[urbanrealtor]

DB:
Again, we are just repeating ourselves.
The California Bar is was described as acting like a union in a 1981 lawsuit ruling in 1989. So while there are 20 and 30 year old complaints, that does not make it something other than a government body (and the justices actually just said they had to act like it–not that they were something else).

The NAR has acted in unfair and anti-competitive ways but you have still not made a strong case that they are a monopoly.

Like I said, most people licensed to do this work don’t belong to said trade organization.

My grandad founded one of the earliest Midwest regional boards (this was shortly after the NAR, which my family business predates, had started existing). The benefit for him then is the same as it is for me now. It creates a more integrated environment and some common standards for doing business (eg: ethics complaints are taken much more seriously by CAR and SDAR than the DRE).

The downside is obvious though. While still not a monopoly, it does have a tendency to become insular and for members to not want to do business outside their comfort zone.

[urbanrealtor]

DB:
Again, we are just repeating ourselves.
The California Bar is was described as acting like a union in a 1981 lawsuit ruling in 1989. So while there are 20 and 30 year old complaints, that does not make it something other than a government body (and the justices actually just said they had to act like it–not that they were something else).

The NAR has acted in unfair and anti-competitive ways but you have still not made a strong case that they are a monopoly.

Like I said, most people licensed to do this work don’t belong to said trade organization.

My grandad founded one of the earliest Midwest regional boards (this was shortly after the NAR, which my family business predates, had started existing). The benefit for him then is the same as it is for me now. It creates a more integrated environment and some common standards for doing business (eg: ethics complaints are taken much more seriously by CAR and SDAR than the DRE).

The downside is obvious though. While still not a monopoly, it does have a tendency to become insular and for members to not want to do business outside their comfort zone.

[urbanrealtor]

@CAR:
Dude, I so don’t care if you are offended.

I am not interested in people’s personal addresses (mine is public record btw–look it up) but I am very interested in people showing me actual examples of experiences that did not involve different agents on each side.

I got 2 brave souls to share.

Since I would like to protect their privacy I will not give their names or addresses. I will give some general info about the deals and what part of town it was in.

DIY 1:
This cat bought an SFR repo in the greater Rancho Bernardo area. He used the bank’s listing agent and closed in mid 2009. Relevant Caveat: this unit was sold with tenants still in it and state explicitly that the listing agent will only entertain cash offers. The offer that closed was one with a 80% loan. In my estimation, this property closed at about 5% below comparable properties. As expected, the buyer corrected me and said it was at least 10%. The problem with that argument is that much of the value was POTENTIAL value, not actual. While I would not shy away from it, the market for a property with foreclosed-upon tenants is typically much softer than for vacant units (investors and buyer-occupiers just don’t like to run the risk of psycho angry tenants). However, DIY1 did well, dealt with his tenants well and made out well. Truly well played sir.

DIY2:
Purchased a house in the greater Clairemont area.
They went directly to the seller (who I guess they knew) and made an offer that resulted in the same seller net they would have gotten if they used an agent (but with less total purchase price). Note: this purchase was in mid-2003 during an accelerating boom market.

It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”. Again, as with the usual script, the buyer disputed this and told me that he was sure that the property would have sold for $38k more in a minute. He based this on the fact that a prospective listing agent had given the $38k higher price. A common feature of a boom market is that listing agents will list a property for a high price and take a 6 month listing. One way or another they get it sold because what seems high now may be very reasonable in 6 months from now. That means that while I feel very confident in my assessment (that they overpaid in mid 2003), the reality is that they were not overpaying by early 2004.

So we have an example of 2 deals where the buyers did okay (though neither wildly well or bad).

They both thought they did better than I thought they did and maybe that is part of the benefit. My lemon meringue pie is better than Marie Callender’s (to me) but would likely lose in any taste test. Its better because I actually pick the lemons and separate the eggs and whip the whites and blend the dough.

It is damn interesting though and I plan to run this past a few other agents I trust for their feedback (the deals not the pie).

I would like to hear from other people who have gone this direction.

Hit me up.

[urbanrealtor]

@CAR:
Dude, I so don’t care if you are offended.

I am not interested in people’s personal addresses (mine is public record btw–look it up) but I am very interested in people showing me actual examples of experiences that did not involve different agents on each side.

I got 2 brave souls to share.

Since I would like to protect their privacy I will not give their names or addresses. I will give some general info about the deals and what part of town it was in.

