The cult of professional specialists

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]

It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]. . . It’s set up by and for lawyers, of course, so there again we have a monopoly tax. . . [/quote]

Technically, things like real estate, law, medicine, etc. are not monopolies. In a true monopoly, it is impossible to enter the monopolized area.[/quote]

The MLS is a monopoly. The USDOJ Antitrust Division has already beaten the NAR over the head a time or two about this.

In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

[quote]On the other hand, these professions do have high barriers to entry. The question that you have to ask yourself is which is the better deal – doing whatever is necessary to overcome those barriers in order to enter the profession (as bearishgurl described), or paying for the services of someone else who has overcome the barriers. It’s very dependent on what you want to do in life and in business.[/quote]

True. I do it for pragmatic reasons. Lawyers do nothing but drive up costs for everyone, so I avoid them except when I need answers to specific questions. I sat down with a probate attorney not that long ago, for instance, but I won’t actually hire him. I paid for my $380/hour consultation and got my questions answered. I don’t plan on getting charged with a crime, but I won’t screw around filing my own briefs if I do. I’ll hire the best lawyer I can afford.

With doctors, I’ve been sewn together enough times in my life to not bother going back to get stitches removed. It’s a waste of their time and my money, so I just do it myself if I can reach them or get some help if I can’t.

Specialists and professionals are valuable when used correctly, but running to them with every little problem isn’t the mark of a real adult IMO.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]. . . It’s set up by and for lawyers, of course, so there again we have a monopoly tax. . . [/quote]

Technically, things like real estate, law, medicine, etc. are not monopolies. In a true monopoly, it is impossible to enter the monopolized area.[/quote]

The MLS is a monopoly. The USDOJ Antitrust Division has already beaten the NAR over the head a time or two about this.

In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

[quote]On the other hand, these professions do have high barriers to entry. The question that you have to ask yourself is which is the better deal – doing whatever is necessary to overcome those barriers in order to enter the profession (as bearishgurl described), or paying for the services of someone else who has overcome the barriers. It’s very dependent on what you want to do in life and in business.[/quote]

True. I do it for pragmatic reasons. Lawyers do nothing but drive up costs for everyone, so I avoid them except when I need answers to specific questions. I sat down with a probate attorney not that long ago, for instance, but I won’t actually hire him. I paid for my $380/hour consultation and got my questions answered. I don’t plan on getting charged with a crime, but I won’t screw around filing my own briefs if I do. I’ll hire the best lawyer I can afford.

With doctors, I’ve been sewn together enough times in my life to not bother going back to get stitches removed. It’s a waste of their time and my money, so I just do it myself if I can reach them or get some help if I can’t.

Specialists and professionals are valuable when used correctly, but running to them with every little problem isn’t the mark of a real adult IMO.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]. . . It’s set up by and for lawyers, of course, so there again we have a monopoly tax. . . [/quote]

Technically, things like real estate, law, medicine, etc. are not monopolies. In a true monopoly, it is impossible to enter the monopolized area.[/quote]

The MLS is a monopoly. The USDOJ Antitrust Division has already beaten the NAR over the head a time or two about this.

In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

[quote]On the other hand, these professions do have high barriers to entry. The question that you have to ask yourself is which is the better deal – doing whatever is necessary to overcome those barriers in order to enter the profession (as bearishgurl described), or paying for the services of someone else who has overcome the barriers. It’s very dependent on what you want to do in life and in business.[/quote]

True. I do it for pragmatic reasons. Lawyers do nothing but drive up costs for everyone, so I avoid them except when I need answers to specific questions. I sat down with a probate attorney not that long ago, for instance, but I won’t actually hire him. I paid for my $380/hour consultation and got my questions answered. I don’t plan on getting charged with a crime, but I won’t screw around filing my own briefs if I do. I’ll hire the best lawyer I can afford.

With doctors, I’ve been sewn together enough times in my life to not bother going back to get stitches removed. It’s a waste of their time and my money, so I just do it myself if I can reach them or get some help if I can’t.

