The cult of professional specialists

[drboom]

[quote=bearishgurl][quote=drboom, in re: bearishgurl]

To put it mildly. She claimed to be active in both capacities in an earlier post, but now she has clarified her position.[/quote]

drboom, can you point to me an earlier post where I said I was currently an “active” agent?[/quote]

Sure:

http://piggington.com/how_to_buy_wout_a_realtor#comment-164490

[quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=drboom][quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.[/quote]

It’s not a “waste of time,” drboom. A “licensee” is simply that, a licensee. A RE licensee possessing a CA Salesperson or Broker License in CA IN NO WAY MEANS THEIR LICENSE IS ACTIVE. Many, many CA lawyers and CPA’s are LICENSED CA RE BROKERS because they were able to sit for the “CA RE Broker’s License Exam” without the necessary 4 years CONCURRENT experience as a RE Salesperson. MANY CA attorneys are licensees (RE Brokers) themselves with NO RE SALESPERSON EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! MANY RE licensees work in various RE or other capacities such as: property manager, escrow officer, loan officer, title officer, bankruptcy trustee, traveling notary, court clerk, paralegal (such as myself), etc. “Licensees,” active or inactive, hail from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. WE ARE ALL FREE TO HANG OUR LICENSES (or set up “shop” if we are a broker) TOMORROW.

If YOU are enamored of this profession, drboom, YOU ARE FREE to GO THRU THE PROCEDURES to obtain your OWN license!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=drboom][quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.[/quote]

It’s not a “waste of time,” drboom. A “licensee” is simply that, a licensee. A RE licensee possessing a CA Salesperson or Broker License in CA IN NO WAY MEANS THEIR LICENSE IS ACTIVE. Many, many CA lawyers and CPA’s are LICENSED CA RE BROKERS because they were able to sit for the “CA RE Broker’s License Exam” without the necessary 4 years CONCURRENT experience as a RE Salesperson. MANY CA attorneys are licensees (RE Brokers) themselves with NO RE SALESPERSON EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! MANY RE licensees work in various RE or other capacities such as: property manager, escrow officer, loan officer, title officer, bankruptcy trustee, traveling notary, court clerk, paralegal (such as myself), etc. “Licensees,” active or inactive, hail from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. WE ARE ALL FREE TO HANG OUR LICENSES (or set up “shop” if we are a broker) TOMORROW.

If YOU are enamored of this profession, drboom, YOU ARE FREE to GO THRU THE PROCEDURES to obtain your OWN license!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=drboom][quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.[/quote]

It’s not a “waste of time,” drboom. A “licensee” is simply that, a licensee. A RE licensee possessing a CA Salesperson or Broker License in CA IN NO WAY MEANS THEIR LICENSE IS ACTIVE. Many, many CA lawyers and CPA’s are LICENSED CA RE BROKERS because they were able to sit for the “CA RE Broker’s License Exam” without the necessary 4 years CONCURRENT experience as a RE Salesperson. MANY CA attorneys are licensees (RE Brokers) themselves with NO RE SALESPERSON EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! MANY RE licensees work in various RE or other capacities such as: property manager, escrow officer, loan officer, title officer, bankruptcy trustee, traveling notary, court clerk, paralegal (such as myself), etc. “Licensees,” active or inactive, hail from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. WE ARE ALL FREE TO HANG OUR LICENSES (or set up “shop” if we are a broker) TOMORROW.

If YOU are enamored of this profession, drboom, YOU ARE FREE to GO THRU THE PROCEDURES to obtain your OWN license!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=drboom][quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.[/quote]

It’s not a “waste of time,” drboom. A “licensee” is simply that, a licensee. A RE licensee possessing a CA Salesperson or Broker License in CA IN NO WAY MEANS THEIR LICENSE IS ACTIVE. Many, many CA lawyers and CPA’s are LICENSED CA RE BROKERS because they were able to sit for the “CA RE Broker’s License Exam” without the necessary 4 years CONCURRENT experience as a RE Salesperson. MANY CA attorneys are licensees (RE Brokers) themselves with NO RE SALESPERSON EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! MANY RE licensees work in various RE or other capacities such as: property manager, escrow officer, loan officer, title officer, bankruptcy trustee, traveling notary, court clerk, paralegal (such as myself), etc. “Licensees,” active or inactive, hail from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. WE ARE ALL FREE TO HANG OUR LICENSES (or set up “shop” if we are a broker) TOMORROW.

If YOU are enamored of this profession, drboom, YOU ARE FREE to GO THRU THE PROCEDURES to obtain your OWN license!

