Fizbomap Blog
Idaho For Sale by Owner tips, news and updates
Archive Page 2
Short Sales - Ada and Canyon County
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, News, Tips on March 27th, 2007
Looking for a deal this spring in ADA or Canyon County?
Try a short sale. Here’s a quick list of properties listed on the MLS and subject to a short sale.
CLICK HERE
If you are thinking of buying, give me a ring and I’ll help you put the deal together. Cell 850-3000.
My favorite thing about short sales right now is banks are looking to clean up their books. If you’ve been following the news about subprime mortgages, you know what I’m talking about.
Happy hunting!
2 commentsPART 2: Ada & Canyon County Builders - Spec-Housing Bubble
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, For Sale by Owner, News on March 25th, 2007
This post ties nicely into two prior post that relate to the current market conditions for our Treasure Valley. Builders Hold 46% of The Inventory and Ada and Canyon County Builders - Spec Housing Bubble
I’m illustrating the trouble brewing in our local housing market.
First, I pointed out that builders are holding nearly half the market listed for sale. This is scary considering the majority of resellers haven’t hit the market yet and our total ADA and CANYON COUNTY inventory is ragging an all time high by blowing past 7,000 listings last week.
By the numbers and historically speaking, there’s more inventory to come from the re-sellers. Re-sellers looking to move-up, move-down or move-out historically peak in May.
Next, I illustrated the housing mix of new construction as it relates to what buyers are buying. Most buyers are putting their money down on inventory that is in the shortest supply. This is way bad news for those builders who decided to join the ranks and construct above $350,000.
To make my third push into this issue, here’s a bar graph that illustrates what the average price has been for new homes-never occupied (SPEC-HOMES) and listed for sale during the first quarter of each year since 2004. The writing is on the wall as far I’m concerned.
Who told these builders to go out and speculate on such expensive inventory? Here’s my hypotheses :
I’d be foolish to try and predict the future, but I can say my money isn’t on the builders or the lenders who gave them the construction loans. How long before these notes are going to start coming due?
2 commentsAda County Housing Mix Doesn’t Match Buyer Demands
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, For Sale by Owner, News, Tips on March 23rd, 2007
I want to show more proof that the market mix is all messed up. Buyer demand is out of whack when matched up to the available inventory mix. I’m supported with data from the MLS and have illustrated below with a handy chart.
Here’s what you see…
RED bars show what’s for sale, as of today for all of Ada County. The range represents the market distribution as a percentage of the total number for sale. The percentages are spread out over $25,000 increments.
GREEN bars show what the market has been buying since 1/1/2007. Again, the range represents the market distribution as a presentage of the total number SOLD.
You can easily see that the market is buying at the lower end of the market price as compared to what is for sale.
EXAMPLE A: As of today, 13% of homes for sale in Ada County are priced under $200,000. In contrast, 40% of all purchases made since 1/1/2007 were under $200,000.
EXAMPLE B: Homes for sale in Ada County priced above $350,000, make up 41% of the market. Compare that to 19% percent of all buyers that purchased above $350,000 since 1/1/2007.
Are you seeing the issue? Home buyer abilities and willingness to buy what the market is offering is out of check. Our prediction is sellers will continue to pour onto the market and the number of homes for sale will continue to climb. There simply aren’t enough buyers that can match the existing home prices demanded by sellers.
My opinion is much of the market is over priced related to current buyer demands.
2 commentsAda & Canyon County Builders - Spec-Housing Bubble
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, News on March 22nd, 2007
Area builders are holding a ‘TON’ of spec-homes. Here’s the proof direct from MLS data.
Check it out ->> SPEC-HOUSING BUBBLE
This illustrates the Treasure Valley’s current market conditions as it relates to builders holding ‘new-housing’ inventory already built.
Here’s what it shows:
We downloaded almost 400 builder with ACTIVE spec-homes, all ready built, and listed in the MLS for sale (ADA and Canyon County).
This builder count doesn’t include the 100+ WANTA’Bee builders that sign up for construction to perm loan programs.
Data shows which builder in the valley are hanging out there the farthest (inventory already constructed - SPEC HOUSES).
Data shows which builders are building at which price points (on average) among their already constructed speculation builds.
Data shows a distribution of homes on the market throughout the price points - intervals at every $50,000.
REALTOR.org: Smells The Coffee
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, For Sale by Owner, News on March 19th, 2007
I received my e-news letter REALTOR.org Essentials - March 2007.
Here’s the HOT TOPIC:
Offer Your Real Estate Services In a Different Way
Call it what you want — fee-based services, unbundling or menu marketing — more REALTORS® are finding success with non-traditional business strategies.
