http://www.aubrey.net/

I think that some of the things the NAR proposes (e.g. minimum service, anti-rebate) are supported by more than just brokers. But in any case, going after the NAR isn’t going to get those laws off the books in the states where the NAR has been successful to date. Again I need to look at who the defendants are, because I’m guessing they have to have sued some additional parties to get any relief at all.

Also, while I agree with you about forced membership, I don’t see that membership alone results in less competition. Also, not everything the NAR does leads to higher commissions. A lot of their new housing initiatives would tend to lower prices. In fact, it’s possible that NAR activity in some states has been a significant cause of the collapse of markets there (I’m not saying it has been, just that it’s possible). But back to the point–I’m a member of the NAR (as required by my broker–not sure whether I would be otherwise or not), but I don’t always charge 3%.

BTW, the Bubbleheads have been making their arguments for more than five years now, so apparently they think prices have been going up at more than historical norms for longer than five years. What they don’t understand is today is different–we’ve touched on a lot of it recently (dual incomes, Section 8, First-time Homebuyer programs, 80%+ financing, etc.). Even ignoring increased population factors, that leads to increased demand.

Most “bubbleheads” argue that historically speaking housing prices have increased at or slightly above the rate of inflation over a broad amount of time (last 50-100 years). I don’t think any “bubblehead” would argue that housing has not defied historical norms the last 5 years. The whole point of arguing that we are in a bubble is to acknowledge that real estate has appreciated at a rate much greater than historical norms (i.e. the rate of inflation).

Secondly, why are you even bringing “bubble” people into this discussion? Are you arguing that the DOJ is full of bubbleheads? I’m totally lost on your rationale for your comments on post #9 other than some obvious animosity toward the believers in a bubble.

NAR. And they did it because their broker members urged them to do so.

The cost to go after individual brokers would be too high. NAR is an easy target. You cut the legs out from the lobbyists and it reduces the power that brokers have to get this kind of legislation passed.

Kary–those 30,000 agents have little connection to each other except that the majority of traditional brokerages require membership in NAR. And this is done to provide political power to those brokerages. Maybe I am just cynical but I don’t really think that NAR’s primary role is to oversee code of conduct issues. NAR exists to provide political power to players that would otherwise be too small to be powerful.

In general, I oppose lobbying groups and it bothers me to have to pay dues to one.

They would do more to achieve their goal to have each state include a non-representation option on agency disclosure forms in each state, than the way they are approaching it.

Hard to have more options and then have each State Law hold you to the highest standard.

Where’s the DYI real estate option on the Agency Disclosure pamphlet? Where’s the “select this option as a hold harmless for drastically reduced cost” option?

The sad thing is that they missed the boat as lower cost options made more sense in the hot market, than they do today. A case of “too little too late” at this point.

What are there–maybe 30,000 some agents in Washington State alone? And they have little or no financial connection to each other (it’s not like say a law firm organized on the partnership model). Everyone is out for themselves for the most part. Absent a requirement that some have to charge X%, that would be a rather competitive market.

Doesn’t Dustin work there?

All the NAR is, is a banding together of competitors in the marketplace (brokers…and agents to a lesser extent), unfortunately in some instances they’ve banded together in a way that is a violation of anti-trust acts. I personally hope DOJ ends up ruling that brokerages cannot require NAR membership, and that brokerages cannot require a single commission model among independent contractors. That would be a nice place to start.

They’ll cut the legs off NAR if they succeed, and that wouldn’t be such a terrible thing in my opinion. I agree with Ardell, NAR would be great if it actually meant something–if they took the right side on issues, rather than the realtor’s side. Not only that, they spend so much time trying to enact legislation to protect our jobs and commission structure that they totally miss the boat on the stuff they should be doing, see all the posts people have written on the new forms for examples of NAR/WAR/SCCAR/SKCAR having missed the boat.

Should be interesting. Anyway, I will continue to pay minimum dues only and make a stink about paying those legal or lobbying fees they add on. Nice of them to break it out for me. I am not paying to have some organization that supposedly represents my interests promoting positions that I don’t even believe in. At least this way I can be a member and feel somewhat good about it.