[bearishgurl]

[quote=drboom][quote=bearishgurl]As a licensee going on three decades with nearly that amount of concurrent legal experience as well (much of it in the field of land use) …[/quote]

If you goofed, you goofed. But the meaning is clear. If you want to start playing word games with me and quibbling over definitions, go ahead and waste your time.[/quote]

It’s not a “waste of time,” drboom. A “licensee” is simply that, a licensee. A RE licensee possessing a CA Salesperson or Broker License in CA IN NO WAY MEANS THEIR LICENSE IS ACTIVE. Many, many CA lawyers and CPA’s are LICENSED CA RE BROKERS because they were able to sit for the “CA RE Broker’s License Exam” without the necessary 4 years CONCURRENT experience as a RE Salesperson. MANY CA attorneys are licensees (RE Brokers) themselves with NO RE SALESPERSON EXPERIENCE WHATSOEVER! MANY RE licensees work in various RE or other capacities such as: property manager, escrow officer, loan officer, title officer, bankruptcy trustee, traveling notary, court clerk, paralegal (such as myself), etc. “Licensees,” active or inactive, hail from ALL WALKS OF LIFE. WE ARE ALL FREE TO HANG OUR LICENSES (or set up “shop” if we are a broker) TOMORROW.

If YOU are enamored of this profession, drboom, YOU ARE FREE to GO THRU THE PROCEDURES to obtain your OWN license!

[bearishgurl]

drboom,

Just because I’m currently not an “active agent” doesn’t mean I’ve fallen off the face of the planet or have been suddenly afflicted with senility.

Up until about nine months ago, I received the “Westlaw Real Estate Practitioner” service in my home, due to a subscription a law firm-client of mine had. When it became too expensive ($569 mo) for them, they cut it down to the bare essentials and no longer have a valid online password. This gave me access to public records far beyond what REALIST offers (avail. to MLS subscribers), but NOT some of the statistical models and lists of currently active, contingent, pending and bomk properties that REALIST subscribers are privvy to. I COULD avail myself of REALIST if I wished to pay the fee. I still get relevant case law and subscribe to several online RE publications and am still an active licensee.

Aside from that, I’ve worked on many different RE cases over the years involving RE Agency, contracts, land use issues, CQUA issues, fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, construction defect (HOA), RESPA violations, administrative law and appeals, etc.

I HAVE participated in short-sales (before anyone ever heard of them)

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market?page=4

and DO HAVE many years RE sales experience BUT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE ANY OF THE PROPRIETARY AGENT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Several fundamental things about CA real estate HAVE NOT CHANGED over the years. The LAW has evolved somewhat but the basic principles of RE, including agency; non-judicial foreclosure; title insurance; the subdivision map act; property management; covenants, conditions and restrictions; forms of ownership; escrows; easements; landlord-tenant issues, general plan and taxation, etc. have NOT CHANGED.

[quote=sdrealtor]Also please dont confuse me with BG who is an entirely different viewpoint. She is not an active REa gent and is in the legal profession so she is overly sensitive to the intracies of the contract law. While I cant argue with her interpreations of the legalities the reality of what actually happens in the open market tendss to be quite different.[/quote]

drboom, I understand what sdr is saying here but I view events as a court would, after a party to a transaction has already alleged they were damaged in a real estate transaction or land-use issue and sued (or were sued). I HAVE been on the “street” or in the “open market” but the way I view transactions may be more defensive or with an eye out to problematic issues than the way sdr views them. Neither positive or negative . . . just different. In other words, it would be *difficult* to successfully blow smoke up my a$$ at this late date but you could always try. That’s why we have a “free country.” ;=)

[bearishgurl]

drboom,

Just because I’m currently not an “active agent” doesn’t mean I’ve fallen off the face of the planet or have been suddenly afflicted with senility.

Up until about nine months ago, I received the “Westlaw Real Estate Practitioner” service in my home, due to a subscription a law firm-client of mine had. When it became too expensive ($569 mo) for them, they cut it down to the bare essentials and no longer have a valid online password. This gave me access to public records far beyond what REALIST offers (avail. to MLS subscribers), but NOT some of the statistical models and lists of currently active, contingent, pending and bomk properties that REALIST subscribers are privvy to. I COULD avail myself of REALIST if I wished to pay the fee. I still get relevant case law and subscribe to several online RE publications and am still an active licensee.

Aside from that, I’ve worked on many different RE cases over the years involving RE Agency, contracts, land use issues, CQUA issues, fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, construction defect (HOA), RESPA violations, administrative law and appeals, etc.