The link took me to a Field Guide to Fee for Service page. To my surprise, I found a number of article that were PRO-Fee for service. All this from Realtor.org.
See for yourself and be amazed! When I say amazed, I mean be amazed at the pure fact that they’ve actually posted content on the subject. The disappointment comes later when you realize that what’s posted is mostly yesterday’s news on the issue.
no comments yet
Minimum Service Real Estate Bill Clears Senate
Posted by Matt Newbill in News, Consumer Rights on March 14th, 2007
Yesterday (Tuesday, March 13th), the Idaho Senate passed House Bill 135 a.k.a. ‘minimum service real estate bill.’ We’ve been talking a lot about this bill lately and have made our stance known.
Looks like all but three Senators voted in favor (hats off to those that voted against the bill.). One of which was Sen. Mike Burkett, D-Boise, which said:
In any other profession customers can choose to knowingly waive services. The language of the bill forbids that. Why should real estate agents be treated any different?
Excellent point. Finally someone in the statehouse gets it. Although if you ask John Eaton of IAR (Idaho Association of Realtors) he will tell you otherwise and try to tell you that it is not mandatory and won’t affect anyone’s business.
Only time will tell. To me, the passing of this bill is a direct slap in the face to consumers. A slap that has been championed by Realtors, the Idaho Association of Realtors and Legislatures alike.
no comments yetHB 135 Party Almost Over
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, News, Consumer Rights on March 13th, 2007
Well, we’re having a good run with Idaho HB135. Time is all but up, and I swear I can hear the fat lady starting to sing.
It sure can be disappointing to see how slanted the legislative process really is. Guess school house rock had me warmed up to the idea that common sense would prevail. Despite letters from the Department of Justice and the President of American Homeowners Grassroots Alliance, Members of the Senate Commerce and Human Resources Committee voted unanimously move the bill to the Senate floor. All Aye and no Nay. Good grief.
On the upside, the Idaho Business Review has done a great job following the issue. Here’s a link to this weeks writeup on the topic. IDAHOBUSINESSREVIEW.NET
It seems that John Eaton with IAR believes our business model won’t be affected by the bill.
“The bill shouldn’t affect Fizbomap”, Eaton said. “The bill says agents only have to be available to present the offers, not that they have to provide that service. If the customer doesn’t want those services, the agent doesn’t have to perform them.”
Eaton must not have read the statue.
Let me direct you to a section of House Bill NO 135,… please see Page 3, paragraph 2 and 3, line 11-18 READS:
54-2086
11 If a customer has entered into a compensation agreement or customer
12 services agreement with the brokerage, the brokerage shall have the obligation
13 to be available to the customer to receive and timely present all written
14 offers and counteroffers.
15 (3) The duties set forth in this section are mandatory and may not be
16 waived or abrogated, either unilaterally or by agreement.
17 (4) Nothing in this section prohibits a brokerage from charging a sepa-
18 rate fee or commission for each service provided to the customer in the trans-
19 action.
Here’s a glimps inside the real issue. Eaton has pointed out that agents/brokers working with buyers have felt they are holding the bag for sellers that use services like Fizbomap.com. They feel stuck and at risk for doing part of the work that listing agents traditionally and customarily do (even though agents close deals with sale by owners everyday without listing agents involved).
Here’s my prediction. The perceived ‘bag of risk’ will be passed to Fizbomap.com. Since the statue will soon say we are obligated to present all offers and this duty cannot be waived, agents working with buyers will send their offers to us and thus obligating our involvement regardless of our instructions (and the sellers wishes) to present directly to the seller. Since the statue uses words like “present”, we’ll follow our Attorney’s advice and put together a presentation to match. The difference now, is it will cost someone more money. Check this out… I’m going to charge the agent who has obligated us to present.
Here’s how it works. The seller who listed on the MLS with Fizbomap.com will authorize a charge for any offer presentation when obligated by statue. This revised agreement will instruct Fizbomap.com to collect this presentation fee directly from whomever wants to offer presented on their behalf. In other words, We are going to get paid by the agent who doesn’t want to present the offer themselves. Being the clever wits that we are, and consiencious to an agents bottom line, this fee can be avoided by presenting the offer directly to the seller.
What will you bet that the perceived issue of presenting directly to the seller goes away?
The farm!
1 commentFizbomap In Idaho Statesman
Posted by Matt Newbill in News, Consumer Rights on March 9th, 2007
Fizbomap made the paper today. We were featured in an article about the proposed real estate minimum service law (House Bill No. 135). You can read the entire article here.
My favorite part: John Eaton backpedaling or was that a moonwalk?
“It’s not anti-competitive and not as big of a deal as some people are trying to make it,” Eaton said.
