Hacker News Reader

Why would you use a real estate agent trying to pump the price as high as possible

I was surprised to read this, since I thought you'd hinted at exactly the opposite by mentioning Freakonomics. Isn't the Freakonomics argument that an agent is incentivized to instead sell the property as quickly as possible, regardless of the sale price? For instance, accepting an offer that is $10k under the listing price will cost the seller $9,400 ($10,000 * 94%), but will only cost the selling agent $150 (1.5% * $10,000). If the agent's time is worth almost anything approaching a respectable hourly rate for a sales professional, then they should pressure the seller to take the lower offer, as not doing so would likely incur significant time costs (well over $150 worth of their time) for the listing agent.

Is that view of things mistaken?

Yes, that was the argument in Freakonomics and they're completely right.

The real estate market can be extremely receptive to low prices, so if you list your house very low, you're likely to sell it much faster. The bulk of the money the agents make will come from the part of the house that could sell very easily. If a house could sell for $200,000 today, but you have to have it listed six months before it could sell for $220,000 (which is unknown at the time, of course). The seller agent is going to make $6,000 of the $200k sale (3%) but will only make $600 more from selling it for an extra $20,000. And a lot of the time that 3% number is high. If they aren't a broker, they're splitting that 3% with someone else, so maybe the extra $20k sale price only nets them an extra $300 in their pocket.

When I was selling my house a few years ago, I talked with one agent that was recommended to me and he was so blatantly obvious in his desire to get commissions that I couldn't believe the people who recommended him failed to see that. He came in, refused to list the house for less than a 6% split (this is negotiable, 5% isn't uncommon at all) and wanted to LIST the house for around $8,000 less than what I actually sold it for a few months later. It wasn't that big of a house and was in an area with very affordable housing, so that extra $8,000 was high enough of a total % to make a huge difference.

Also, I'd venture that many people selling their houses still have a mortgage on the house, so the huge base commission the seller agent makes isn't even coming off of the owner's profit, it's coming of the amount they need to pay back the note.

Depending on the market, a lower list price can work out really well. If demand is high and supply us low, a low list price and not accepting (or at least responding to) offers until after a specific date can result in a bidding war increasing the price 5-10%, as you've increased your exposure.

This tactic has been used to great effect over the last few years in the area North of San Francisco. I bought a house a year ago, and this was particularly annoying as it made it hard to determine what houses were really available in our price range, since listed prices were often fictional. Brokers suggested coming in $5k to $15k above listed price as an initial bid if others seemed interested, just so you would be taken seriously.

Edit: s/$15k to $15k/$5k to $15k/

My experience has not been in "hot" real estate markets, so I've never experienced the low listing price as a tactic other than trying to sell a house faster. Most houses in my direct area sit around for at least several months, if not several years. I'm sure other areas are substantially different.

Economists have a tendency to overlook data that is difficult to quantify. In the short term, a real estate agent may make more money by rushing a sale, but on a macro level, he does himself a disservice. Real estate agents need to become your friend and engender loyalty so that you'll recommend them and so that you'll use them again when you sell your new house. Every hour spent with a client and every dollar knocked off the final price is an investment in a long-term relationship that has the potential to net many more sales down the road. Protecting that stream of future work is much more important than rushing sales for short-term gain.

We sold a house last year. I had read Freakonomics so I thought I was going to outsmart everybody (which I knew was a stupid to think from the start, of course). Turns out most real estate agents (the ones we talked to at least) weren't even financially literate enough to even understand the concept. At some point I tried to explain to one the Freakonomics theory. He always kept saying 'the more I sell, the more commission' - the concept of 'time value' was completely foreign to him. Maybe he was just playing dumb, I don't know.

Anyway, in my experience, most agents are happy wasting a bunch of time on a sale - having coffee to discuss 'the status' (2 viewings scheduled for next week, the one from last Monday seemed genuine - could have send me a 2 line email. But hey, he could tell funny stories, so I don't mind having coffee); spending 45 minutes on discussing 'the strategy' on how to deal with an offer, ... I never got the impression they cared about a house being a few months longer in their inventory. It filled up their website and office windows, made them big and professional, and as long as their cash flow is OK, anything listed for under a year was OK (much longer than that makes them look weak, of course; also, the market is bad in my area anyway).

I have since reconsidered what I once thought was a plausible argument about real estate agents. Maybe it's sample bias, I don't know, but the ones I dealt with, weren't 'rational actors' in any sense an economist would need them to be to make their models work (and I work with economists and their models a lot).

