The cult of professional specialists

[drboom]

[quote=njtosd][quote=drboom]

. . . 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]

I guess I see your reasoning, but would that make the practice of driving a monopoly, too? Since the state requires that drivers pass tests administered by other drivers . . . It’s all a matter of how you define something, I suppose. IMHO, a monopoly eliminates competition and allows the monopolizing entity to decide the price of the monopolized goods or services. There is a large variation in the fees of the professional services that you mention here, so I would disagree with the breadth of your definition.[/quote]

The important difference is that the state is assumed to be a neutral actor. Driver’s licenses are available to all who apply and meet the same standards. The state’s motivations in granting licenses or denying them have nothing to do with, say, keeping truckers’ wages from getting too competitive.

A bar association is a club of professionals and managed by its own members. The state does appoint a few directors to the bar’s board in California, but the state doesn’t have much more than a consultative role. Besides, who’s going to sue the bar association? It gets worse when the bar’s lobbying arm starts exerting itself on the legislature … which is full of members of the bar.

A monopoly’s key characteristic is the restraint of trade. Natural consequences of this restraint are increased prices, reduced efficiency, reduced choice, and (frequently) reduced quality of goods and services. Not all of those symptoms must be present for there to be a monopoly, but even statutory monopolies like SDG&E, Major League Baseball, and Cox Cable would surely put out a cheaper product more efficiently if they faced real competition. Competition was judged impractical in those cases, so the government compromised.

Getting back to the RE industry, I think all the defects named above plague the real estate market.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow.
Lots of problems with the facts here.
The California Bar is not a private organization.
It is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court.
It is, by definition, part of the government.
The term monopoly does not generally apply to governments.
The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.
Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.
The level of government involvement varies in that some review bodies are government employees (one step removed) and others are accredited by government (2 steps removed) and still other review bodies who are accredited by private accreditation firms who are commissioned by government (3 steps removed). Most educational advancement falls into the third category. You get your PhD application reviewed by PhD’s whose instruction is accredited by a private company who is licensed by the Department of Education.
Teaching credentials are not much different.
And honestly, if the barriers seem are too high, then the applicant should be looking for another line of work.
The loads of excess (read jobless) credentialed teachers (often NEA members) speak to the relative lowness of those barriers.
Your assertion that the NAR functions as a monopoly also flies in the face of like half the industry.
Most licensed agents are not members. There is no requirement to be a member to sell property, negotiate property contracts, rent property, use CAR forms, or join the MLS.
Also, those statutes are applicable any time that there are allegations of unfair asymmetrical competition.
The NAR’s conduct was certainly unfair but it meets none of the minimum criteria for monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow.
Lots of problems with the facts here.
The California Bar is not a private organization.
It is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court.
It is, by definition, part of the government.
The term monopoly does not generally apply to governments.
The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.
Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.
The level of government involvement varies in that some review bodies are government employees (one step removed) and others are accredited by government (2 steps removed) and still other review bodies who are accredited by private accreditation firms who are commissioned by government (3 steps removed). Most educational advancement falls into the third category. You get your PhD application reviewed by PhD’s whose instruction is accredited by a private company who is licensed by the Department of Education.
Teaching credentials are not much different.
And honestly, if the barriers seem are too high, then the applicant should be looking for another line of work.
The loads of excess (read jobless) credentialed teachers (often NEA members) speak to the relative lowness of those barriers.
Your assertion that the NAR functions as a monopoly also flies in the face of like half the industry.
Most licensed agents are not members. There is no requirement to be a member to sell property, negotiate property contracts, rent property, use CAR forms, or join the MLS.
Also, those statutes are applicable any time that there are allegations of unfair asymmetrical competition.
The NAR’s conduct was certainly unfair but it meets none of the minimum criteria for monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow.
Lots of problems with the facts here.
The California Bar is not a private organization.
It is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court.
It is, by definition, part of the government.
The term monopoly does not generally apply to governments.
The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.
Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.
The level of government involvement varies in that some review bodies are government employees (one step removed) and others are accredited by government (2 steps removed) and still other review bodies who are accredited by private accreditation firms who are commissioned by government (3 steps removed). Most educational advancement falls into the third category. You get your PhD application reviewed by PhD’s whose instruction is accredited by a private company who is licensed by the Department of Education.
Teaching credentials are not much different.
And honestly, if the barriers seem are too high, then the applicant should be looking for another line of work.
The loads of excess (read jobless) credentialed teachers (often NEA members) speak to the relative lowness of those barriers.
Your assertion that the NAR functions as a monopoly also flies in the face of like half the industry.
Most licensed agents are not members. There is no requirement to be a member to sell property, negotiate property contracts, rent property, use CAR forms, or join the MLS.
Also, those statutes are applicable any time that there are allegations of unfair asymmetrical competition.
The NAR’s conduct was certainly unfair but it meets none of the minimum criteria for monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow.
Lots of problems with the facts here.
The California Bar is not a private organization.
It is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court.
It is, by definition, part of the government.
The term monopoly does not generally apply to governments.
The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.
Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.
The level of government involvement varies in that some review bodies are government employees (one step removed) and others are accredited by government (2 steps removed) and still other review bodies who are accredited by private accreditation firms who are commissioned by government (3 steps removed). Most educational advancement falls into the third category. You get your PhD application reviewed by PhD’s whose instruction is accredited by a private company who is licensed by the Department of Education.
Teaching credentials are not much different.
And honestly, if the barriers seem are too high, then the applicant should be looking for another line of work.
The loads of excess (read jobless) credentialed teachers (often NEA members) speak to the relative lowness of those barriers.
Your assertion that the NAR functions as a monopoly also flies in the face of like half the industry.
Most licensed agents are not members. There is no requirement to be a member to sell property, negotiate property contracts, rent property, use CAR forms, or join the MLS.
Also, those statutes are applicable any time that there are allegations of unfair asymmetrical competition.
The NAR’s conduct was certainly unfair but it meets none of the minimum criteria for monopoly.

