Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did read a story recently about one couple who got a historical house based on a love letter that said they loved everything about it just the way it was, then turned around and made plans to knock it down and build a McMansion...love letters aren't always sincere and are never enforceable.
My mother has a basic ranch house (which needs a lot of work) in a neighborhood where prices have risen dramatically. Two houses right next to her sold for previously unheard-of sums. She mentioned a guy came up to her soon after those sales and said he's looking for a one-story house to move into, because a serious leg injury has made it hard to live in his two-story house. I told my mother, people will tell you a nice story, but they are probably just seeing dollar signs.
My mother has a basic ranch house (which needs a lot of work) in a neighborhood where prices have risen dramatically. Two houses right next to her sold for previously unheard-of sums. She mentioned a guy came up to her soon after those sales and said he's looking for a one-story house to move into, because a serious leg injury has made it hard to live in his two-story house. I told my mother, people will tell you a nice story, but they are probably just seeing dollar signs.
A love letter may help me choose between two otherwise equal offers, but I certainly won't take a lower offer because there was a love letter.
This is a free speech issue. You are allowing the state to tell you that you are not free to speak with someone. It’s wrong, it’s immoral, it’s a violation of our rights. But we are so conditioned to throwing away freedom that people will discuss whether love letters “work” or not. Amazing. Horrifying.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 07-12-2021 at 04:15 AM..
This is a free speech issue. You are allowing the state to tell you that you are not free to speak with someone. It’s wrong, it’s immoral, it’s a violation of our rights. But we are so conditioned to throwing away freedom that people will discuss whether love letters “work” or not. Amazing. Horrifying.
Based on that logic, would you say that the state requiring people generally to have certain training/licenses before being able to handle real estate transactions on behalf of others is also a free speech issue? Indeed, the fact that one--absent FSBO situations--must rely on a agent, etc., having certain training mandated by the state and can't go and find some otherwise knowledgeable but unlicensed Joe to represent one could also be viewed as a free speech/association issue based on that logic. Yet, I dare say that many an agent/broker is happy that such rules exist.
Now, I don't view either as a free speech issue as both regulate conduct. Potential buyers are still free to send love letters, and can bypass agents to do so. Agents just aren't allowed to accept them (in Oregon) as a part of the regulation of the agent trade.
Based on that logic, would you say that the state requiring people generally to have certain training/licenses before being able to handle real estate transactions on behalf of others is also a free speech issue? Indeed, the fact that one--absent FSBO situations--must rely on a agent, etc., having certain training mandated by the state and can't go and find some otherwise knowledgeable but unlicensed Joe to represent one could also be viewed as a free speech/association issue based on that logic. Yet, I dare say that many an agent/broker is happy that such rules exist.
Now, I don't view either as a free speech issue as both regulate conduct. Potential buyers are still free to send love letters, and can bypass agents to do so. Agents just aren't allowed to accept them (in Oregon) as a part of the regulation of the agent trade.
Yes. The State should not have the power to license anyone to undertake any profession. Licensing itself is complete overreach, and an unjustified interference in free trade and freedom in general.
And of course, the reality is it’s just another money grab by the state. It also interferes with social mobility by creating unnecessary and unjustifiable barriers to entry for minorities and other disadvantaged groups.
You should be free to have anyone you know and trust represent you in the purchase or disposition of any asset.
With that out of the way, it is outrageous collectivist nannny-state overreach to issue an edict, backed by the police power of the state, that you as an agent cannot accept and transmit a letter to the property owner in support of your buyer client’s desire to purchase his home. It’s utter madness, utter tyranny, and one more incremental decay of our individual rights and freedoms.
This is a free speech issue. You are allowing the state to tell you that you are not free to speak with someone. It’s wrong, it’s immoral, it’s a violation of our rights. But we are so conditioned to throwing away freedom that people will discuss whether love letters “work” or not. Amazing. Horrifying.
I agree that it's a freedom of speech issue between the buyer and seller. That's what I said earlier in this thread although I didn't use the term "freedom of speech". The real estate commission has no authority to regulate what the buyer and seller say to each other. They can only regulate what the agents do or don't do.
