Progress in the MLS industry? I guess there has been some in the San Francisco Bay Area.  Maybe. Introducing politic-free Quattro MLS. It is hard to believe that there was a lack of politics in creating this new listing data sharing system. This may be one of those cases where two is better than seven (separate MLS databases that is). But the real question is why not one? Here, statewide and nationally. I'm disappointed.

The first thing that comes to mind and the first indicator of board politics as usual might be the inability for these groups to create Uno - one MLS for all of the areas combined by both Quattro and its rival NCREX. And as for this signaling great change and progress within the MLS industry - I guess. 

By my count there are still more than 875 separate MLSs out there. It's about the time when "siete should have been uno" and certainly some number less than what is represented by Quattro. But with the survival of "the same ownership and governance" of each affected MLS what would you expect other than business basically as usual in the good old MLS industry. 

Idea. Remove the politics of the board and the MLS and go direct to a broker-owned solution nationwide. Then we might be commenting on mucho change.

--Ken Jenny, TranCen  

At the core of any offering should be a clear understanding of the offering for the consumer. I have often wondered how so little in the way of disclosure is made to consumers involved in all aspects of the real estate transaction. What do you get for what cost? Who does what best? Who are the true professionals and how does one find them?  Who should the consumer rely upon for accurate information? And that brings to mind Zillow.

There seems to be a lot of smoke around what Zillow is and is not and I would hope Rich Barton and company take the opportunity to clear the air of what seems to be much developing "fire" and "zmoke."  (See Inman News story, "Arizona asks Zillow to cease real estate Zestimates.")

Why? Heaven forbid if the government were to get involved here. Think what was done in the cigarette industry by the surgeon general and the governmental requirements for warnings. Why? Because the industry players refused to do it without such mandates, not to mention the related lawsuits. Check out this U.S. Code forced on the cigarette industry to disclose the dangers of smoking and to protect the consumer from harm.

A misleading Zestimate of value can be harmful to the consumer for many reasons. If a Zestimate is just an estimate and it differs in any way from the valuation derived from an appraisal, a competitive market analysis a contrasting automated valuation model or any other means to determine the true market value of real estate then I suggest you very clearly state your case Zillow before someone else forces your hand.

That goes for licensing, varied measures of current market conditions, cost factors, existing competition of other listings, local economic factors and trends and the list is endless. Anyone in the business of real estate brokerage knows very well that a Zestimate is a far cry from an accurate and current evaluation of the market value of a home. The only question for Zillow now is does the consumer fully understand the fact that Zillow is really not placing a viable current "value" their home? 

I suggest that at the consumer level there is a considerable amount of confusion. There are too many differences in valuations and those making the values to clearly understand the differences. The real fire in all this will result from misleading the consumer. Then the government will step in (let's not forget RESPA and the current DOJ lawsuit with NAR) to straighten things out!

And as for going forward? Zillow might want to consider the use and prominent display of an even more descriptive disclosure statement and a clear disclaimer of what a "zestimate" is and, clearly what it is not. A good old legal overkill here would not hurt the cause, mirror those FDA-type warnings. If there is still some doubt, no worries, just wait long enough and the government will likely take care of this problem all on its own.

--Ken Jenny, TranCen

An article published today in the conservative FrontPageMagazine.com claims there's a "growing trend of terrorist associations with mortgage fraud rings in the U.S."

Some of the connections drawn seem tenuous. In some instances, prosecutors won convictions on mortgage fraud charges, but were unable to prove links to terrorist groups.

The story, by Patrick Poole, acknowledges this problem while simultaneously dismissing it. "With the difficultly of gathering sufficient evidence to conduct a case sufficient to convict on terrorism charges, federal authorities have not hesitated to look at the illegal means by which these individuals have financed their plans for jihad against the US," Poole writes.

Although proceeds from mortgage fraud schemes have undoubtedly been put to all sorts of nefarious purposes -- including terrorism -- that doesn't mean there's a meaningful trend. Even the editors of FrontPageMagazine felt compelled to put a question mark on the story's headline: "Mortgage Fraud Funding Jihad?"

Hmmm... As long as we're throwing question marks around, how about this: Could it be that all of us play a much bigger role in funding jihad when we fill up our gas tanks?
--Matt Carter, Inman News

Is owning a home still cool? That's the question posed by Inman News columnist Marcie Geffner in her latest column published this week. In light of all that's been happening in the subprime market, Geffner remarks on the differences between owning a home and buying a home. "Buying" was the favored state of mind during the housing craze and now some of those buyers are finding that they can't afford to own the home. While it's true that many loan products used were complicated, Geffner writes that "too many homeowners ignored the seriousness of the decision because they wanted to buy a home they needed to believe they could afford."

Read the full column at Inman News: "Is owning a home still cool?"