DIY 1:
This cat bought an SFR repo in the greater Rancho Bernardo area. He used the bank’s listing agent and closed in mid 2009. Relevant Caveat: this unit was sold with tenants still in it and state explicitly that the listing agent will only entertain cash offers. The offer that closed was one with a 80% loan. In my estimation, this property closed at about 5% below comparable properties. As expected, the buyer corrected me and said it was at least 10%. The problem with that argument is that much of the value was POTENTIAL value, not actual. While I would not shy away from it, the market for a property with foreclosed-upon tenants is typically much softer than for vacant units (investors and buyer-occupiers just don’t like to run the risk of psycho angry tenants). However, DIY1 did well, dealt with his tenants well and made out well. Truly well played sir.

DIY2:
Purchased a house in the greater Clairemont area.
They went directly to the seller (who I guess they knew) and made an offer that resulted in the same seller net they would have gotten if they used an agent (but with less total purchase price). Note: this purchase was in mid-2003 during an accelerating boom market.

It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”. Again, as with the usual script, the buyer disputed this and told me that he was sure that the property would have sold for $38k more in a minute. He based this on the fact that a prospective listing agent had given the $38k higher price. A common feature of a boom market is that listing agents will list a property for a high price and take a 6 month listing. One way or another they get it sold because what seems high now may be very reasonable in 6 months from now. That means that while I feel very confident in my assessment (that they overpaid in mid 2003), the reality is that they were not overpaying by early 2004.

So we have an example of 2 deals where the buyers did okay (though neither wildly well or bad).

They both thought they did better than I thought they did and maybe that is part of the benefit. My lemon meringue pie is better than Marie Callender’s (to me) but would likely lose in any taste test. Its better because I actually pick the lemons and separate the eggs and whip the whites and blend the dough.

It is damn interesting though and I plan to run this past a few other agents I trust for their feedback (the deals not the pie).

I would like to hear from other people who have gone this direction.

Hit me up.

[urbanrealtor]

@CAR:
Dude, I so don’t care if you are offended.

I am not interested in people’s personal addresses (mine is public record btw–look it up) but I am very interested in people showing me actual examples of experiences that did not involve different agents on each side.

I got 2 brave souls to share.

Since I would like to protect their privacy I will not give their names or addresses. I will give some general info about the deals and what part of town it was in.

DIY 1:
This cat bought an SFR repo in the greater Rancho Bernardo area. He used the bank’s listing agent and closed in mid 2009. Relevant Caveat: this unit was sold with tenants still in it and state explicitly that the listing agent will only entertain cash offers. The offer that closed was one with a 80% loan. In my estimation, this property closed at about 5% below comparable properties. As expected, the buyer corrected me and said it was at least 10%. The problem with that argument is that much of the value was POTENTIAL value, not actual. While I would not shy away from it, the market for a property with foreclosed-upon tenants is typically much softer than for vacant units (investors and buyer-occupiers just don’t like to run the risk of psycho angry tenants). However, DIY1 did well, dealt with his tenants well and made out well. Truly well played sir.

DIY2:
Purchased a house in the greater Clairemont area.
They went directly to the seller (who I guess they knew) and made an offer that resulted in the same seller net they would have gotten if they used an agent (but with less total purchase price). Note: this purchase was in mid-2003 during an accelerating boom market.

It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”. Again, as with the usual script, the buyer disputed this and told me that he was sure that the property would have sold for $38k more in a minute. He based this on the fact that a prospective listing agent had given the $38k higher price. A common feature of a boom market is that listing agents will list a property for a high price and take a 6 month listing. One way or another they get it sold because what seems high now may be very reasonable in 6 months from now. That means that while I feel very confident in my assessment (that they overpaid in mid 2003), the reality is that they were not overpaying by early 2004.

So we have an example of 2 deals where the buyers did okay (though neither wildly well or bad).

They both thought they did better than I thought they did and maybe that is part of the benefit. My lemon meringue pie is better than Marie Callender’s (to me) but would likely lose in any taste test. Its better because I actually pick the lemons and separate the eggs and whip the whites and blend the dough.

It is damn interesting though and I plan to run this past a few other agents I trust for their feedback (the deals not the pie).

I would like to hear from other people who have gone this direction.

Hit me up.

[urbanrealtor]

@CAR:
Dude, I so don’t care if you are offended.

I am not interested in people’s personal addresses (mine is public record btw–look it up) but I am very interested in people showing me actual examples of experiences that did not involve different agents on each side.

I got 2 brave souls to share.