I HAVE participated in short-sales (before anyone ever heard of them)

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market?page=4

and DO HAVE many years RE sales experience BUT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE ANY OF THE PROPRIETARY AGENT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Several fundamental things about CA real estate HAVE NOT CHANGED over the years. The LAW has evolved somewhat but the basic principles of RE, including agency; non-judicial foreclosure; title insurance; the subdivision map act; property management; covenants, conditions and restrictions; forms of ownership; escrows; easements; landlord-tenant issues, general plan and taxation, etc. have NOT CHANGED.

[quote=sdrealtor]Also please dont confuse me with BG who is an entirely different viewpoint. She is not an active REa gent and is in the legal profession so she is overly sensitive to the intracies of the contract law. While I cant argue with her interpreations of the legalities the reality of what actually happens in the open market tendss to be quite different.[/quote]

drboom, I understand what sdr is saying here but I view events as a court would, after a party to a transaction has already alleged they were damaged in a real estate transaction or land-use issue and sued (or were sued). I HAVE been on the “street” or in the “open market” but the way I view transactions may be more defensive or with an eye out to problematic issues than the way sdr views them. Neither positive or negative . . . just different. In other words, it would be *difficult* to successfully blow smoke up my a$$ at this late date but you could always try. That’s why we have a “free country.” ;=)

[bearishgurl]

drboom,

Just because I’m currently not an “active agent” doesn’t mean I’ve fallen off the face of the planet or have been suddenly afflicted with senility.

Up until about nine months ago, I received the “Westlaw Real Estate Practitioner” service in my home, due to a subscription a law firm-client of mine had. When it became too expensive ($569 mo) for them, they cut it down to the bare essentials and no longer have a valid online password. This gave me access to public records far beyond what REALIST offers (avail. to MLS subscribers), but NOT some of the statistical models and lists of currently active, contingent, pending and bomk properties that REALIST subscribers are privvy to. I COULD avail myself of REALIST if I wished to pay the fee. I still get relevant case law and subscribe to several online RE publications and am still an active licensee.

Aside from that, I’ve worked on many different RE cases over the years involving RE Agency, contracts, land use issues, CQUA issues, fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, construction defect (HOA), RESPA violations, administrative law and appeals, etc.

I HAVE participated in short-sales (before anyone ever heard of them)

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market?page=4

and DO HAVE many years RE sales experience BUT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE ANY OF THE PROPRIETARY AGENT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Several fundamental things about CA real estate HAVE NOT CHANGED over the years. The LAW has evolved somewhat but the basic principles of RE, including agency; non-judicial foreclosure; title insurance; the subdivision map act; property management; covenants, conditions and restrictions; forms of ownership; escrows; easements; landlord-tenant issues, general plan and taxation, etc. have NOT CHANGED.

[quote=sdrealtor]Also please dont confuse me with BG who is an entirely different viewpoint. She is not an active REa gent and is in the legal profession so she is overly sensitive to the intracies of the contract law. While I cant argue with her interpreations of the legalities the reality of what actually happens in the open market tendss to be quite different.[/quote]

drboom, I understand what sdr is saying here but I view events as a court would, after a party to a transaction has already alleged they were damaged in a real estate transaction or land-use issue and sued (or were sued). I HAVE been on the “street” or in the “open market” but the way I view transactions may be more defensive or with an eye out to problematic issues than the way sdr views them. Neither positive or negative . . . just different. In other words, it would be *difficult* to successfully blow smoke up my a$$ at this late date but you could always try. That’s why we have a “free country.” ;=)

[bearishgurl]

drboom,

Just because I’m currently not an “active agent” doesn’t mean I’ve fallen off the face of the planet or have been suddenly afflicted with senility.

Up until about nine months ago, I received the “Westlaw Real Estate Practitioner” service in my home, due to a subscription a law firm-client of mine had. When it became too expensive ($569 mo) for them, they cut it down to the bare essentials and no longer have a valid online password. This gave me access to public records far beyond what REALIST offers (avail. to MLS subscribers), but NOT some of the statistical models and lists of currently active, contingent, pending and bomk properties that REALIST subscribers are privvy to. I COULD avail myself of REALIST if I wished to pay the fee. I still get relevant case law and subscribe to several online RE publications and am still an active licensee.

Aside from that, I’ve worked on many different RE cases over the years involving RE Agency, contracts, land use issues, CQUA issues, fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, construction defect (HOA), RESPA violations, administrative law and appeals, etc.