This is very true - although I think the "non-rational actor" argument needs some thinking through.

The Freakonomics model completely misses the fact that most agents don't often have enough houses to sell for the time spent on each one to be a constraint.

Given that, in many circumstances it really does make sense for the agent to spent an extra few hours working on your house if it will get you another 10K, because they get a small amount of money from that. It's true the marginal gains aren't high, but often they simply have nothing else to do!

Additionally, "working on your house" often means meeting more people who are interested in buying. Very often, some of those people will be looking for an agent to sell their house, so the agent sees that as an advertising opportunity.

> He always kept saying 'the more I sell, the more commission' - the concept of 'time value' was completely foreign to him. Maybe he was just playing dumb, I don't know.

He probably wasn't. That having been said, the inability to understand abstract concepts like the time value of money and being a kickass salesman are not mutually exclusive. Some of the best agents I've met aren't what I'd call bright, but they're quite successful and have incredible sales skills that smarter agents lack.

> Anyway, in my experience, most agents are happy wasting a bunch of time on a sale - having coffee to discuss 'the status' (2 viewings scheduled for next week, the one from last Monday seemed genuine - could have send me a 2 line email.

This isn't remotely irrational -- you just don't understand his purpose. What he's doing by spending 45 minutes chatting with you, in leu of a 2 line email, is building a relationship with you and giving the transaction a more personal touch. These are the kind of soft sales skills that are critical to being a successful agent, since despite the existence of sites like Trulia or Zillow, the majority of your clients will come not from online advertising but from word of mouth. So sure, a 2 line email might have sufficed, but a 45 minute chat where he tells you funny stories is going to leave you feeling a lot better cared for (because, well, you are), and leaves you more inclined to recommend him to your friends in the future.

Plus, you said it's a bad market. It's probably not the case that he has clients banging down his doors, so he needs to make sure that his existing clients are well cared for to ensure future business.

Sure, he was building a relationship, which reinforces the point that he doesn't care about saving a few minutes on a sale, and that he'd rather go out of his way to talk to me/us more than necessary, instead of trying to move his 'dollars per minute' needle up.

Whether that's 'irrational' depends on your definition of 'irrational' - it surely is irrational from the point of view of pretty much every economic model out there.

You can't apply engineer logic here, which seems like what you're trying to do. It's a sales and customer service business. By spending extra time with you his short term dollars per minute needle might be less than it could be (though this is debatable; he might just legitimately have the spare time, since you said it's a slow market), but his long term dollars per minute needle with do better because of the high level of service he's giving you.

To use a tech analogy, this is like suggesting that Zappos customer service ought to be replace by a knowledge base and automatic responders, since spending all that time and money to have human representatives to make customers happy is inefficient and irrational when it could be done cheaper.

I think you're both saying the same thing -- he's just talking about how economist's models don't include this type of thought in their definitions of rationality because it's very difficult to quantify. Instead, they simplify down to money over time and pretend like that's the only valid formula for defining all behaviors.

This excludes more abstract, intangible elements of the exchange that are likely to lead to increased income down the road, but it also excludes behaviors that aren't geared toward maximizes income. It's totally possible that a person is behaving rationally with a different, more abstract goal in mind, prioritized above money over time, like building good friendships or having a flexible schedule. In fact, people make those kinds of tradeoffs where they explicitly prioritize an intangible, subjective quality of life measurement over raw income all the time, but economic models don't account for this.

Thanks, I didn't feel like typing all that, but that's exactly right.

If I remember correctly the meat of the argument in the book wasn't a just so story about consciously maximized incentives but an empirical look at time on the market for houses that agents sold on behalf of clients versus houses sold on their own behalf.

I haven't read Freakonomics in several years, but was that essay stating that real estate agents were acting dubiously by knowingly taking advantage of the misaligned incentives, or was it just stating that there were misaligned incentives?

I don't think too many agents are overly crass in their taking advantage of sellers by pushing lowball offers. I think most homeowners can develop a general idea of what their house is worth if they just do basic comparisons, and if they have a mortgage or other obligations they must pay out of the home sale, can develop a halfway decent bottom-line figure. Also, when homeowners meet with an agent, one of the first things they discuss after seeing the property is listing price. The agent is incentivized to provide a non-lowball listing price because the owner has yet to sign a contract at that point and could still be soliciting other agents.

I think the real leveraging of the agents commission structure comes on more borderline decisions. For a $300,000 house, maybe the owner won't accept $275,000, but if an offer for $290,000 comes in, the agent may advocate for that offer just to get the deal done, even if she think a $300,000 offer will come in a few weeks.