Specialists and professionals are valuable when used correctly, but running to them with every little problem isn’t the mark of a real adult IMO.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]. . . It’s set up by and for lawyers, of course, so there again we have a monopoly tax. . . [/quote]

Technically, things like real estate, law, medicine, etc. are not monopolies. In a true monopoly, it is impossible to enter the monopolized area.[/quote]

The MLS is a monopoly. The USDOJ Antitrust Division has already beaten the NAR over the head a time or two about this.

In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

[quote]On the other hand, these professions do have high barriers to entry. The question that you have to ask yourself is which is the better deal – doing whatever is necessary to overcome those barriers in order to enter the profession (as bearishgurl described), or paying for the services of someone else who has overcome the barriers. It’s very dependent on what you want to do in life and in business.[/quote]

True. I do it for pragmatic reasons. Lawyers do nothing but drive up costs for everyone, so I avoid them except when I need answers to specific questions. I sat down with a probate attorney not that long ago, for instance, but I won’t actually hire him. I paid for my $380/hour consultation and got my questions answered. I don’t plan on getting charged with a crime, but I won’t screw around filing my own briefs if I do. I’ll hire the best lawyer I can afford.

With doctors, I’ve been sewn together enough times in my life to not bother going back to get stitches removed. It’s a waste of their time and my money, so I just do it myself if I can reach them or get some help if I can’t.

Specialists and professionals are valuable when used correctly, but running to them with every little problem isn’t the mark of a real adult IMO.

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]. . . It’s set up by and for lawyers, of course, so there again we have a monopoly tax. . . [/quote]

Technically, things like real estate, law, medicine, etc. are not monopolies. In a true monopoly, it is impossible to enter the monopolized area.[/quote]

The MLS is a monopoly. The USDOJ Antitrust Division has already beaten the NAR over the head a time or two about this.

In the legal field, lawyers are granted the power to vet their own membership by the state. That’s a monopoly. Same thing goes for the practice of medicine.

[quote]On the other hand, these professions do have high barriers to entry. The question that you have to ask yourself is which is the better deal – doing whatever is necessary to overcome those barriers in order to enter the profession (as bearishgurl described), or paying for the services of someone else who has overcome the barriers. It’s very dependent on what you want to do in life and in business.[/quote]

True. I do it for pragmatic reasons. Lawyers do nothing but drive up costs for everyone, so I avoid them except when I need answers to specific questions. I sat down with a probate attorney not that long ago, for instance, but I won’t actually hire him. I paid for my $380/hour consultation and got my questions answered. I don’t plan on getting charged with a crime, but I won’t screw around filing my own briefs if I do. I’ll hire the best lawyer I can afford.

With doctors, I’ve been sewn together enough times in my life to not bother going back to get stitches removed. It’s a waste of their time and my money, so I just do it myself if I can reach them or get some help if I can’t.

Specialists and professionals are valuable when used correctly, but running to them with every little problem isn’t the mark of a real adult IMO.

[urbanrealtor]

Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.
Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.
I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.
I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.

The DOJ runins with the NAR were focused around 2 primary issues of contention.

1: It is unreasonable to require strict membership to actually read listings on the MLS.
(Pretty reasonable IMO)

2: It is unreasonable (and arguably price fixing) to require that membership in local Realtor boards and in the MLS be predicated on a specific fee schedule and service selection.
(This was because Help-U-Sell and other discounters were gaining market share and more established agents wanted to push them out of the market for RE services. Also, a very reasonable position by the DOJ).

In both cases, it was determined that the NAR was acting unfairly.

However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.
Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.
I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.
I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.

The DOJ runins with the NAR were focused around 2 primary issues of contention.

1: It is unreasonable to require strict membership to actually read listings on the MLS.
(Pretty reasonable IMO)

2: It is unreasonable (and arguably price fixing) to require that membership in local Realtor boards and in the MLS be predicated on a specific fee schedule and service selection.
(This was because Help-U-Sell and other discounters were gaining market share and more established agents wanted to push them out of the market for RE services. Also, a very reasonable position by the DOJ).

In both cases, it was determined that the NAR was acting unfairly.

