[HN Gopher] Impact of Pocket Listings on Housing
___________________________________________________________________
Impact of Pocket Listings on Housing
Author : caseyf7
Score : 14 points
Date : 2021-08-14 16:49 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pbs.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pbs.org)
| kevinpet wrote:
| I don't know what's really going on, but I know this article is
| trying to mislead the reader. The headline is about pocket
| listings, but the only numbers mentioned related to that are
|
| > The number of homes that have likely sold without being
| marketed to the public has grown by 67 percent since November
| 2019, when the NAR adopted its stricter rules, according to a
| Redfin analysis tracking MLS listings that were marked "sold" or
| "pending" the same day they were put on the database.
|
| Was it 1% of homes and now it's 1.7%? The article is leading us
| to believe this is a large gain, but doesn't present any evidence
| showing that. "67%" is a suspicious number as well, as if someone
| said "about two-thirds" and it got translated back to a precise
| percent.
| mikem170 wrote:
| The "grown by 67 percent" phrase in the main article links to
| another redfin article with the specific figures.
| mzs wrote:
| "grew so prevalent in some parts of the country"
| clairity wrote:
| also, the problem isn't pocket listings per se, but artificial
| demand induced by the rise-at-all-costs policies of (state and
| federal) governments and the cartel-like action of the MLS's,
| combined with long-lasting political pressure to limit housing
| growth. pocket listings are a tiny additional complication,
| like a bruise next to a bullet wound. it's nothing next to the
| real problems we face around real estate and housing.
| mdavis6890 wrote:
| It is the job and responsibility of the listing agent to serve
| their client's interests. Assuming that sellers know this is
| happening, and further assuming that this practice of pocket
| listings serves them, I wonder HOW it does.
| joezydeco wrote:
| _" They grew so prevalent in some parts of the country that the
| National Association of Realtors (NAR) passed a policy against
| the practice in 2019, requiring brokers to list any property that
| they are marketing to potential buyers on the multiple listing
| service, or MLS"_
|
| Right. So the realtors instead created a _second_ listing network
| to "draft" listings before putting them on the MLS. What a tidy
| little loophole.
|
| https://chicagoagentmagazine.com/2021/04/05/mred-launches-re...
| bombcar wrote:
| The realtor market is already a cabal-like gang so it's not
| surprising they'd do that. You can't really stop things like
| this without actual laws and penalties as people can just not
| "list".
|
| In an era of internet access to the MLS they need to provide
| value - apparently by creating a secret secondary market.
| nradov wrote:
| There's no need for laws here. If I want to sell my old bike
| to a friend I'm not required to post it on Craigslist first.
| Real estate is no different.
| joezydeco wrote:
| However, if there's someone across town that wants the bike
| and is willing to pay more, two parties have lost out
| including yourself. You've left money on the table.
|
| Back to the original problem, realtors don't care about
| this because at 5% commission if the price is $400,000 or
| $420,000 the difference is miniscule. It's prioritizing
| velocity over price.
| udev wrote:
| Genuine question: why would a rational seller accept to sell
| before listing the house on the market (MLS) to a widest possible
| audience?
| beerandt wrote:
| Because you can only sell the house once. So given an
| appropriate asking price, the first acceptable offer is as good
| as the next 10. (If your realtor is any good, the price will be
| close to the true market value anyway, or priced appropriately
| considering trade-offs, like closing quickly.)
|
| If you can get that offer without the hassle of showing the
| house to a thousand strangers, and having random people
| stopping and peeping through your window, then why not?
|
| Another common occurrence is accepting an offer below certain
| known loan limits. If you know you want to get approx the local
| limit for a jumbo loan, then accepting a price slightly over
| that limit comes at the cost of fewer potential buyers, or
| offers that have to back out because they couldn't get
| financing approved. So the rational choice might be accepting
| the lower offer, instead of slightly higher with more
| hassle/risk.
| xenadu02 wrote:
| Yes, this happens in SF. Some people inherited or built their
| house, owe nothing on it, and want to sell it onward to another
| family (not an investor, REIT, etc). One of our friends bought
| a house this way - off market.
|
| Some people also don't do offer dates so they accept the first
| good offer that comes along - we just bought a house in SF this
| way for 50k over asking. The sellers were moving across the
| country, had lots of equity, so their concern was getting the
| sale wrapped up ASAP.
|
| FWIW our realtor was also going to show us an off-market
| property from a friend who renovated houses. This friend is
| self-funded so his concern is getting a good return even before
| the reno is complete so he can buy the next fixer-upper. I
| assume this is because he can't control when those houses come
| up for sale so he needs to buy them when they're available.
| That can present cash flow and financing problems for a small
| operator.
| nradov wrote:
| Some rational sellers are willing to accept a slightly lower
| price in order to close quickly and avoid the hassle of open
| houses.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-08-15 23:02 UTC)