Seems like the classic "relationship business" vs "transaction business". I would hypothesize that higher net worth individuals and more affluent neighborhoods will promote relationship style brokers.

There are good agents and bad agents, just like good and bad folks in any profession. (Actually, because the barriers to entry are so low, there are probably more bad real estate agents.)

See my comment below about LTV--if a consumer feels they aren't being treated well, the agent might make a bit more on this sale, but lose five figures of income later. Just like that agent that you interacted with.

Now, if you feel like the consumer isn't educated enough to know they are being treated with care, well, that's a different discussion entirely.

A lot will depend on the situation as well. Maybe you're willing to take less money to sell the house faster. Getting a very aggressive agent would be a good option then.

Like with most things, you're best bet is to do the research and gather several options. When I was selling my house, I spoke with three or four agents and ultimately chose a flat-fee MLS service.

Noisy reputation systems and customer education are better than nothing, but they pale in comparison to properly aligned incentives.

Brokers (of all kinds) have been around for millenia and will be around for millenia more. There are always consumers who are willing to pay for expert advice and there are always sellers/producers who are willing to accept less than top dollar because they don't want the hassle of dealing with the consumer (which doesn't scale).

I think that technology can empower the consumer, but doubt it can empower the consumer enough to eliminate middlemen (of which brokers are one type). I've heard that story before, and all I saw was a different kind of middleman (heck, Amazon.com is a middle man for a lot of products).

So, that said, how can you align incentives? You have a limited number of ways to pay the middleman or broker: you can pay them a flat fee, you can pay them an hourly rate, or you can pay them based on the size of the deal. Which incentive structure do you think aligns interests the best?

There are many other options. Here's a simple toy one, designed to eliminate the bad incentives discussed by freakonomics:

Say you have a tiny house that could reasonably sell in the range $90k-$110k, depending on how hard the broker works. If you give the broker 5% of the sales price, then he gets $5k on average, but on the margins he only sees $50 for every $1k he can raise the price by negotiating. So instead, give him 50% of ever dollar of the sales price over $90k. Now he still makes $5k on average (i.e. 50% of the average $10k over the lower-bound of $90k), but on the margins he gets $500 for every $1k he increases the price by negotiating hard!

Needless to say, there are all sorts of other ideas smart people could come up with. Often, the reason these don't work is because they seem complicated, and it's hard as a consumer to assess to broker-fee structure itself (a sort of market failure). But there's a good chance that technology can change this, by making info related to broker fee structures more accessible and more transparent. For instance, data about average broker fees, the distribution of house sales prices, etc. could be collected by a tech start-up, which would have been unfeasible to collect in the past.

This is an interesting idea. I think it would be great for brokerages to publish that information as well.

chatmasta is talking about the _buyer's_ agent. In the US real estate market, the buyer's agent is typically paid a percentage of the sale price. So the buyer's agent has an incentive to convince the buyer to pay a higher price. They of course also have an incentive to convince the buyer to buy quickly, for the reason you said.

Oh, also the _seller_ is typically the party that actually pays the buyer's agent. Yes, this is pretty messed up.

When I was buying my house, I considered not using a buyer's agent because the condo seller said that they could handle both ends of the deal and save me some money. I thought about it and read more into it and eventually decided against that because a buyer's agent is legally required to represent your best interests as the buyer whereas the seller is representing the other party. Buyer's agents are required to disclose any information that they come into that may help you in negotiation. Luckily, I found a good agent from a referral and since I found my place myself I was charged half the commission.

> I...decided against that because a buyer's agent is legally required to represent your best interests as the buyer whereas the seller is representing the other party

This actually depends on if your state's regulations permit dual agency or not; some states, e.g. Massachusetts, permit one agent to represent both parties. Other states, like Florida, forbid it due to the potential conflict of interest.

Either way, though, avoiding dual agency is probably a good call. It's fraught with potential problems, and even if the agent cuts perfectly square corners, the quality of representation will still suffer since the agent must keep both parties in mind at all times.

I worked at Placester for a couple of years and built the system that imports data from real estate agencies. When I left last year, we had coverage with around 90% of the MLS's in the US. Most of what you say is right, but some clarifications and context:

You don't need to be a brokerage to get access to the MLS feed. Each MLS has their own policies for how you can display the data, what logos, size and text needs to be shown on the page with their listings though. Which means it unrealistic to build Zillow/Trulia site off of MLS data. Placester builds them for individual real estate agents which is significantly easier for keeping the MLS happy.