However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.
Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.
I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.
I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.

The DOJ runins with the NAR were focused around 2 primary issues of contention.

1: It is unreasonable to require strict membership to actually read listings on the MLS.
(Pretty reasonable IMO)

2: It is unreasonable (and arguably price fixing) to require that membership in local Realtor boards and in the MLS be predicated on a specific fee schedule and service selection.
(This was because Help-U-Sell and other discounters were gaining market share and more established agents wanted to push them out of the market for RE services. Also, a very reasonable position by the DOJ).

In both cases, it was determined that the NAR was acting unfairly.

However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.
Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.
I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.
I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.

The DOJ runins with the NAR were focused around 2 primary issues of contention.

1: It is unreasonable to require strict membership to actually read listings on the MLS.
(Pretty reasonable IMO)

2: It is unreasonable (and arguably price fixing) to require that membership in local Realtor boards and in the MLS be predicated on a specific fee schedule and service selection.
(This was because Help-U-Sell and other discounters were gaining market share and more established agents wanted to push them out of the market for RE services. Also, a very reasonable position by the DOJ).

In both cases, it was determined that the NAR was acting unfairly.

However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.
Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.
I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.
I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.

The DOJ runins with the NAR were focused around 2 primary issues of contention.

1: It is unreasonable to require strict membership to actually read listings on the MLS.
(Pretty reasonable IMO)

2: It is unreasonable (and arguably price fixing) to require that membership in local Realtor boards and in the MLS be predicated on a specific fee schedule and service selection.
(This was because Help-U-Sell and other discounters were gaining market share and more established agents wanted to push them out of the market for RE services. Also, a very reasonable position by the DOJ).

In both cases, it was determined that the NAR was acting unfairly.

However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.

[CA renter]

NAR/DOJ issues, for those who are interested:

1) No more Broker Opt Out

This issue was at the heart of the DOJ lawsuit. Former VOW policy allowed brokers to withhold some or all of their listings from other broker’s VOWs. No more. Now the only Opt Outs allowed are for sellers who wish to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet and who have executed a Seller Opt Out. The seller also has a right to request that a VOW’s comments, blogs or automated market value estimate about its listing be disabled or discontinued (although the VOW can state that those features have been disabled) “at the request of the seller.”

http://www.car.org/legal/mls/summary-status-doj-nar-vow/
————-

The 2005 suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, challenged Realtor rules that allowed brokers to block their listings of homes for sale from being displayed on the Web sites of other brokers that offer discounted commissions or flat-rate fees. Under the settlement, the Realtors agreed to adopt new rules that don’t discriminate against online brokers. The settlement says online brokers should be allowed to provide the same information via the Internet that conventional brokers offer to people who walk into their offices.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/28/doj-strikes-deal-with-realtor-group-how-will-it-affect-consumers/
————-

NAR has found itself to be in the sights of several federal agencies for some time ‘ Oxley has been asking questions, but the real worry has been the Department of Justice, which has been investigating the apparent control that the NAR and the many local Multiple Listing Services have over real estate sales, particularly online. DOJ has also tussled with several states over proposed or existing legislation to require a minimum level of service from agents ‘ a slap at limited service real estate agents which, we suppose NAR doesn’t object to – and to restrict so-called affinity fees paid by agents for referrals from non-agents.

The original way for agents to display MLS information on line was the Internet Data Exchange system (IDX), which permitted an MLS member to post listing information and photos online and share listings with other agents who could also display those listings on their sites. If an agent did not wish to allow another agent to post her listings on line that was fine, but IDX was reciprocal and the agent who did not share her listings could not share in the listings of others. An IDX was simply an ad, a device to attract buyers and encourage them to call in on listings. IDX soon evolved into what NAR called Virtual Office Websites or VOWs. VOWs usually required customers to sign in with personal information in order to view listings and some agents took it a step farther, requiring even casual Internet surfers to agree to buyer contracts.

