be an accusation of anti-competitive practices.
Somebody has to pay to gather, store and present information in usable fashion in order for it to be of value. It doesn't just appear or self-assemble.
The alternative we face may be something like France: buyers pay in time, shoe leather and exclusion from opportunities what they would save in agent commissions.
In the early 2000's the NAR made a bet that they could make MLS listings accessible to the public via the internet and maintain their business model. For decades the bet paid off, and people got the convenience of being able to do their own real estate shopping. But time seems to have run out on the payoff.
The smart move for the NAR at this point would simply be to take the MLS private again. Then buyer's agents would have leverage to contract for a minimum commission regardless of what sellers were offering. If sellers decided to offer little to no buyer's agent commission, then a lot of deals would fall apart when buyers realized how much they'd have to cough up in cash to cover the buyer's commission at closing. The alternative would be either for sellers to offer competitive buyer's commissions, or for the buyer's and seller's agents to make a side deal to roll the buyer's commission into the mortgage financing agreement.
The net result would be the same as the current situation, less buyer's money going to the seller -- but instead of everyone seeing the commission numbers up front, the question of whether the buyers could actually afford the house would be pushed later into the deal process, more money would go to lawyers to sort things out, and more time wasted by all parties in busted deals.
If the DOJ forbids taking the MLS private, then the NAR would simply have no incentive to maintain it. Without it, I expect the market would revert to the previous wild-west status, where it would be much harder to value a house, and financing would be more difficult and time-consuming to arrange, with many deals falling apart amid such difficulties. If this scenario were to come to pass, I expect there would eventually be public clamor for a new deal that would be equivalent to the current arrangement, except for names and who referees.
The most interesting question in that scenario will be whether the new deal happens before or after a real estate market crash.
I have no idea what equivalent system if any there is be in Europe for fair and consistent pricing of houses, and listing of available units, and who pays for MLS equivalents, if they exist. I never hear that discussed in articles on this topic. I'd be interested to know more.