[urbanrealtor]

Wow.
Lots of problems with the facts here.
The California Bar is not a private organization.
It is an administrative arm of the California Supreme Court.
It is, by definition, part of the government.
The term monopoly does not generally apply to governments.
The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.
Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.
The level of government involvement varies in that some review bodies are government employees (one step removed) and others are accredited by government (2 steps removed) and still other review bodies who are accredited by private accreditation firms who are commissioned by government (3 steps removed). Most educational advancement falls into the third category. You get your PhD application reviewed by PhD’s whose instruction is accredited by a private company who is licensed by the Department of Education.
Teaching credentials are not much different.
And honestly, if the barriers seem are too high, then the applicant should be looking for another line of work.
The loads of excess (read jobless) credentialed teachers (often NEA members) speak to the relative lowness of those barriers.
Your assertion that the NAR functions as a monopoly also flies in the face of like half the industry.
Most licensed agents are not members. There is no requirement to be a member to sell property, negotiate property contracts, rent property, use CAR forms, or join the MLS.
Also, those statutes are applicable any time that there are allegations of unfair asymmetrical competition.
The NAR’s conduct was certainly unfair but it meets none of the minimum criteria for monopoly.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]sdrealtor –

I think you missed my point; the fantasy that I was referring to related to your graphic description of being draped over a barrel, etc. In any event, after reading that passage again, I think I will politely decline your offer to sit down with me.
Your fiduciary duty requires you to obey the lawful requirements of your client relating to the sale of his/her property. Your other choice is to provide your client with an unconditional withdrawal from the listing agreement. Since your screen name is sdrealtor, I assume that you are a member of the NAR. Their website provides a pretty clear description of your Code of Ethics. I have to assume that you have informed your clients of the conditions under which you will or will not show properties, and that they have agreed to your conditions. If you hadn’t, you would be risking your license.[/quote]

njtosd,

I’ll say what I’m sure sdr wants to say, but is too nice to. Take your 17 weeks of forum time and fuck off.

I am not a realtor. I am a programmer. I referred sdr to someone with more money than you’ll ever see in your life and my friend was remarkably happy with the services received.