This week, I closed on my house and moved from Sausalito to Berkeley. Imagine going from Fantasy Island to an advanced class on geo-political relationships in the developing world; from light and airy to intense and engaged; from high self-esteem to self-righteous-esteem. Not much new happens in Sausalito, everything is new in Berkeley. There are more people half my age in Berkeley: I feel young in Sausalito.
I will have fewer bruises on my arm, because I will pinch myself less, since I will no longer routinely cross the Golden Gate Bridge, a seven wonder of the world but the most popular spot on the planet to commit suicide.
When I was eleven, I read an article about San Francisco and told my parents that I was moving to San Francisco [imagine the scene: Southern Illinois town of 5,000 people in 1963]. My Dad asked, "moving when, this week?".
The allure of the Bay Area is overwhelming; its beauty, its pace and its imagination get inside your bones. When I was a journalist in the 1980s, I penned a weekly column dubbed "Living in the Bay Area". Each week, I chronicled the life-style and goings on in Bay Area communities. I discovered the pulse and identity of urban neighborhoods are similiar to my small hometown, explaining my preference for cities and small towns.
The burbs never did it for me, though I am like someone who hates New York City but has never been there. I have never lived in the suburbs, and even when visiting, my impulse is to run those long -- like dial-up -- traffic lights to escape.
People who live in great places such as Paris, New York and San Francisco beccome parochial, beleiving that we live at the center of the universe.
This post is falling out of me early in the morning as I sort out my new surroundings. The sun is rising in the East, rushing to get to San Francisco because it knows this is where it’s at.

Ten reasons why a stock market correction [any market correction including housing] is a good thing.
1. It curbs hubris.
2. It scares off speculators.
3. The rich get richer[less].
4. We second guess how brillant we are.
5. It sheds light on what we may be ignoring.
6. Where there is smoke, there may be fire.
7. It gives us a moment to pause.
8. We reassess where we are.
9. It returns us to fundamentals.
10. It brings balance to life.

The U.S. Department of Justice is investing a fortune in taxpayer dollars in a real estate industry witch hunt. How long will this last? How stupid do they think the public is? Where is the public outrage?

The DOJ is assigning words like "conspiracy" in many cases to sound business decisions that let brokers "opt out" of online listings. There are times when a responsible broker does NOT want to see his listings marketed on other sites. Does it make good business sense to let other brokers show his listings alongside valuation estimates that do not support the list price? Should brokers be forced to let their listings appear on sites where there is little or no control of public (and the competition's) comments and feedback? Is this really what the public really wants?

National Association of Realtors General Counsel Laurie Janik gave association execs an update on legal issues in San Diego this week. -- Frances Flynn Thorsen

I was recently invited to be on FOX TV to discuss a couple of studies that examined how selective words in real estate ads could help a house sell faster, for more money, etc.
When I heard what the topic was, I resisted the temptation to be on the show, but relented when the producer promised it would not be too frivilous of a discussion (not sure it met that test; you be the judge below).
The segment was inspired by a LA Times story on the subject.
It is easy to be self-righteous about the importance of telling the truth in ads. More than just taking the moral high-cround, the risk of using exagerated or untruthful words is in losing the deal later once the buyer figures out the ads are BS -- not to mention truth in advertising laws.
William Shakespeare said, "Truth is truth, To the end of reckoning." Easy for him to say.
As journalists, we are always struggling to get at the truth and tell the truth. Indeed, if everyone was truthful, you would not need journalists.
Do not worry about high-unemployment in the news ranks, if this survey cited by blogger Martin Moore is right: "according to an audience of over 260 public relations executives, 138 voted against the motion in a PR Week sponsored debate that 'PR has a duty to tell the truth', vs 124 for.

E&P (Editor and Publisher) gives us some saucy stuff via the NYTimes on financial guru (lots of real estate wisdom) Suze Orman, who many love to loathe. She is worth $25 million (must be taking her own advice) and is a virgin (meaning as she says, she has never beeen with a man). So what? We are not sure, but it was too juicy to pass up. She frets about estate taxes. One way around it is charity Suze.
Below is her take on "generosity".

There really are no winners and no losers in the legal investigation being conducted by the DOJ. While everyone seems to have an opinion, it is the listing brokers that should have the last say and the only opinion in such matters.

A suggestion for the DOJ - follow the basics of real estate law. The legal right to request help in selling a listing (cooperative MLS) and the right to display a listing (competitive marketing) on behalf of the consumer lies solely with the listing broker.  They are apples and oranges - totally different processes with different purposes.  These processes represent choice and are defined as a portion of a complex web of legal rights and liabilities carried on each and every listing by the broker who takes a listing and contracts for the delivery of certain services with the seller.

No party other than the listing broker has any legal rights with regard to permitting cooperation in the sales process or the unpermitted marketing of these contracted properties. If anyone feels differently, including the DOJ, then stop suing and start changing the law.

The sole liability for the listing as established by the current real estate law in every state to be with the listing broker should be amended to enjoin all cooperative and competitive parties (other brokers and third-party aggregators) to the listing and sales process. Each of these parties should then share in the full legal liability for the listing they agree to cooperate to sell or publish anywhere without the permission of the listing broker.

End of the law suit, beginning of an interesting a new era of shared liability real estate marketing.

--Ken Jenny - tranCen.com, Inc.