Joe Loomer: > what could and should NAR do to dispell your views of it as a criminal enterprise?
In very broad outlines:
1. Stop writing and lobbying for legislation devised to churn the real estate markets.
2. Work tirelessly to eliminate all laws that serve to advance the interests real estate brokers at the expense of consumers in general as well as other people who might want to broker real estate for compensation.
3. Eliminate all coercive membership requirements.
4. Work with lenders and HUD to eliminate the co-brokerage fee so that buyers can obtain — and pay for — true, honest, untainted representation.
5. Work tirelessly to eliminate all laws impinging upon the right of each citizen to buy, own, use, enjoy, profit from and sell real property without interference.
For what it’s worth, I think number 5 is the greatest betrayal of the American people by the National Association of Realtors. Zoning? The NAR is for it. Eminent domain? The NAR is for it. Expropriation of ancillary rights such as water rights? The NAR is for it. At the national level, the grand poohbahs might issue a toothless snarl about Kelo, but at the local level, the Boards of Real Estate that make up the NAR are always working hand-in-pocket with governments and developers to rob ordinary citizens of their right to own their own property.
Soldiers are to be found everywhere in history, but freedom is won and held by citizen soldiers — which means a soldier who has his own land to return to when the fighting is done. By undermining the right to own real property, the NAR works — insidiously, corrosively — to undermine American liberty.
And, for what it’s worth, if the NAR were to apply itself and achieve item number 4 on my list, none of the rest would matter. More than anything else, the NAR and the MLS are made possible by the co-broke. Get rid of that and the rest of this ugly mess will crumble to dust in due course.
Scott Costello says:
I couldn’t agree more. As a real estate investor it seems like a battle sometimes to always be keeping up with the regulations that the NAR have pushed. Soon we won’t be able to do a short sale because you’ll have to have a license. Just my 2 cents
May 21, 2009 — 10:38 am
Joel Carson says:
Hmmmm. I’ll have to think about this. It’s hard to see it from both sides of the fence. Being a member of the NAR, and being in the trenches every day to see how the whole process does and doesn’t work, you’ve caused me to sit back, put my hand on my chin and say, “Hmmm. I’m going to have to think about this.”
May 21, 2009 — 2:04 pm
Joe Loomer says:
Greg, you’ve got me thinking hard, but my big issue with #4 is my client base – primarily VA. I’m blessed with strong continuing connections from my Active Duty days, and sell a lot of property to first-time VA homebuyers. A good number of these folks do not have the money to pay their own closing costs, and rely on Sellers to do so (something they’re happy to do currently – but that won’t last forever). Am I right in reading this to say Buyers should be paying for an agent’s services instead of Sellers?
I’m not completely in the “no” column on this, just that many would simply not be able to. The Georgia Buyer Brokerage form actually has a paragraph for Broker compensation should a Seller not be willing to co-op.
Navy Chief, Navy Pride
May 21, 2009 — 6:42 pm
Greg Swann says:
> Am I right in reading this to say Buyers should be paying for an agent’s services instead of Sellers?
Buyers already bring every dollar that is to be disbursed to the closing table. (I used to issue a caveat about short sales, but short sellers don’t pay anything lately.) Everything that the seller is allegedly paying is a trick of instantaneous math effected on the HUD-1: The buyer pushes the money toward the seller, and, instantaneously, the seller pushes some of it back toward the buyer. Every dollar on the table was put there either by the buyer or the buyer’s lender. If we changed the way we calculate the HUD-1, so that the seller is permitted to pay only for his own representation, and the buyer pays for his own representation, all that will have changed will be notations on the HUD-1.
But when buyers control their own representation, and when they know it, and when they know they’re paying for their own representation, everything will change. Not only will buyers take theit role much more seriously, but the citadel of secrecy and lies that is the MLS system will be torn asunder.
Since you mention it, doing the same thing with closing costs would also make sense. Lenders love to lie to themselves. It would be better for everyone if they would stop.
Much more here.
May 21, 2009 — 7:39 pm
Jim Reppond says:
I don’t agree with all of Greg’s solutions here(but I rarely do:-). Conceptually, he’s right on target, though. And our elected NAR officials don’t get it at all. I’m more in favor of a national single-agency representation law than revision of the HUD-1. Elimination of dual-agency would dramatically reduce the greed incentive for non-representation, IMO.
I’ve lived in countries where there is little or no zoning and it creates a very poor social infrastructure. No one wants their home to end up across the street from a chemical factory with a cell tower and a liqueur store on either side of them. You need some governmental guidance, and the vehicle is usually zoning.
May 25, 2009 — 6:13 am