Since I would like to protect their privacy I will not give their names or addresses. I will give some general info about the deals and what part of town it was in.

DIY 1:
This cat bought an SFR repo in the greater Rancho Bernardo area. He used the bank’s listing agent and closed in mid 2009. Relevant Caveat: this unit was sold with tenants still in it and state explicitly that the listing agent will only entertain cash offers. The offer that closed was one with a 80% loan. In my estimation, this property closed at about 5% below comparable properties. As expected, the buyer corrected me and said it was at least 10%. The problem with that argument is that much of the value was POTENTIAL value, not actual. While I would not shy away from it, the market for a property with foreclosed-upon tenants is typically much softer than for vacant units (investors and buyer-occupiers just don’t like to run the risk of psycho angry tenants). However, DIY1 did well, dealt with his tenants well and made out well. Truly well played sir.

DIY2:
Purchased a house in the greater Clairemont area.
They went directly to the seller (who I guess they knew) and made an offer that resulted in the same seller net they would have gotten if they used an agent (but with less total purchase price). Note: this purchase was in mid-2003 during an accelerating boom market.

It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”. Again, as with the usual script, the buyer disputed this and told me that he was sure that the property would have sold for $38k more in a minute. He based this on the fact that a prospective listing agent had given the $38k higher price. A common feature of a boom market is that listing agents will list a property for a high price and take a 6 month listing. One way or another they get it sold because what seems high now may be very reasonable in 6 months from now. That means that while I feel very confident in my assessment (that they overpaid in mid 2003), the reality is that they were not overpaying by early 2004.

So we have an example of 2 deals where the buyers did okay (though neither wildly well or bad).

They both thought they did better than I thought they did and maybe that is part of the benefit. My lemon meringue pie is better than Marie Callender’s (to me) but would likely lose in any taste test. Its better because I actually pick the lemons and separate the eggs and whip the whites and blend the dough.

It is damn interesting though and I plan to run this past a few other agents I trust for their feedback (the deals not the pie).

I would like to hear from other people who have gone this direction.

Hit me up.

[urbanrealtor]

@CAR:
Dude, I so don’t care if you are offended.

I am not interested in people’s personal addresses (mine is public record btw–look it up) but I am very interested in people showing me actual examples of experiences that did not involve different agents on each side.

I got 2 brave souls to share.

Since I would like to protect their privacy I will not give their names or addresses. I will give some general info about the deals and what part of town it was in.

DIY 1:
This cat bought an SFR repo in the greater Rancho Bernardo area. He used the bank’s listing agent and closed in mid 2009. Relevant Caveat: this unit was sold with tenants still in it and state explicitly that the listing agent will only entertain cash offers. The offer that closed was one with a 80% loan. In my estimation, this property closed at about 5% below comparable properties. As expected, the buyer corrected me and said it was at least 10%. The problem with that argument is that much of the value was POTENTIAL value, not actual. While I would not shy away from it, the market for a property with foreclosed-upon tenants is typically much softer than for vacant units (investors and buyer-occupiers just don’t like to run the risk of psycho angry tenants). However, DIY1 did well, dealt with his tenants well and made out well. Truly well played sir.

DIY2:
Purchased a house in the greater Clairemont area.
They went directly to the seller (who I guess they knew) and made an offer that resulted in the same seller net they would have gotten if they used an agent (but with less total purchase price). Note: this purchase was in mid-2003 during an accelerating boom market.

It was my observation, when running the numbers that the buyer had overpaid by a few percent but that this did not qualify as “getting screwed”. Again, as with the usual script, the buyer disputed this and told me that he was sure that the property would have sold for $38k more in a minute. He based this on the fact that a prospective listing agent had given the $38k higher price. A common feature of a boom market is that listing agents will list a property for a high price and take a 6 month listing. One way or another they get it sold because what seems high now may be very reasonable in 6 months from now. That means that while I feel very confident in my assessment (that they overpaid in mid 2003), the reality is that they were not overpaying by early 2004.

So we have an example of 2 deals where the buyers did okay (though neither wildly well or bad).

They both thought they did better than I thought they did and maybe that is part of the benefit. My lemon meringue pie is better than Marie Callender’s (to me) but would likely lose in any taste test. Its better because I actually pick the lemons and separate the eggs and whip the whites and blend the dough.

It is damn interesting though and I plan to run this past a few other agents I trust for their feedback (the deals not the pie).

I would like to hear from other people who have gone this direction.

Hit me up.

[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.

[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.

[Author]

Posts