Some MLS's are great and will give you access to the data without much hassle, others are not and you have to pay a lot of money. Even once you get access, you will get almost no technical help or useful documentation on integrating with them. Since MLS's are almost never related, you still need to talk to 300+ different companies in order to get coverage of the US.

There is a standard that most MLS's follow for their data, which is called RETS [1]. I would say about 80% of MLS's use RETS, the problem with RETS is that it's a standard in the same sense that CSS was a standard 10 years ago. The original library I wrote for RETS [2] is open sourced, and is littered with examples [3], [4] and [5] (to name a few), of inconsistencies across RETS servers.

If you can work through all of that, you're golden. It took us about 1.5-2 years to get the experience of seeing how MLS's work in order to simplify the integration process down to 1-2 days, with RETS typically requiring no (or minimal) engineering work.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_Estate_Transaction_Standar... [2] https://github.com/zanker/ruby-rets [3] https://github.com/zanker/ruby-rets/blob/master/lib/rets/htt... [4] https://github.com/zanker/ruby-rets/blob/master/lib/rets/htt... [5] https://github.com/zanker/ruby-rets/blob/master/lib/rets/htt...

Thanks for all your work on ruby-rets! It works like a champ for pulling in listings from MLSPin and CCIAOR. As you mentioned, dealing with all the "certified" RETS vendors is a nightmare. For the uninitiated (and fortunate), RETS has its own querying language called DMQL which is inconsistent across versions and MLS vendors. Even trivial tasks like importing photos are handled with vast difference across MLS vendors.

Despite all the technical hurdles, given their resources, I would be shocked if Zillow and Trulia DIDN'T import the majority of their Mlsdata via RETS. Most MLS providers allow 3rd party access to the data feeds. There is no way all the listing data is re-entered via agents.

Seconded! RETS is a goddamn nightmare. For years we've used librets and it's the worst. When we found your Ruby-only library we got it working with our feeds within the day and I can't tell you how relieved we are not have to deal with librets compilation.

Hah! Glad to hear some people got some use out of it. It was definitely a huge pain to work through all of that.

I bought my house through Red Fin. Though zillow gave some interesting data, the Red Fin experience was much better. In fact because the market is so competitive here (Boston) it was a big leg up.

Our house was listed on a Wednesday morning, with an open house scheduled for Saturday. Since redfin had the most up to date feed, i got an email alert right away. That night we got an early tour, and we put a bid in at list price immediately allowing them 24 hours to accept.

Before that we had put in 4 other offers. We kept getting beat by empty nesting baby boomers offering cash. Having that extra time was a big advantage.

Just out of curiosity, which Boston neighborhood do you live in? I feel like it's such a seller's market in Boston right now, I'll probably wait it out a year before I decide to buy.

i'm in Hyde Park. We bought last July, so I have no idea what the current trend is.

I also am hoping Redfin wins this battle but, in part, for a different reason. The model that Zillow/Trulia work on is rife with scammers. I almost got caught up in one myself on Zillow. And were it not for the bad PR they get that'd be more than happy to allow the scam listings since that only generates more page views for them.

Even notifying Zillow of the scam listing wasn't enough to get it removed. I had to keep replying to them by email and post on social media just to get them to look at the listing to see it was posted by a scammer. Which tells me they generally look the other way unless forced into addressing scams. Sure, they do some analysis on listing prices and alert you when its unusually low but that's clearly not enough.

> And were it not for the bad PR they get that'd be more than happy to allow the scam listings since that only generates more page views for them.

This is really cynical and, honestly, just not true. Last year, for example, we (at Trulia) rolled-out enhanced rental fraud detection that, overnight, took down the number of published rental listings by a significant amount. And many of our metrics -- leads sent, value created for agents/landlords -- are functions of our listing count. We didn't remove these listings -- which nobody had flagged as spam -- because of some murky concept of bad PR. We removed them because we're building a RE platform, we want and need and strive for happy, repeat visitors. And because in the chicken-and-egg of a 2-sided marketplace, the answer at Trulia is clear: the consumer came first. We need happy, engaged consumers, not mindless page views -- banner ads are a small and shrinking share of our total revenue.

It's true that we as an industry -- and now potentially as a combined company -- need to continue to build more sophisticated systems to combat fraud. It's a topic here that gets a lot of discussion and mindshare, and there has been more than one fraud-related innovation to come out of our quarterly hack-weeks.