So, let me get this straight. It’s not a big deal, but yet the U.S. Department of Justice made a special visit to Boise, ID to talk about it? Seems to me like it is a big deal despite IAR’s dismissal.
He also goes on to say:
“The bill would protect consumers from being abandoned by agents who offer limited services and aren’t available if needed.”
And also states that there have been complaints. Turns out, he can’t cite any specific numbers. Hmm. He states there are complaints of consumers being abandoned but can’t cite any numbers? That’s weird. Maybe there isn’t any data to support this? I can’t imagine that the Real Estate Commission would overlook these complaints.
The biggest backpedal was when Eaton stated:
“What the bill says is that the agent must ‘be available’ to send and receive counter offers,” Eaton said. “This does not mean they must do these things if clients do not want them to.”
Even though the language in the proposed bill states:
“a brokerage shall have the obligation to be available to the customer to receive and timely present all written offers and counter offers.” The bill says these duties are mandatory and cannot be waived by a customer.
So, Eaton says it CAN be waived, and the law says it CAN’T. Which is it?
I don’t feel like he’s being honest with us. What do you think? Post your comments below.
1 commentIt’s A Great Time To Be A For Sale By Owner
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, For Sale by Owner, News, Consumer Rights on March 8th, 2007
January of this year, the National Association of Realtors (NAR) launched a new $40 million ad campaign expected to stretch over 11 months, directed in part at the For Sale by Owner (FSBO) market.
“Two-thirds of For Sale By Owners would use a Realtor® next time,” one of the print ads declares. “The other third swear to never, ever move again.”
Is selling a home without an Realtor that unbearable?
Not according to the NAR’s own 2006 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers. The national survey found that only 20 percent of FSBO sellers would use an agent next time, while 33 percent would sell FSBO again and 47 percent weren’t sure. Clearly, FSBO sellers are happier than the NAR’s ad lets on.
Here’s another argument by the NAR’s media department.
“[s]ellers who use a real estate professional make 16 percent more on the sale of their home than do sellers who go it alone.”
Give us a break. Do the math. That would be like picking up a $250,000 house for $210,000. We find this claim impossible to believe.
For much of the past year, though, the NAR has gloated over the 16 percent statistic, claiming that it’s
“one reason the level of unrepresented sellers has declined steadily in recent years.”
Again, the NAR Profiles tell a more complicated story. The number of unrepresented sellers has indeed dropped, but the most likely reason for this is that many sellers are now able to pay flat-fee brokers a modest amount to get them on the Multiple Listing Service and Realtor.com.
The decrease in the number of unrepresented sellers, in other words, doesn’t reflect a decline in FSBO transactions so much as a decline in the ability of Realtors to keep FSBOs off the MLS. Until recently, Realtor associations were often able to block these kinds of listings, but the Federal Trade Commission has largely put a stop to the practice.
The thousands of ads that the NAR plans to air won’t just deal with FSBOs, of course. One TV ad, for example, talks about the importance of being protected by someone you can trust.
no comments yet“Realtors adhere to a strict code of ethics,” declares the voiceover, “so you know you’ll be treated honestly.”
Consumer Rights - Idaho Commerce & Human Resources Committee Passes HB135
Posted by Heinrich Wiebe in Fizbomap, For Sale by Owner, News, Consumer Rights on March 6th, 2007
The Idaho Senate Commerce & Human Resources Committee voted unanimously to pass HB 135. Much attention was given to our presentation which is outline as follows:
ISSUE: HOUSE BILL NO. 135
I’m Heinrich Wiebe. I broker, co-own, and manage Genius Realty. Me and my company represent the future of real estate. We integrate technology and real estate services on behalf of buyers with sellers who are dissatisfied with the antiquated and unfair real estate model that the Nation Association of Realtors has patterned since the 1950’s.Whether the industry of real estate likes it or not, the market is undergoing a paradigm shift. If you are wondering what that looks like, think about what has happened to stock trading, investment or the travel industries.
To my surprise, this bill passed the house without opposition.
I don’t believe anyone presented against this bill.
That’s why I’m here to day.The Idaho Business Review quoted Jim Patrick, a member of the Business Committee, as saying, “It sure is attractive when you see some really cheap rates for real estate fees; most people aren’t sophisticated enough and this is the largest purchase they’ll ever make.”
Personally, I find it offensive that he considers real estate owners too dumb to handle their own affairs without the aid of Realtors. Let me remind you that it takes a two week course, and passing grade on the state test to get a license. In fact, it’s such a low threshold to obtain a license that real estate agents aren’t considered professionals, and they don’t have a fiduciary duty according to the Idaho State statues.
This bill should not pass.