If you are so hell-bent against realtors, don’t use one and if you are going to bag on a realtor, find a bad one, not sdr.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]sdrealtor –

I think you missed my point; the fantasy that I was referring to related to your graphic description of being draped over a barrel, etc. In any event, after reading that passage again, I think I will politely decline your offer to sit down with me.
Your fiduciary duty requires you to obey the lawful requirements of your client relating to the sale of his/her property. Your other choice is to provide your client with an unconditional withdrawal from the listing agreement. Since your screen name is sdrealtor, I assume that you are a member of the NAR. Their website provides a pretty clear description of your Code of Ethics. I have to assume that you have informed your clients of the conditions under which you will or will not show properties, and that they have agreed to your conditions. If you hadn’t, you would be risking your license.[/quote]

njtosd,

I’ll say what I’m sure sdr wants to say, but is too nice to. Take your 17 weeks of forum time and fuck off.

I am not a realtor. I am a programmer. I referred sdr to someone with more money than you’ll ever see in your life and my friend was remarkably happy with the services received.

If you are so hell-bent against realtors, don’t use one and if you are going to bag on a realtor, find a bad one, not sdr.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]sdrealtor –

I think you missed my point; the fantasy that I was referring to related to your graphic description of being draped over a barrel, etc. In any event, after reading that passage again, I think I will politely decline your offer to sit down with me.
Your fiduciary duty requires you to obey the lawful requirements of your client relating to the sale of his/her property. Your other choice is to provide your client with an unconditional withdrawal from the listing agreement. Since your screen name is sdrealtor, I assume that you are a member of the NAR. Their website provides a pretty clear description of your Code of Ethics. I have to assume that you have informed your clients of the conditions under which you will or will not show properties, and that they have agreed to your conditions. If you hadn’t, you would be risking your license.[/quote]

njtosd,

I’ll say what I’m sure sdr wants to say, but is too nice to. Take your 17 weeks of forum time and fuck off.

I am not a realtor. I am a programmer. I referred sdr to someone with more money than you’ll ever see in your life and my friend was remarkably happy with the services received.

If you are so hell-bent against realtors, don’t use one and if you are going to bag on a realtor, find a bad one, not sdr.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]sdrealtor –

I think you missed my point; the fantasy that I was referring to related to your graphic description of being draped over a barrel, etc. In any event, after reading that passage again, I think I will politely decline your offer to sit down with me.
Your fiduciary duty requires you to obey the lawful requirements of your client relating to the sale of his/her property. Your other choice is to provide your client with an unconditional withdrawal from the listing agreement. Since your screen name is sdrealtor, I assume that you are a member of the NAR. Their website provides a pretty clear description of your Code of Ethics. I have to assume that you have informed your clients of the conditions under which you will or will not show properties, and that they have agreed to your conditions. If you hadn’t, you would be risking your license.[/quote]

njtosd,

I’ll say what I’m sure sdr wants to say, but is too nice to. Take your 17 weeks of forum time and fuck off.

I am not a realtor. I am a programmer. I referred sdr to someone with more money than you’ll ever see in your life and my friend was remarkably happy with the services received.

If you are so hell-bent against realtors, don’t use one and if you are going to bag on a realtor, find a bad one, not sdr.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]sdrealtor –

I think you missed my point; the fantasy that I was referring to related to your graphic description of being draped over a barrel, etc. In any event, after reading that passage again, I think I will politely decline your offer to sit down with me.
Your fiduciary duty requires you to obey the lawful requirements of your client relating to the sale of his/her property. Your other choice is to provide your client with an unconditional withdrawal from the listing agreement. Since your screen name is sdrealtor, I assume that you are a member of the NAR. Their website provides a pretty clear description of your Code of Ethics. I have to assume that you have informed your clients of the conditions under which you will or will not show properties, and that they have agreed to your conditions. If you hadn’t, you would be risking your license.[/quote]

njtosd,

I’ll say what I’m sure sdr wants to say, but is too nice to. Take your 17 weeks of forum time and fuck off.

I am not a realtor. I am a programmer. I referred sdr to someone with more money than you’ll ever see in your life and my friend was remarkably happy with the services received.

If you are so hell-bent against realtors, don’t use one and if you are going to bag on a realtor, find a bad one, not sdr.

[sdduuuude]

drboom,

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective, you are blaming RE agents for the the remarkable stupidity of the public at large, many of whom become buyers and sellers.

The fact of the matter is, many people on this forum could get by without a realtor.