As far as licensing of people in a business or profession, I don't really object to that in most instances. I'd like to know that my "doctor" actually went to medical school and met certain criteria. I'd also like to know that my lawyer did likewise.
As far as real estate agents, judging from some of the comments of some and some of the things that some of them do, I'd favor STRICTER licensing for them. As it is, if you can fog a mirror placed under your nose and be able to answer a few very basic questions, you can be a licensed real estate agent who will handle the marketing of the largest asset that most people ever own... their house. That's why I generally do it myself.
As it is, if you can fog a mirror placed under your nose and be able to answer a few very basic questions, you can be a licensed real estate agent who will handle the marketing of the largest asset that most people ever own... their house. That's why I generally do it myself.
Had never heard this turn of phrase of before got a good chuckle out of "if you can fog a mirror placed under your nose".
I have had a range of experiences with "real estate agents" from pretty good to useless across a number of house selling and buying events. Agree that there should be much more significant licensing requirements - but the biggest problem I have with them is how much I am paying for their services. In this market a house might easily sell in a week. Let's say it's a $300,000 house. Was that service worth $9000 for each of the two "real estate agents" with their fingers in the deal? Even the most brilliant and experienced agent can't justify $9000 for processing a few documents, making a few phone calls and attending a closing to get their check. They might have physically entered the house once or twice too along the way.
As far as real estate agents, judging from some of the comments of some and some of the things that some of them do, I'd favor STRICTER licensing for them. As it is, if you can fog a mirror placed under your nose and be able to answer a few very basic questions, you can be a licensed real estate agent who will handle the marketing of the largest asset that most people ever own... their house. That's why I generally do it myself.
To be fair, the real estate exam is not that easy to pass. If someone has a license, they earned it. Here are some stats from states and a diagnosis explaining pass/fail rates:
For example, the Texas Real Estate Commission (TREC) notes that the overall pass rate on the state’s real estate exams over the last two years was only 58.94 percent. The Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation (DBPR) reports a statewide real estate exam pass rate of only 43 percent. Across the country in California, the pass rate also hovers around 50 percent.
These states are not outliers. The bottom line is clear: many people fail the real estate exam. Does that mean that the real estate exam is hard? In a way it does, but it is also much more complicated than that. The real estate exam is a knowledge test. It does not test applicants on information that they will intuitively know. In other words, you must study to pass this exam.
Chas, your comment is not accurate. Like every job some are better and work harder than others, but your comment would be accurate if you said: If you have a license and can fog a mirror, there are companies that will hire you in real estate. But to say you only need to answer a few easy questions to get a license is a misnomer.
Some people feel there should be stricter quality control requirements to maintain a license , but then the other side of the coin is that the state is only there to to set basic requirements to have and maintain a license and the consumer is responsible to vet and hire an agent. In reality, the REC generally will recommend laws and guidelines, and enforce against those that violate the laws. Of course, enforcement requires proof and that can be difficult at times. I'll leave it up to the readers to form their own opinion about the role the REC and government should play in licensing and monitoring.
...
I have had a range of experiences with "real estate agents" from pretty good to useless across a number of house selling and buying events. Agree that there should be much more significant licensing requirements - but the biggest problem I have with them is how much I am paying for their services. In this market a house might easily sell in a week. Let's say it's a $300,000 house. Was that service worth $9000 for each of the two "real estate agents" with their fingers in the deal? Even the most brilliant and experienced agent can't justify $9000 for processing a few documents, making a few phone calls and attending a closing to get their check. They might have physically entered the house once or twice too along the way.
I heard an interesting comment on the radio this morning. A professional golfer just won a tournament and credited a swing coach for a putting adjustment. Basically, 1 minor change and probably only took 1 short session for it to implemented. I'm guessing he paid thousands of dollars for 1 quick lesson, probably no more than 2-3 hours. Should the golf coach have received thousands of dollars, or was his hour only worth the going rate of $30 per hour you suggested earlier for agents handling such a large transaction?
This is your opinion, so I don't think there's a wrong answer since it's your opinion. However, an opinion doesn't always equate to reality. I would think the golfer that just won near 7 figures was happy to pay upwards of 10-25k for the lesson from one of the worlds best, but you'd have to ask him.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
