The cult of professional specialists

[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.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude][
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.[/quote]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude][
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.[/quote]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude][
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.[/quote]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude][
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.[/quote]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.

[njtosd]

[quote=sdduuuude][
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.[/quote]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.

[drboom]

[quote=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.[/quote]

de jure, the California Supreme Court has authority over admissions, professional codes of conduct, and actual suspensions/disbarment. de facto the bar handles this stuff itself.

But the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Bar Association is more akin to a labor union than a government agency in Keller v. State Bar of California, overruling the California Supreme Court in the process. The decision in that case was limited to 1st and 14th amendment issues and resulted in a sharp curtailment of the bar’s lobbying activities. The Supremes said in their decision that they wouldn’t have had the authority if the bar was a “normal” government agency.

[quote]The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.[/quote]

The MLS is the problem. See below.

[quote]Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.[/quote]

You’re stretching things beyond recognition, so I’ll let it pass and get to the main course:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Let’s assume you are right, and the NAR and its regional affiliates don’t operate a monopoly, specifically the MLS. So what’s the problem if they limit access as they see fit as long as they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, etc.? They are private entities and run a private system, right?

Answer: it only becomes a problem when it’s a monopoly that operates in restraint of trade, and that’s what the NAR got nailed for.

Microsoft tried the same arguments about competition you just used, and they lost both their trial and appeal. A monopoly doesn’t have to run 100% of the market to be a monopoly; even Standard Oil at its peak controlled only 85% of the retail petroleum market.

[drboom]

[quote=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.[/quote]

de jure, the California Supreme Court has authority over admissions, professional codes of conduct, and actual suspensions/disbarment. de facto the bar handles this stuff itself.

But the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Bar Association is more akin to a labor union than a government agency in Keller v. State Bar of California, overruling the California Supreme Court in the process. The decision in that case was limited to 1st and 14th amendment issues and resulted in a sharp curtailment of the bar’s lobbying activities. The Supremes said in their decision that they wouldn’t have had the authority if the bar was a “normal” government agency.

[quote]The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.[/quote]

The MLS is the problem. See below.

[quote]Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.[/quote]

You’re stretching things beyond recognition, so I’ll let it pass and get to the main course:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Let’s assume you are right, and the NAR and its regional affiliates don’t operate a monopoly, specifically the MLS. So what’s the problem if they limit access as they see fit as long as they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, etc.? They are private entities and run a private system, right?

Answer: it only becomes a problem when it’s a monopoly that operates in restraint of trade, and that’s what the NAR got nailed for.

Microsoft tried the same arguments about competition you just used, and they lost both their trial and appeal. A monopoly doesn’t have to run 100% of the market to be a monopoly; even Standard Oil at its peak controlled only 85% of the retail petroleum market.

[drboom]

[quote=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.[/quote]

de jure, the California Supreme Court has authority over admissions, professional codes of conduct, and actual suspensions/disbarment. de facto the bar handles this stuff itself.

But the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Bar Association is more akin to a labor union than a government agency in Keller v. State Bar of California, overruling the California Supreme Court in the process. The decision in that case was limited to 1st and 14th amendment issues and resulted in a sharp curtailment of the bar’s lobbying activities. The Supremes said in their decision that they wouldn’t have had the authority if the bar was a “normal” government agency.

[quote]The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.[/quote]

The MLS is the problem. See below.

[quote]Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.[/quote]

You’re stretching things beyond recognition, so I’ll let it pass and get to the main course:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Let’s assume you are right, and the NAR and its regional affiliates don’t operate a monopoly, specifically the MLS. So what’s the problem if they limit access as they see fit as long as they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, etc.? They are private entities and run a private system, right?

Answer: it only becomes a problem when it’s a monopoly that operates in restraint of trade, and that’s what the NAR got nailed for.

Microsoft tried the same arguments about competition you just used, and they lost both their trial and appeal. A monopoly doesn’t have to run 100% of the market to be a monopoly; even Standard Oil at its peak controlled only 85% of the retail petroleum market.

[drboom]

[quote=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.[/quote]

de jure, the California Supreme Court has authority over admissions, professional codes of conduct, and actual suspensions/disbarment. de facto the bar handles this stuff itself.

But the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Bar Association is more akin to a labor union than a government agency in Keller v. State Bar of California, overruling the California Supreme Court in the process. The decision in that case was limited to 1st and 14th amendment issues and resulted in a sharp curtailment of the bar’s lobbying activities. The Supremes said in their decision that they wouldn’t have had the authority if the bar was a “normal” government agency.

[quote]The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.[/quote]

The MLS is the problem. See below.

[quote]Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.[/quote]

You’re stretching things beyond recognition, so I’ll let it pass and get to the main course:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Let’s assume you are right, and the NAR and its regional affiliates don’t operate a monopoly, specifically the MLS. So what’s the problem if they limit access as they see fit as long as they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, etc.? They are private entities and run a private system, right?

Answer: it only becomes a problem when it’s a monopoly that operates in restraint of trade, and that’s what the NAR got nailed for.

Microsoft tried the same arguments about competition you just used, and they lost both their trial and appeal. A monopoly doesn’t have to run 100% of the market to be a monopoly; even Standard Oil at its peak controlled only 85% of the retail petroleum market.

[drboom]

[quote=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.[/quote]

de jure, the California Supreme Court has authority over admissions, professional codes of conduct, and actual suspensions/disbarment. de facto the bar handles this stuff itself.

But the U.S. Supreme Court found that the California Bar Association is more akin to a labor union than a government agency in Keller v. State Bar of California, overruling the California Supreme Court in the process. The decision in that case was limited to 1st and 14th amendment issues and resulted in a sharp curtailment of the bar’s lobbying activities. The Supremes said in their decision that they wouldn’t have had the authority if the bar was a “normal” government agency.

[quote]The CAR (AKA CREA) does not hold public regulatory standing in the same way and is therefore not analogous.[/quote]

The MLS is the problem. See below.

[quote]Peer review applies to all the occupations you mentioned.[/quote]

You’re stretching things beyond recognition, so I’ll let it pass and get to the main course:

[quote]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.[/quote]

Let’s assume you are right, and the NAR and its regional affiliates don’t operate a monopoly, specifically the MLS. So what’s the problem if they limit access as they see fit as long as they don’t discriminate on the basis of race, etc.? They are private entities and run a private system, right?

Answer: it only becomes a problem when it’s a monopoly that operates in restraint of trade, and that’s what the NAR got nailed for.

Microsoft tried the same arguments about competition you just used, and they lost both their trial and appeal. A monopoly doesn’t have to run 100% of the market to be a monopoly; even Standard Oil at its peak controlled only 85% of the retail petroleum market.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.[/quote]

I can add my own rum, thanks.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.[/quote]

I can add my own rum, thanks.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.[/quote]

I can add my own rum, thanks.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=njtosd]

sdduuuude – I think someone needs to adjust your medication.[/quote]

I can add my own rum, thanks.

[Author]

Posts