Sadly, it is a remarkable minority that can. Going through the process of buying or selling a house is impossible for 90% of the population. Even if I were an agentless buyer, I would not want to do business with any of that 90% and would beg for an agent to be placed between us. Simply put, the injection of an agent into the process is necessary because people aren’t that bright.

You said “… the really annoying and dangerous thing is the “professional’s” readiness to dismiss outside opinions as uninformed or worse …”

I think, in 90% of all cases, perhaps 98% of all cases, they are right, though. I agree it is frustrating that you are not uninformed but are treated as such, but I wouldn’t blame the realtors. Blame all that came before you.

Sadly, what happens once the agent is injected into the process is that people put entirely too much faith into the agent.

Again – people are just stupid. Anyone who relies on a broker to help them make the decision to buy or not, or help them understand the long-term direction of the market is just being stupid. Anyone who puts their faith in the ability of their realtor to read the tea leaves instead of an actual analyst deserves whatever deal they get. Here, again – I blame the buyer, not the agent.

Many RE Agents really did believe that housing was going to go up forever. They weren’t being liars when they put their customers into a house, they were being idiots – as were the buyers who put their faith in someone who isn’t a housing market analyst. I don’t blame them for any of the housing boom. They were just brokers, not market makers.

For any kind of sale, a broker is there to bring buyer and seller together and facilitate the transaction. Good brokers will help ensure the price is right for the market, but any buyer who exclusively relies on a broker of any kind to ensure a fair price, or make decisions, or do the analysis is just asking for trouble. They are a BROKER, not an ANALYST. No matter what you are buying – car, stocks, house, horses, anything – don’t rely on your broker for pricing. Know it yourself, research it, or hire someone separate from the process to research it.

Again – I don’t blame realtors for providing advice on something for which they were asked to provide advice. Stupid people, I say.

Third – everyone has to put some value on their own time. I could get through a real estate transaction, but I would spend maybe three times as many hours doing it as an agent. For some people, who are on a budget, it makes sense to try and save the money by putting in some hours into the process. However, I think many underestimate the value of their own time and underestimate the time it takes. For wealthy people, it is a no-brainer to use an agent, simply given their time is more valuable on a “dollars per hour” basis.

I don’t disagree with your comments regarding the monopoly either. However, there are many ways to break the monopoly and they have failed. The best way to break a monopoly is to enter the market and provide superior competition. (I suspect you would be surprised at the level of incompetence of your client base.) sdr’s mention of ipayone is not without merit. Start your own agency and then do things differently in such a way that you can survive and I’ll be convinced. Until then, you have no case.

So, my comment of “if you don’t need an agent, then don’t use one” still holds. Really – go for it! I have no issues with this idea. I have done it myself and think it is great that you have as well.

But I think if you are trying to convince the general population to enter RE transactions without an agent, you are not doing them a service at all.

You would be wise to acknowledge the value that good agents bring to the table – not necessarily for you, but for the population in general – not the least of which is removing a remarkable number of buyers and sellers out of the process who would otherwise be impossible to do business with.

[sdduuuude]

drboom,

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective, you are blaming RE agents for the the remarkable stupidity of the public at large, many of whom become buyers and sellers.

The fact of the matter is, many people on this forum could get by without a realtor.

Sadly, it is a remarkable minority that can. Going through the process of buying or selling a house is impossible for 90% of the population. Even if I were an agentless buyer, I would not want to do business with any of that 90% and would beg for an agent to be placed between us. Simply put, the injection of an agent into the process is necessary because people aren’t that bright.

You said “… the really annoying and dangerous thing is the “professional’s” readiness to dismiss outside opinions as uninformed or worse …”

I think, in 90% of all cases, perhaps 98% of all cases, they are right, though. I agree it is frustrating that you are not uninformed but are treated as such, but I wouldn’t blame the realtors. Blame all that came before you.

Sadly, what happens once the agent is injected into the process is that people put entirely too much faith into the agent.

Again – people are just stupid. Anyone who relies on a broker to help them make the decision to buy or not, or help them understand the long-term direction of the market is just being stupid. Anyone who puts their faith in the ability of their realtor to read the tea leaves instead of an actual analyst deserves whatever deal they get. Here, again – I blame the buyer, not the agent.