I HAVE participated in short-sales (before anyone ever heard of them)

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market?page=4

and DO HAVE many years RE sales experience BUT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE ANY OF THE PROPRIETARY AGENT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Several fundamental things about CA real estate HAVE NOT CHANGED over the years. The LAW has evolved somewhat but the basic principles of RE, including agency; non-judicial foreclosure; title insurance; the subdivision map act; property management; covenants, conditions and restrictions; forms of ownership; escrows; easements; landlord-tenant issues, general plan and taxation, etc. have NOT CHANGED.

[quote=sdrealtor]Also please dont confuse me with BG who is an entirely different viewpoint. She is not an active REa gent and is in the legal profession so she is overly sensitive to the intracies of the contract law. While I cant argue with her interpreations of the legalities the reality of what actually happens in the open market tendss to be quite different.[/quote]

drboom, I understand what sdr is saying here but I view events as a court would, after a party to a transaction has already alleged they were damaged in a real estate transaction or land-use issue and sued (or were sued). I HAVE been on the “street” or in the “open market” but the way I view transactions may be more defensive or with an eye out to problematic issues than the way sdr views them. Neither positive or negative . . . just different. In other words, it would be *difficult* to successfully blow smoke up my a$$ at this late date but you could always try. That’s why we have a “free country.” ;=)

[bearishgurl]

drboom,

Just because I’m currently not an “active agent” doesn’t mean I’ve fallen off the face of the planet or have been suddenly afflicted with senility.

Up until about nine months ago, I received the “Westlaw Real Estate Practitioner” service in my home, due to a subscription a law firm-client of mine had. When it became too expensive ($569 mo) for them, they cut it down to the bare essentials and no longer have a valid online password. This gave me access to public records far beyond what REALIST offers (avail. to MLS subscribers), but NOT some of the statistical models and lists of currently active, contingent, pending and bomk properties that REALIST subscribers are privvy to. I COULD avail myself of REALIST if I wished to pay the fee. I still get relevant case law and subscribe to several online RE publications and am still an active licensee.

Aside from that, I’ve worked on many different RE cases over the years involving RE Agency, contracts, land use issues, CQUA issues, fraud, embezzlement, breach of fiduciary duty, quiet title, construction defect (HOA), RESPA violations, administrative law and appeals, etc.

I HAVE participated in short-sales (before anyone ever heard of them)

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market?page=4

and DO HAVE many years RE sales experience BUT THIS WAS ALL BEFORE ANY OF THE PROPRIETARY AGENT INFORMATION WAS RELEASED TO THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Several fundamental things about CA real estate HAVE NOT CHANGED over the years. The LAW has evolved somewhat but the basic principles of RE, including agency; non-judicial foreclosure; title insurance; the subdivision map act; property management; covenants, conditions and restrictions; forms of ownership; escrows; easements; landlord-tenant issues, general plan and taxation, etc. have NOT CHANGED.

[quote=sdrealtor]Also please dont confuse me with BG who is an entirely different viewpoint. She is not an active REa gent and is in the legal profession so she is overly sensitive to the intracies of the contract law. While I cant argue with her interpreations of the legalities the reality of what actually happens in the open market tendss to be quite different.[/quote]

drboom, I understand what sdr is saying here but I view events as a court would, after a party to a transaction has already alleged they were damaged in a real estate transaction or land-use issue and sued (or were sued). I HAVE been on the “street” or in the “open market” but the way I view transactions may be more defensive or with an eye out to problematic issues than the way sdr views them. Neither positive or negative . . . just different. In other words, it would be *difficult* to successfully blow smoke up my a$$ at this late date but you could always try. That’s why we have a “free country.” ;=)

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[pjwal]

Middlemen.

Yes, they can and will always provide value in a free market economy. The very fact we have investing services for common stock avows to this. You can complain that a common man cannot walk into the trading floor on Wall Street to make a transaction but the efficiency of the free market would be completely bogged down if it was not represented by trading services.

The best we can hope for is a competitive system where individuals like sdr provide an honest service, in which we will pay more if we had focused all our learning for a long time (assuming we were smart enough to pull it off). But as any consumer, we often pay a little bit more because it is not our “unique ability” to know this market otherwise we would make it our career. We wander over to Costco and Home Depot rather than buying from the Samsung/PepsiCO/Fisher directly. If you feel bad about it, you can always pick up some of their bonds on the market and hold them till maturity to make up some of that markup (as you can with home builder as well btw).

Don’t take your anger out on these middlemen. Find one that is honest to deal with and be happy for that.

[Author]

Posts