I should apologize[] and clarify; when I said, "they" I meant Zillow. I've been quite happy with Trulia and I'm honestly dismayed (or at least cautious) that the merger is happening simply because I'm worried the policies will lean towards the Zillow way of doing things rather than the Trulia way.

Now that I re-read my original post I guess it does seem to lump Zillow and Trulia together too much. Again, my apologies.

Trulia guy/lady is right. Your assessment is pretty cynical, and inaccurate. Zillow has a higher volume of fraudulent listings because as of March, it had nearly 2x the market share of Trulia, and a whopping 14x that of Redfin. The listing quality teams work really hard to tear down scams as quickly as possible, but understand that as with any content flagged by users, your report enters a queue and has to be evaluated by a human before any action is taken.

Zillow, like Trulia, also invests a lot in developing their product to prevent, detect, and remove scam listings. To not do so would make the product unviable.

Popular sites are locked into a constant arms race with people seeking to defraud other people. Everyone's gotta make a buck somehow, and fraud is just the unfortunate dark underbelly of commerce.

Edit: Full disclosure—I do work at Zillow, and many of our hackweek projects are also focused on scam detection and prevention. Our objective is to provide the most robust and reliable service to consumers and to connect them with skilled agents, rated by other consumers. In two years I've never seen anyone scoff at a customer complaint or suggest we should ignore something until faced with the threat of "bad PR". I love working at Zillow because, above all, it's full of very decent people. And personally, I'm excited for a potential Zillow/Trulia merger because we all admire them a lot, and we certainly have a lot to learn from each other.

I only know what I experienced and that was having to email Zillow multiple times to point out the fraudulent posting. I even visited the property and spoke with the owner and even SHE contacted Zillow and requested a takedown of the listing. It was only after my repeated emails and posts to social media that the listing was taken down.

Maybe it was a fluke. But I don't trust Zillow.

Have you ever submitted a fraud report to Facebook? It can take up to two weeks. You could also have called.

I don't really understand what Facebook has to do with this but in my experience, calling web sites--assuming you can even find a number to call--is generally a futile endeavor.

> So now it looks like the market will come down to Redfin vs. Trulia/Zillow.

I think that's a terrible mindsent. As a recent homebuyer, I can assure both Redfin & Trulia have a shared adversary: the existing full service broker syndicate in a given city, often deeply entrenched.

I started my home search using Redfin, used them for 6-9 months & put in offers+counter+etc on 3-4 different houses. We saw a lot of places via open house & were surprised how hostile the seller's broker would be towards us on hearing we were using Redfin.

In fact, one agent actually flat out said if we made an offer, she wouldn't bother taking it to their client because we used Redfin. That's actually illegal in my state, so I asked her to clarify. I think she knew I knew at that point & back tracked. Still, my wife was so insulted, she stormed out, refused to see the house, and refused to see any other listing listed by that agent.

This is a great analysis. I'm working on a real estate platform right now [1] and learning the ins and outs of data regulation has been a huge hurdle. As far as I know Trulia and Zillow use lagged and incomplete listings aggregators (e.g. ListHub) and a lot of realtors think their pay-to-play model is hostile to the industry.

To get realtor quality data as a non-brokerage involves convincing each MLS that we're realtor positive and won't cut out agents. There seems to be a lot of fear in this industry that realtors will go the way of travel agents if more tech is introduced. A few of the investor-types we've talked to have tried to push us towards a model that has that potential but, as a lot of people in this thread have noted, we think realtors are providing a lot of value that can't be commoditized so easily.

[1]: http://www.openlistings.co/

Thanks for sharing. Homebuying seems like it could still use lots of disruption.

> although they have coverage in most major metropolitan areas at this point

Sadly there's still a ton of major cities not covered :/ https://www.redfin.com/out-of-area-signup

Yes, homebuying can use a LOT of disruption. Unfortunately there are many many players and change moves slowly. (Yes, Virginia, there are still MLSes that don't want to expose sold listings, as if that's some kind of secret.) If you're interested in this, the 1000 Watt blog (a real estate consulting company) has a lot more about tech and real estate: http://1000watt.net/blog/

What would happen if Zillow started to compete against MLS and tell agents to use it as the primary source of data? This sounds like it would deprive Redfin of one of its main advantages (direct MLS access) by circumventing the problem entirely, and also provide Zillow the opportunity to charge for API access to that data feed, which other developers could build their own apps against, further obsoleting the disjointed MLS system. If they already have 80% of real estate agents double-entering the data, they should be able to find a way to get them to say "We don't need that stinky old MLS anyway".

