As many of you know, we are moving toward an industry that primarily works for home buyers to one that primarily works for home sellers. Hence http://www.nachi.org/fetchreportfriendlyseal.htm and www.MoveInCertified.com , etc. Anyway, the new site we are building for InterNACHI (8th Wonder of the World) is going to have a few new features. One will allow those of you working for sellers to offer your inspections at a base price but with the seller’s permission to charge each potential buyer or interested party a nominal fee to see the report PAY-PER-VIEW. Furthermore, the system will automatically alert anyone who has paid to view one of your reports any time you upload anything else to that home’s fetchreport file (such as re-inspection reports). This is also a great tool to use by those of you promoting annual inspections. It will also alert local homebuyers everytime you offer other reports PAY-PER-VIEW in the area they are shopping in.
The new InterNACHI site and PAY-PER-VIEW reports… the future belongs to us!
*TREC has no prohibition on offering an inspection report to parties other
than your client (for a fee or otherwise), as long as you have your client’s
You are probably familiar with Section 535.220(e)(7) of the TREC Rules,
which prohibits inspectors from disclosing inspection results of client
information without the client’s prior consent. However, if you have your
client’s written consent to sell the report, you may do so.
There was a thread a few weeks ago where this idea was discussed. I think I was the one who mentioned it as a source of revenue for inspectors, and that I was willing to build a platform around it. I recall there were some concerns that inspectors didn’t think people would pay for a report when they could simply call the homeowner as ask to see it for free. There were other valid points as well. I personally think the idea is valid, but you would certainly have to convince homesellers that they should let you make money off a report they paid for.
If Realtors pushed houses on their internet MLS web pages with the MIC
inspection report link for access to the reports… this would work like a hand
in glove deal. The MLS page would show the house and the MIC link would
give access to reports for a small fee. They could be sold over and over.
That’s an excellent idea, Mr. McKenna. Now, we only need to find NAR execs willing to let NACHI negotiate with the MLS sysops (system operators) over which the NAR has influence, if not outright control. Inspection Association Wars Part Duex, anyone? I doubt ASHI or NAHI would let InterNACHI have that much of a presence through MLS systems.
Robert, you doubted too soon. ASHI and the little “me too!” association out of Minneapolis with only 890 members are too weak to even be a factor, let alone stop us. You surely jest when you think that they have any influence over MLS systems. We already have agents linking to MoveInCertified online inspection reports from their listings in their MLS. NAR doesn’t run the Multiple Listing Services and couldn’t object anyway, agents are almost all commissioned independent contractors not employees and so by IRS rules and anti-trust laws, operate independently. They will do what is best for themselves and their clients (in this case, sellers)… and that means linking to the MIC reports. If agents want it, NAR wants it, or at least won’t object. NAR has been pushing for seller inspections for nearly a decade now for reasons delineated in: http://www.moveincertified.com/agents. Time has come. They’re already doin’ it.
I didn’t doubt anything or anyone. I brought up points that were previously discussed in another thread because they seemed relevant to this thread. In fact, most of those points were brought up by inspectors…not me.
Never said they could or would. I said the NAR execs have the majority of influence over MLS…and I only said that in reference to Mr. McKenna’s post.
Never said they did. Read my post again. I said if NACHI could find a way to integrate buyable reports into MLS systems, it would cause other associations to lobby against it. It’s pretty much a fact that they would.
Same as you I suppose…just a different part of it. Nonetheless, I think we’re talking about two different things. Linking a report to a listing and integrating a module into MLS software [to allow agents to upload reports] are two different issues. Internet Data Exchange (IDX) standards currently don’t allow for such modules to be installed. I served over 800 real estate agencies as a developer of IDX compliant software for two years. Like I said, I think we’re addressing different issues.
At one point in history (within the past twenty years), the NAR began buying ownership in MLS systems across the country. Their influence on MLS providers isn’t a secret. To wit:
“In the USA, the NAR is the conduit through which information is gathered and redistributed. If “information is the new currency” then when it comes to the real estate industry, the NAR owns the printing presses and the banks. These banks of information are called MLS’s (Multiple Listing Service) and members are required to log in the details of every property that they contract to sell. It’s that information “currency” that consumers demand. Buyers want to know what’s available as inventory when its time to buy a home. The NAR and its 1.3 million members cash in on this demand for information day in and day out.”
But then you are saying that the NAR has influence over MLS providers, right? What good is talking about the NAR and MLS in the same conversation if one doesn’t have influence over the other?
I don’t know what that has to do with homesellers allowing agents to sell reports they paid for, nor do I know what this has to do with integrating a MIC module into MLS software (which, I think, is what Mr. McKenna and I were talking about), but I don’t doubt that agents will find this valuable. Now, the question is what can NACHI do to get agents to petition MLS providers to include a module in their software that fully integrates MIC reports into their systems. But, if that happened, don’t you think agents would want a cut of the “action” since they would be the ones loading reports into their MLS accounts that they pay a monthly or annual fee to use?