Many RE Agents really did believe that housing was going to go up forever. They weren’t being liars when they put their customers into a house, they were being idiots – as were the buyers who put their faith in someone who isn’t a housing market analyst. I don’t blame them for any of the housing boom. They were just brokers, not market makers.

For any kind of sale, a broker is there to bring buyer and seller together and facilitate the transaction. Good brokers will help ensure the price is right for the market, but any buyer who exclusively relies on a broker of any kind to ensure a fair price, or make decisions, or do the analysis is just asking for trouble. They are a BROKER, not an ANALYST. No matter what you are buying – car, stocks, house, horses, anything – don’t rely on your broker for pricing. Know it yourself, research it, or hire someone separate from the process to research it.

Again – I don’t blame realtors for providing advice on something for which they were asked to provide advice. Stupid people, I say.

Third – everyone has to put some value on their own time. I could get through a real estate transaction, but I would spend maybe three times as many hours doing it as an agent. For some people, who are on a budget, it makes sense to try and save the money by putting in some hours into the process. However, I think many underestimate the value of their own time and underestimate the time it takes. For wealthy people, it is a no-brainer to use an agent, simply given their time is more valuable on a “dollars per hour” basis.

I don’t disagree with your comments regarding the monopoly either. However, there are many ways to break the monopoly and they have failed. The best way to break a monopoly is to enter the market and provide superior competition. (I suspect you would be surprised at the level of incompetence of your client base.) sdr’s mention of ipayone is not without merit. Start your own agency and then do things differently in such a way that you can survive and I’ll be convinced. Until then, you have no case.

So, my comment of “if you don’t need an agent, then don’t use one” still holds. Really – go for it! I have no issues with this idea. I have done it myself and think it is great that you have as well.

But I think if you are trying to convince the general population to enter RE transactions without an agent, you are not doing them a service at all.

You would be wise to acknowledge the value that good agents bring to the table – not necessarily for you, but for the population in general – not the least of which is removing a remarkable number of buyers and sellers out of the process who would otherwise be impossible to do business with.

[sdduuuude]

drboom,

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective, you are blaming RE agents for the the remarkable stupidity of the public at large, many of whom become buyers and sellers.

The fact of the matter is, many people on this forum could get by without a realtor.

Sadly, it is a remarkable minority that can. Going through the process of buying or selling a house is impossible for 90% of the population. Even if I were an agentless buyer, I would not want to do business with any of that 90% and would beg for an agent to be placed between us. Simply put, the injection of an agent into the process is necessary because people aren’t that bright.

You said “… the really annoying and dangerous thing is the “professional’s” readiness to dismiss outside opinions as uninformed or worse …”

I think, in 90% of all cases, perhaps 98% of all cases, they are right, though. I agree it is frustrating that you are not uninformed but are treated as such, but I wouldn’t blame the realtors. Blame all that came before you.

Sadly, what happens once the agent is injected into the process is that people put entirely too much faith into the agent.

Again – people are just stupid. Anyone who relies on a broker to help them make the decision to buy or not, or help them understand the long-term direction of the market is just being stupid. Anyone who puts their faith in the ability of their realtor to read the tea leaves instead of an actual analyst deserves whatever deal they get. Here, again – I blame the buyer, not the agent.

Many RE Agents really did believe that housing was going to go up forever. They weren’t being liars when they put their customers into a house, they were being idiots – as were the buyers who put their faith in someone who isn’t a housing market analyst. I don’t blame them for any of the housing boom. They were just brokers, not market makers.

For any kind of sale, a broker is there to bring buyer and seller together and facilitate the transaction. Good brokers will help ensure the price is right for the market, but any buyer who exclusively relies on a broker of any kind to ensure a fair price, or make decisions, or do the analysis is just asking for trouble. They are a BROKER, not an ANALYST. No matter what you are buying – car, stocks, house, horses, anything – don’t rely on your broker for pricing. Know it yourself, research it, or hire someone separate from the process to research it.

Again – I don’t blame realtors for providing advice on something for which they were asked to provide advice. Stupid people, I say.

Third – everyone has to put some value on their own time. I could get through a real estate transaction, but I would spend maybe three times as many hours doing it as an agent. For some people, who are on a budget, it makes sense to try and save the money by putting in some hours into the process. However, I think many underestimate the value of their own time and underestimate the time it takes. For wealthy people, it is a no-brainer to use an agent, simply given their time is more valuable on a “dollars per hour” basis.

