[drboom]

[quote=bearishgurl]I want to chime in here to drive home the neighborhood agent concept a little more and give credit where credit is due to longtime resident buyers shopping on their “home turf.”

UR and sdr volunteered to determine if drboom got a “good deal” in his transaction where he recieved a commission rebate from his buyer’s agent. (I’m using this for an example because drboom’s situation was discussed at length here.) They’ve got the statistics on their computer screens and printouts using certain maps out of a particular zip code (i.e. “Fletcher Hills”). Neither agent’s market or “farm” area is Fletcher Hills and they are located 23 and 43 miles away, respectively. I’m not saying here that these agents don’t know what they’re doing. They do, but crunching these “sterile” stats wouldn’t be the be all and end all for drboom.[/quote]

Applause.

I do in fact have an Aunt Sue, though not in the ‘hood, and I have lots of stories about where to uy and not buy. In my case, I knew a retired geologist who lived down the street. He liked to point out where not to buy a house in this neighborhood (and, generally, what to look out for), and I kept his advice in mind all these years.

[drboom]

[quote=bearishgurl]I want to chime in here to drive home the neighborhood agent concept a little more and give credit where credit is due to longtime resident buyers shopping on their “home turf.”

UR and sdr volunteered to determine if drboom got a “good deal” in his transaction where he recieved a commission rebate from his buyer’s agent. (I’m using this for an example because drboom’s situation was discussed at length here.) They’ve got the statistics on their computer screens and printouts using certain maps out of a particular zip code (i.e. “Fletcher Hills”). Neither agent’s market or “farm” area is Fletcher Hills and they are located 23 and 43 miles away, respectively. I’m not saying here that these agents don’t know what they’re doing. They do, but crunching these “sterile” stats wouldn’t be the be all and end all for drboom.[/quote]

Applause.

I do in fact have an Aunt Sue, though not in the ‘hood, and I have lots of stories about where to uy and not buy. In my case, I knew a retired geologist who lived down the street. He liked to point out where not to buy a house in this neighborhood (and, generally, what to look out for), and I kept his advice in mind all these years.

[drboom]

Lotta ground to cover here. I understand and agree with your points about the idiot consumers out there, possibly because I am also a code monkey.

I want to do the job because I want it done right, and I won’t know exactly what I want until I’ve done my homework. I can’t delegate it and get the result I want. As far as negotiation, I’ll take my chances since I have the experience and skill to do it.

[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]

I have repeatedly acknowledged the value that my agent brought to my deal.

[drboom]

Lotta ground to cover here. I understand and agree with your points about the idiot consumers out there, possibly because I am also a code monkey.

I want to do the job because I want it done right, and I won’t know exactly what I want until I’ve done my homework. I can’t delegate it and get the result I want. As far as negotiation, I’ll take my chances since I have the experience and skill to do it.

[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]

I have repeatedly acknowledged the value that my agent brought to my deal.

[drboom]

Lotta ground to cover here. I understand and agree with your points about the idiot consumers out there, possibly because I am also a code monkey.

I want to do the job because I want it done right, and I won’t know exactly what I want until I’ve done my homework. I can’t delegate it and get the result I want. As far as negotiation, I’ll take my chances since I have the experience and skill to do it.

[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]

I have repeatedly acknowledged the value that my agent brought to my deal.

[drboom]

Lotta ground to cover here. I understand and agree with your points about the idiot consumers out there, possibly because I am also a code monkey.

I want to do the job because I want it done right, and I won’t know exactly what I want until I’ve done my homework. I can’t delegate it and get the result I want. As far as negotiation, I’ll take my chances since I have the experience and skill to do it.

[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]

I have repeatedly acknowledged the value that my agent brought to my deal.

[drboom]

Lotta ground to cover here. I understand and agree with your points about the idiot consumers out there, possibly because I am also a code monkey.

I want to do the job because I want it done right, and I won’t know exactly what I want until I’ve done my homework. I can’t delegate it and get the result I want. As far as negotiation, I’ll take my chances since I have the experience and skill to do it.

[quote=sdduuuude]
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.[/quote]

I have repeatedly acknowledged the value that my agent brought to my deal.

[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.

[drboom]

[quote=matt-waiting]My impression is that asking for a rebate from a good buyer’s agent may be the best way to go, although the good Dr. has shown that a) a buyer’s agent provides little value for a buyer with half a brain … [/quote]

I should repeat that representation during the sale process had definite value for me. It might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer for the services my agent performed, even accounting for the rebate. But I don’t know if the lawyer I ended up with would have been on the deal like a rabid (and very organized) wolverine like my agent was.

Ask for 1.5% pretax (you’ll get a 1099). Net should be around 1% depending on your tax bracket.

YMMV, but it worked well for me. It’s not about beating the system, it’s about not paying for things I actively don’t want. I won’t be scared or bullied into wanting them, either.

[drboom]

[quote=matt-waiting]My impression is that asking for a rebate from a good buyer’s agent may be the best way to go, although the good Dr. has shown that a) a buyer’s agent provides little value for a buyer with half a brain … [/quote]

I should repeat that representation during the sale process had definite value for me. It might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer for the services my agent performed, even accounting for the rebate. But I don’t know if the lawyer I ended up with would have been on the deal like a rabid (and very organized) wolverine like my agent was.

Ask for 1.5% pretax (you’ll get a 1099). Net should be around 1% depending on your tax bracket.

YMMV, but it worked well for me. It’s not about beating the system, it’s about not paying for things I actively don’t want. I won’t be scared or bullied into wanting them, either.

[drboom]

[quote=matt-waiting]My impression is that asking for a rebate from a good buyer’s agent may be the best way to go, although the good Dr. has shown that a) a buyer’s agent provides little value for a buyer with half a brain … [/quote]

I should repeat that representation during the sale process had definite value for me. It might have been cheaper to hire a lawyer for the services my agent performed, even accounting for the rebate. But I don’t know if the lawyer I ended up with would have been on the deal like a rabid (and very organized) wolverine like my agent was.

Ask for 1.5% pretax (you’ll get a 1099). Net should be around 1% depending on your tax bracket.

YMMV, but it worked well for me. It’s not about beating the system, it’s about not paying for things I actively don’t want. I won’t be scared or bullied into wanting them, either.

[Author]

Posts