MLS listings have always been available to all its member agents but are controlled by the agent who took the listing. While agents agree to cooperate with other agents in selling a property, they do not necessarily agree to have their listings become part of a competitor’s website and lots of agents were unhappy. Therefore NAR created an ‘opt out’ policy, which gave agents the right to refuse to allow their listings to be carried on some or all competitors’ websites.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1072005_Multiple_Listing_Service.asp

[CA renter]

NAR/DOJ issues, for those who are interested:

1) No more Broker Opt Out

This issue was at the heart of the DOJ lawsuit. Former VOW policy allowed brokers to withhold some or all of their listings from other broker’s VOWs. No more. Now the only Opt Outs allowed are for sellers who wish to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet and who have executed a Seller Opt Out. The seller also has a right to request that a VOW’s comments, blogs or automated market value estimate about its listing be disabled or discontinued (although the VOW can state that those features have been disabled) “at the request of the seller.”

http://www.car.org/legal/mls/summary-status-doj-nar-vow/
————-

The 2005 suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, challenged Realtor rules that allowed brokers to block their listings of homes for sale from being displayed on the Web sites of other brokers that offer discounted commissions or flat-rate fees. Under the settlement, the Realtors agreed to adopt new rules that don’t discriminate against online brokers. The settlement says online brokers should be allowed to provide the same information via the Internet that conventional brokers offer to people who walk into their offices.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/28/doj-strikes-deal-with-realtor-group-how-will-it-affect-consumers/
————-

NAR has found itself to be in the sights of several federal agencies for some time ‘ Oxley has been asking questions, but the real worry has been the Department of Justice, which has been investigating the apparent control that the NAR and the many local Multiple Listing Services have over real estate sales, particularly online. DOJ has also tussled with several states over proposed or existing legislation to require a minimum level of service from agents ‘ a slap at limited service real estate agents which, we suppose NAR doesn’t object to – and to restrict so-called affinity fees paid by agents for referrals from non-agents.

The original way for agents to display MLS information on line was the Internet Data Exchange system (IDX), which permitted an MLS member to post listing information and photos online and share listings with other agents who could also display those listings on their sites. If an agent did not wish to allow another agent to post her listings on line that was fine, but IDX was reciprocal and the agent who did not share her listings could not share in the listings of others. An IDX was simply an ad, a device to attract buyers and encourage them to call in on listings. IDX soon evolved into what NAR called Virtual Office Websites or VOWs. VOWs usually required customers to sign in with personal information in order to view listings and some agents took it a step farther, requiring even casual Internet surfers to agree to buyer contracts.

MLS listings have always been available to all its member agents but are controlled by the agent who took the listing. While agents agree to cooperate with other agents in selling a property, they do not necessarily agree to have their listings become part of a competitor’s website and lots of agents were unhappy. Therefore NAR created an ‘opt out’ policy, which gave agents the right to refuse to allow their listings to be carried on some or all competitors’ websites.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1072005_Multiple_Listing_Service.asp

[CA renter]

NAR/DOJ issues, for those who are interested:

1) No more Broker Opt Out

This issue was at the heart of the DOJ lawsuit. Former VOW policy allowed brokers to withhold some or all of their listings from other broker’s VOWs. No more. Now the only Opt Outs allowed are for sellers who wish to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet and who have executed a Seller Opt Out. The seller also has a right to request that a VOW’s comments, blogs or automated market value estimate about its listing be disabled or discontinued (although the VOW can state that those features have been disabled) “at the request of the seller.”

http://www.car.org/legal/mls/summary-status-doj-nar-vow/
————-

The 2005 suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, challenged Realtor rules that allowed brokers to block their listings of homes for sale from being displayed on the Web sites of other brokers that offer discounted commissions or flat-rate fees. Under the settlement, the Realtors agreed to adopt new rules that don’t discriminate against online brokers. The settlement says online brokers should be allowed to provide the same information via the Internet that conventional brokers offer to people who walk into their offices.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/28/doj-strikes-deal-with-realtor-group-how-will-it-affect-consumers/
————-

NAR has found itself to be in the sights of several federal agencies for some time ‘ Oxley has been asking questions, but the real worry has been the Department of Justice, which has been investigating the apparent control that the NAR and the many local Multiple Listing Services have over real estate sales, particularly online. DOJ has also tussled with several states over proposed or existing legislation to require a minimum level of service from agents ‘ a slap at limited service real estate agents which, we suppose NAR doesn’t object to – and to restrict so-called affinity fees paid by agents for referrals from non-agents.

