The revised existing-home sales have now been reported by the NAR. As reported, for the total period in between 2007 thru 2010, the benchmark revision decreases current-residence sales by 14.3%. NAR states, “It appears that half of the revisions result solely from a decline in for-sale-by-owners with a lot more sellers turning to Realtors(r) to marketplace their houses when the industry softened. The FSBO market was overwhelmed throughout the housing downturn, and because most FSBOs are not reported in MLSs, national estimates of existing-property sales began to diverge based on prior assumptions.”

Now here’s exactly where the shell game begins, so spend close attention to the facts given by NAR and then you can choose what is going on. NAR quotes the decline in FSBOs from the year 2000, not 2007, the base year of the revision! As reported by NAR, in 2000, FSBOs were 16% of all existing-house sales, declining to 9% in 2010. Appears like a massive decline in FSBO sales. So, why do you suppose they chosen the year 2000 for reported FSBO sales when the benchmark revision is from 2007. Based on the annual NAR research study of home buyers and sellers, the details are as follows. In 2007, FSBO sales accounted for 12% of existing-house sales, in 2008 (13%), 2009 (11%) and 2010 (9%). So, during the period of the benchmark revision, the percentage of FSBO sales varied little a lot more than a couple of percentage points, hardly what I would call “FSBOs being overwhelmed throughout the housing downturn.” A lot more importantly, NAR failed to communicate that the percentage of FSBO sales actually elevated again in 2011 to ten%! In light of this, it is challenging to comprehend how FSBOs could account for ‘half of the revisions’ for the duration of the period from 2007 to 2010.

If indeed FSBOs are the result in of the decline, why then did the benchmark revision only adjust the data from 2007 and not all the way back to 2000. Furthermore, to the extent NAR identifies FSBOs to be the trigger, and to the extent NAR research FSBO sales annually, why did NAR wait ten years to adjust the information! It just doesn’t add up. It seems to me that FSBOs are unfairly being singled out as the main reason for the benchmark revision and that NAR when once again is attempting to reduce the importance of the FSBO seller.

NAR appears to have an agenda to paint a image that FSBOs are becoming less and less important in the real estate landscape. Nothing could be further from the truth. NAR conveniently limits FSBO sales to only those sales that do not involve a Realtor(r) in any way and omits the fact that there is an equally big portion of home sales that are in reality a FSBO sale that use a hybrid selling model…flat-fee MLS. These hybrid FSBOs recognize the worth of becoming listed on the MLS for agents to see. They can get the very best of all worlds by using the services of a flat-fee MLS agent to put there home on a neighborhood MLS and put much more cash in their pocket by only paying a buyer’s agent a commission which is usually somewhere between two-three%.

FSBO sellers are right here to stay in a single form or another. FSBO sellers out of financial necessity are figuring out how to put far more funds in their pocket by deciding on Realtor(r) services ala carte to suit their precise needs. FSBO sales in the broader sense are not declining and we require to embrace new enterprise models that embrace all residence sellers and not just those willing, nor in a position to afford to pay 5-6% for traditional complete-service assistance.

So you decide whether or not the NAR information adds up!