From - REALTOR(r) Magazine Online
The New York Times left out some key facts about FSBO listings in a recent article that claimed unrepresented sellers in Madison, Wis., got a better deal than sellers who used real estate agents, the National Association of Realtors says.
The June 18 article, “One City’s Home Sellers Do Better on Their Own,” detailed a study by Northwestern University economists that claimed FSBOs in Madison, Wis., typically sold their homes at a higher price than people who worked with real estate agents. The researchers used home-sales data from 1998 to 2004.
“The study shows - but the Times didn’t bother to mention - that only two-thirds of the listings at the for-sale-by-owner Web site were sold, while more than eight of 10 of the MLS listings were sold,” NAR President Pat V. Combs wrote in a letter to the editor.
Combs added that the FSBO Web site mentioned in the article carried less than 10 percent of all Madison-area listings last year, and carries even fewer this year, showing that consumers know that Realtors add value to the transaction.
According to the Times article, the study’s authors have presented their findings at many universities, but have not yet submitted the paper to a journal for peer review.
Combs’ letter:
“The article ... publicized a misleading academic study on the real estate market and unrepresented sellers in Madison, Wis.
“The study shows - but the Times didn’t bother to mention - that only two-thirds of the listings at the for-sale-by-owner Web site were sold, while more than eight of 10 of the MLS listings were sold. Last year, the Web site carried less than 10 percent of all area listings, and less than that so far in 2007. It’s clear that home sellers in Madison are voting with their feet because they know that Realtors add value to the real estate transaction.
“Fact is our research shows that about 85 percent of all sellers nationwide choose to work with a real estate professional. Realtors have experience that enables them to guide sellers in today’s changing market.
“Too bad for consumers the Times doesn’t know that.”