The original way for agents to display MLS information on line was the Internet Data Exchange system (IDX), which permitted an MLS member to post listing information and photos online and share listings with other agents who could also display those listings on their sites. If an agent did not wish to allow another agent to post her listings on line that was fine, but IDX was reciprocal and the agent who did not share her listings could not share in the listings of others. An IDX was simply an ad, a device to attract buyers and encourage them to call in on listings. IDX soon evolved into what NAR called Virtual Office Websites or VOWs. VOWs usually required customers to sign in with personal information in order to view listings and some agents took it a step farther, requiring even casual Internet surfers to agree to buyer contracts.

MLS listings have always been available to all its member agents but are controlled by the agent who took the listing. While agents agree to cooperate with other agents in selling a property, they do not necessarily agree to have their listings become part of a competitor’s website and lots of agents were unhappy. Therefore NAR created an ‘opt out’ policy, which gave agents the right to refuse to allow their listings to be carried on some or all competitors’ websites.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1072005_Multiple_Listing_Service.asp

[CA renter]

NAR/DOJ issues, for those who are interested:

1) No more Broker Opt Out

This issue was at the heart of the DOJ lawsuit. Former VOW policy allowed brokers to withhold some or all of their listings from other broker’s VOWs. No more. Now the only Opt Outs allowed are for sellers who wish to withhold their listing or property address from display on the Internet and who have executed a Seller Opt Out. The seller also has a right to request that a VOW’s comments, blogs or automated market value estimate about its listing be disabled or discontinued (although the VOW can state that those features have been disabled) “at the request of the seller.”

http://www.car.org/legal/mls/summary-status-doj-nar-vow/
————-

The 2005 suit, filed in federal court in Chicago, challenged Realtor rules that allowed brokers to block their listings of homes for sale from being displayed on the Web sites of other brokers that offer discounted commissions or flat-rate fees. Under the settlement, the Realtors agreed to adopt new rules that don’t discriminate against online brokers. The settlement says online brokers should be allowed to provide the same information via the Internet that conventional brokers offer to people who walk into their offices.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/05/28/doj-strikes-deal-with-realtor-group-how-will-it-affect-consumers/
————-

NAR has found itself to be in the sights of several federal agencies for some time ‘ Oxley has been asking questions, but the real worry has been the Department of Justice, which has been investigating the apparent control that the NAR and the many local Multiple Listing Services have over real estate sales, particularly online. DOJ has also tussled with several states over proposed or existing legislation to require a minimum level of service from agents ‘ a slap at limited service real estate agents which, we suppose NAR doesn’t object to – and to restrict so-called affinity fees paid by agents for referrals from non-agents.

The original way for agents to display MLS information on line was the Internet Data Exchange system (IDX), which permitted an MLS member to post listing information and photos online and share listings with other agents who could also display those listings on their sites. If an agent did not wish to allow another agent to post her listings on line that was fine, but IDX was reciprocal and the agent who did not share her listings could not share in the listings of others. An IDX was simply an ad, a device to attract buyers and encourage them to call in on listings. IDX soon evolved into what NAR called Virtual Office Websites or VOWs. VOWs usually required customers to sign in with personal information in order to view listings and some agents took it a step farther, requiring even casual Internet surfers to agree to buyer contracts.

MLS listings have always been available to all its member agents but are controlled by the agent who took the listing. While agents agree to cooperate with other agents in selling a property, they do not necessarily agree to have their listings become part of a competitor’s website and lots of agents were unhappy. Therefore NAR created an ‘opt out’ policy, which gave agents the right to refuse to allow their listings to be carried on some or all competitors’ websites.

http://www.mortgagenewsdaily.com/1072005_Multiple_Listing_Service.asp

[Author]

Posts