Is there any reason this couldn't or shouldn't happen? It sounds like maybe there is some regulation that involves MLS that might make this difficult.

>BUT, only brokerages have access to MLS feeds.

A long time ago, I worked for a small real-estate ASP. Now, their target was websites for realtors. They didn't have any direct-to-consumer stuff. Real-estate agent and you want a webpage? give these folks $20-$100 a month, depending on features.

My understanding of our model was that we got access to the MLS data in the customer's name, then wrote scripts to go from the format that one MLS used to our format and let agents from that area list stuff on their website.

Now, while I was there, we didn't have any kind of cross-region search setup, and maybe there would be a legal barrier to doing so... but they sure did have a whole lot of MLS data.

That's the thing. Yeah, every MLS uses a different format, but from experience? once you get in the swing of it, you should be able to write import scripts for several different MLS formats in a single day. It's not actually difficult work. Most of them were some variant on CSV or XML, and the customers are super tolerant of errors, because the MLS data itself was full of errors.

I guess what I'm saying is that at least getting all the MLS data isn't as hard as it looks. I'm not saying it's trivial, but it's the sort of thing, I mean, legal barriers aside, that I could do in a few years with me, a PFY and a salesperson who has real-estate contacts. I'm sure that if you had competence and money, you could do it in a reasonable amount of time.

There's also this: https://www.realscout.com

Although I'm not entirely sure how they operate.

I just bought a house in the bay area, I tried multiple times to contact Redfin but never got any response. I ended up using a traditional agent but I was left wondering what is going on over there. Maybe they have more business than they can handle?

Good afternoon,

I am the Bay Area Manager here at Redfin and wanted to extend my apologies for the lack of service you received. Would you be willing to contact me so that I can further assess the situation you encountered to ensure it does not happen again?

I sincerely appreciate your time and apologize that we let you down.

Kindly, Charmaine Frank Redfin Bay Area Manager charmaine.frank@redfin.com

The time to ask for free help is before they don't need you anymore, you should offer to compensate them like any focus group participant would be. Market research and management consulting both provide highly valuable information.

I honestly thought that all three sites were basically doing the same thing. Thanks for the insight, this was actually very informative and interesting to learn.

Just out of curiosity, do you know how Craigslist sources it's real estate listings? Does it integrate with the MLS or do agents list there separately?

Real Estate agents post their own listings on Craigslist.

There are companies who provide the fancy HTML templates you see real estate agents use, but Craigslist doesn't allow automatic posting of listings.

Market Leader - a company that was acquired by Trulia - provides tools to real estate professionals for obtaining leads. They have local MLS data integrated into their system for easy access to listing data. Not sure if this is entirely true you'd have to be a brokerage to access MLS data.

Isn't the MLS run by the real estate agents that RedFin is trying to disrupt?

>They depend on real estate agents manually inputting their listings into the Zillow/Trulia platforms

Are you sure that Zillow isn't just scraping the MLS data from broker sites?

I'm trying to buy a house right now in Fremont, CA. I can confirm that Zillow has errors and omissions whereas Redfin has entirely accurate data. Every Thursday my realtor sends me MLS listings; in every case, Redfin has the new listings.

Hi CJensen! I'm part of the friendly team over at Movoto. Have you tried using us? Send me at email at NJohnson@movoto.com and I'd love to help you in any way possible.

Zillow receives feeds from syndication services like ListHub and Point2, as well as direct feeds from MLS's.

that's true. zillow lists their source at the bottom of listings.

> Isn't the MLS run by the real estate agents that RedFin is trying to disrupt?

Redfin is disrupting the brokerage model of paying agents price-based commission. As far as I can tell, they are happy to use the existing MLS for listing data, and then put a nice interface on top of it.

> Are you sure that Zillow isn't just scraping the MLS data from broker sites?

Oh, I'm sure they are. But they can't reasonably do this for 100% of regions, and have 100% coverage. My point about the coverage differentiator of Redfin is that in the regions Redfin serves, it has 100% coverage. Zillow claims to serve nationwide, but does not have 100% coverage nationwide.

> Redfin is disrupting the brokerage model of paying agents price-based commission. As far as I can tell, they are happy to use the existing MLS for listing data, and then put a nice interface on top of it.

Not only that, but they're storing the data forever. You can see every time a property is listed, the price changes, status changes to contingent, sale prices, everything.

You don't get that with the MLS system.