Did midyear throw you for a few loops? Why?
We real cool, but for all our coolness, our cutting edginess, our self-important bellowing, we belong to an enormous *ahem* trade organization. So step back a moment and let me break it down for you.
A trade organization exists to represent its members.
All decisions it makes will be in the best interest of the majority of its members. Why? Because a trade organizations exists to represent its members. The end.
If you are not in the majority then your edgey place represents one of two things to a trade organization: Something to be ignored, or something to be absorbed. There are no buts.
“But they twitter!”
“But they leave comments on my blog!”
“But I met them at REBC and they were nice!”
They represent their members. They speak on behalf on their members. You may wish and hope and want to believe that things are different, however, facts is facts. It is what it is.
Meanwhile, how about those “Transaction Fees“? I don’t pass transaction fees on to my clients. I would hate it if it happened to me. So as the NAR creates a song and dance regarding Busby v. JRHBW Realty, Inc. (members only, sorry) thereby protecting the majority of its members, here’s a little toe-tapping number dedicated to the wackadoodle world of the NAR. Appropriately, she’s singing in pig latin!
Ken brand says:
That sums it up. Short and Bulls-Eye Bitter. Truer words were never spoken. Cheers
May 19, 2009 — 7:29 pm
joe spake says:
The “members only” link is quite interesting. I guess NAR would sue me if I posted it.
NAR represents the interests of Broker-Owners. Period.
There should probably be 2 uses of the trademark:
REALTOR(c) – for Broker-Owners and
realtor – for everyone else. It may be a good indicator of a member’s function/power in the organization.
May 20, 2009 — 7:55 am
Teri Lussier says:
Ken-
>Short and Bulls-Eye Bitter
Did that sound bitter? It wasn’t meant to be. It is what it is. Discussing it, with Busby Berkeley soundtrack, shouldn’t be a bitter experience. Eye-opening perhaps, and educational/informational if possible, but hopefully not bitter.
Hi Joe!
>The “members only” link is quite interesting. I guess NAR would sue me if I posted it.
I have no clue what they would do, but I’m not inclined to find out. It is telling that the response is behind a veil, and you nailed it- “NAR represents the interests of Broker-Owners”. If it were otherwise, it seems to me, their response would be an mea culpa press release.
May 20, 2009 — 9:47 am
Ken brand says:
Teri, My bad, poor communication on my part. I enjoy reading your views, I don’t believe you have “bitter” in you….”bright as the sun”, but not bitter.
To clarify, I believer you hit the “bulls-eye”, I believe your point illuminates the “bitter” truth for all edgeily entrepreneurial real estate agents. Reality = protect the average, traditional majority.
Rock ON.
May 20, 2009 — 12:10 pm
Jeff says:
I just found out recently that the song in the video is called “The Gold Digger’s Song”. I always thought it was called “We’re in the Money”. Haaa. I guess that makes it more appropriate to your post…
May 20, 2009 — 12:22 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Hi Ken-
The bitter truth makes sense. I kinda thought that might be what you meant, however, I know that some think/thought that any disparaging comments about the NAR is explained away by calling us bitter and it’s simply not true. I wouldn’t waste my life being bitter, let alone bitter over the NAR.
Hi Jeff-
I don’t think anyone would know it as The Gold Digger’s Song, would they? Not me. I was looking for Busby Berkeley (because of the case name) and I thought We’re in the Money would be quite Busby-esque and appropriate, so The Gold Digger’s is an added bonus. 🙂 And if you’re interested, although I’m not sure why you would be, you can sing along with the pig latin lyrics here. http://www.harrywarren.org/songs/0140.htm The pig latin is a remarkable addition to the surreal atmosphere of the number. It’s quite a spectacle- unlike any song/dance number I’ve ever seen.
May 20, 2009 — 2:39 pm
Kevin Sandridge says:
Hey Teri – you’re so damned snarky! And we love you for that! I honestly had no clue as to what the NAR was or wasn’t about before stumbling and fumbling my way onto the Good Old Bloodhound Blog.
Greg’s set the stage, and you’ve definitely made some illuminating points here!
May 20, 2009 — 5:32 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Hi Kevin-
>you’re so damned snarky!
I guess we all have our gifts to offer the world. Glad I could illuminate your’s just a bit. 😉
May 20, 2009 — 8:00 pm
jay seville says:
The court overstepped its authority and is interfering in the individual contracts between brokers and sellers. If a seller doesn’t want to pay a fee they can tell their broker so up front and I don’t believe any broker will walk away from the listing for it.
Courts should almost never interfere in the market place period. Consumers and business owners can negotiate their own interests fine.
And I don’t charge sellers the transaction fee either–in fact I discount most of my listings as I think the concept of a listing agent is largely a joke. the selling agent brings the buyer to the table and negotiates for them to protect them from greedy owners. Whether those are listed by listing agents or flat fee FSBOs is hardly of consequence to the main reality–it’s going to get show by selling agents anyway who are going to negotiate the price down generally to a reasonable amount–hopefully even a good deal.
Courts should stay out of it instead of insulting home owners intelligence. You cannot tell me that owner crying about a $149.00 fee could not have told the broker no up front and still had their home sold by the same broker.
The gov/courts should stay out of eveybody’s business as much as possible–an a pathetic transaction fee between mutually consenting parties is a joke of a reason for judicial activists to display their agendas.
May 21, 2009 — 11:57 am
jay seville says:
great points about REALTOR vs realtor–the latter of which tend to be much more entrepreneurial and customer service oriented and sincere about fiduciary duties.
NAR is not for the little realtors–just the broker/owners–and the big national or reginal ones at that versus the individual broker/owners with just several agents or solo.
May 21, 2009 — 12:01 pm
Teri Lussier says:
Hi Jay-
I have seen the buyer’s agent’s fees show up as closing costs for the seller. So, yes, the seller agreed to pay the buyer’s closing costs, that was an agreement, but I’m not sure the seller would have agreed to these fees if they were disclosed prior to the HUD-1. And perhaps they were disclosed prior, I don’t really know.
I’m curious how listing agents explain what those fees are to their seller, when they see them on the HUD-1?
May 21, 2009 — 1:19 pm
joe spake says:
Jay, maybe we can start a movement with the REALTOR vs. realtor thing
May 21, 2009 — 1:43 pm