I don’t disagree with your comments regarding the monopoly either. However, there are many ways to break the monopoly and they have failed. The best way to break a monopoly is to enter the market and provide superior competition. (I suspect you would be surprised at the level of incompetence of your client base.) sdr’s mention of ipayone is not without merit. Start your own agency and then do things differently in such a way that you can survive and I’ll be convinced. Until then, you have no case.

So, my comment of “if you don’t need an agent, then don’t use one” still holds. Really – go for it! I have no issues with this idea. I have done it myself and think it is great that you have as well.

But I think if you are trying to convince the general population to enter RE transactions without an agent, you are not doing them a service at all.

You would be wise to acknowledge the value that good agents bring to the table – not necessarily for you, but for the population in general – not the least of which is removing a remarkable number of buyers and sellers out of the process who would otherwise be impossible to do business with.

[sdduuuude]

drboom,

I understand where you are coming from, but from my perspective, you are blaming RE agents for the the remarkable stupidity of the public at large, many of whom become buyers and sellers.

The fact of the matter is, many people on this forum could get by without a realtor.

Sadly, it is a remarkable minority that can. Going through the process of buying or selling a house is impossible for 90% of the population. Even if I were an agentless buyer, I would not want to do business with any of that 90% and would beg for an agent to be placed between us. Simply put, the injection of an agent into the process is necessary because people aren’t that bright.

You said “… the really annoying and dangerous thing is the “professional’s” readiness to dismiss outside opinions as uninformed or worse …”

I think, in 90% of all cases, perhaps 98% of all cases, they are right, though. I agree it is frustrating that you are not uninformed but are treated as such, but I wouldn’t blame the realtors. Blame all that came before you.

Sadly, what happens once the agent is injected into the process is that people put entirely too much faith into the agent.

Again – people are just stupid. Anyone who relies on a broker to help them make the decision to buy or not, or help them understand the long-term direction of the market is just being stupid. Anyone who puts their faith in the ability of their realtor to read the tea leaves instead of an actual analyst deserves whatever deal they get. Here, again – I blame the buyer, not the agent.

Many RE Agents really did believe that housing was going to go up forever. They weren’t being liars when they put their customers into a house, they were being idiots – as were the buyers who put their faith in someone who isn’t a housing market analyst. I don’t blame them for any of the housing boom. They were just brokers, not market makers.

For any kind of sale, a broker is there to bring buyer and seller together and facilitate the transaction. Good brokers will help ensure the price is right for the market, but any buyer who exclusively relies on a broker of any kind to ensure a fair price, or make decisions, or do the analysis is just asking for trouble. They are a BROKER, not an ANALYST. No matter what you are buying – car, stocks, house, horses, anything – don’t rely on your broker for pricing. Know it yourself, research it, or hire someone separate from the process to research it.

Again – I don’t blame realtors for providing advice on something for which they were asked to provide advice. Stupid people, I say.

Third – everyone has to put some value on their own time. I could get through a real estate transaction, but I would spend maybe three times as many hours doing it as an agent. For some people, who are on a budget, it makes sense to try and save the money by putting in some hours into the process. However, I think many underestimate the value of their own time and underestimate the time it takes. For wealthy people, it is a no-brainer to use an agent, simply given their time is more valuable on a “dollars per hour” basis.

I don’t disagree with your comments regarding the monopoly either. However, there are many ways to break the monopoly and they have failed. The best way to break a monopoly is to enter the market and provide superior competition. (I suspect you would be surprised at the level of incompetence of your client base.) sdr’s mention of ipayone is not without merit. Start your own agency and then do things differently in such a way that you can survive and I’ll be convinced. Until then, you have no case.

So, my comment of “if you don’t need an agent, then don’t use one” still holds. Really – go for it! I have no issues with this idea. I have done it myself and think it is great that you have as well.

But I think if you are trying to convince the general population to enter RE transactions without an agent, you are not doing them a service at all.

You would be wise to acknowledge the value that good agents bring to the table – not necessarily for you, but for the population in general – not the least of which is removing a remarkable number of buyers and sellers out of the process who would otherwise be impossible to do business with.

[Author]

Posts