Here’s three Reasons:
1. It avoids clear definition.
2. It is redundant to existing statues.
3. It takes away consumer rights while limiting competition.Let me direct you to a section of House Bill NO 135,… please see Page 3, paragraph 2 and 3, line 11-18 READS:
54-2086
11 If a customer has entered into a compensation agreement or customer
12 services agreement with the brokerage, the brokerage shall have the obligation
13 to be available to the customer to receive and timely present all written
14 offers and counteroffers.
15 (3) The duties set forth in this section are mandatory and may not be
16 waived or abrogated, either unilaterally or by agreement.
17 (4) Nothing in this section prohibits a brokerage from charging a sepa-
18 rate fee or commission for each service provided to the customer in the trans-
19 action.This bill nor existing statue defines PRESENT and AVAILABLE. Clear understand of these terms are critical to correct interpretation.
Let me begin with what does it mean to “present”?
Is the word present used as an adjective (the workers are present),
as a noun (presents Law The document or instrument in question)
or as a verb (to present). Can offers present themselves, or do they need a ‘presenter’.If a presenter is required, that also requires a presentation, right? If so, what would that minimum requirement look like? Where is it defined?
If this legislature intends to make this presentation mandatory and un-wavable, then wouldn’t it be important to be effective too? What is the standard for that?
Presentation defined - Setting forth in words and visuals a speech to enlighten an audience and/or persuade them to commit themselves to a course of action. An effective presentation is usually planned, organized, and tailored to a specific audience to help facilitate the behavior change desired by the presenter.
Ask yourself what does it mean to be available?
How should the term available be considered?In the business of real estate, time is found to be of essence. Is Monday through Friday, 8am to 5pm except holidays good enough? Are weekend hours required? Can an agent be considered available if they are in another country? What if they have another full time job?
How should the standard be found with such ambiguous parameters?2. This bill is redundant to existing statues
REDUNDANCY OF LAW - Existing Statue
54-2051. Offers to Purchase.
(1) A broker or sales associate shall, as promptly as practicable, tender to
the seller every written offer to purchase obtained on the real estate involved,
up until time of closing, and shall obtain the signature of the seller or seller’s
agent verifying time and date such offer was received. A purchase and sale
agreement signed by the prospective buyer shall be deemed in all respects
an offer to purchase.As you read this statue you will notice that it addresses the same issue as HB135. However, this statue turns on the word ‘TENDER’.
TENDER vs PRESENT.
Let me ask you to focus on this issue. What is the standard?Here’s a definition of Tender:
1. A formal offer, as:a. Law An offer of money or service in payment of an obligation.
b. A written offer to contract goods or services at a specified cost or rate; a bid.
2. Something, especially money, offered in payment.Ask yourself why would Idaho Association of Realtors bring this bill? Have they done so with the intent to protect consumer’s best interest or to protect their old model of business?
Jeanne Jackson-Heim, executive director for the Idaho Real Estate Commission, was quoted by Inmann News as saying, she wasn’t aware whether the commission has received complaints over companies that offer limited services to clients. “We don’t keep track of complaints necessarily unless they develop into investigations.”
I made a formal request to the Idaho Real Estate Commission for anything pertaining to this draft legislation and their review. All I got back were the minutes of the board meetings for the past year and a letter stating that they were invoking Attorney client privilege.
I didn’t get back a list of consumer complaints, or a lists of investigations. What I did notice is the DOJ came to town and objected to the draft. Have you discovered the reason the DOJ and FTC are apposed to this bill? It takes away consumer choice. Your rights. My rights.
With that I’ll stand for questions.
Let me just say that there were a lot of questions, for like 40 minute worth! I’d say the issues we pointed out hit a few nerves. We were amazed at how little a few of the Senators knew about the process that involves listing with Realtors and the duties required. It was also interesting that they couldn’t see the valuable distinction between “present” and “tender” and how the interpretation would affect the process. I don’t remember a single question about the available component either.
We had a consumer testify too. David Griffin with High Desert Construction told the Senators that he didn’t want to loose his access to the MLS and didn’t need to have Realtors interpret the contracts for him.
The bit about the Department of Justice investigation got their attention. Senator Werk asked the IAR attorney if the DOJ had reviewed this legislation since its’ last revision. The IAR Attorney answered by saying the DOJ sent a letter to the chairman of the Senate committee. None of the other members on the committee were aware of this letter. Let just say they were caught off guard and the chairman found himself scrambling to explain.
When I get some more time, I’ll do my best to elaborate on the experience.
3 commentsNeed help?
Search blog posts
View by category
- Advertising (8)
- Consumer Rights (15)
- Fizbomap (41)
- Fizbomap Experiences (1)
- For Sale by Owner (42)
- Listing (6)
- News (48)
- Tips (23)
Keep me updated
