Agents...playing nice in the sand box... (Realtors, state, loan)

[Silverfall]

Scone, actually in Oregon all complaints are public. You can head to www.state.rea.or.us (broken link) and if you click on the newsletter you can see who was reprimanded, suspended, revoked license, etc. If you are considering hiring an agent, you can also contact the REA about what, if any complaints have been filed against an agent. It is all public.

Like all industries politics gets in the way. In Oregon the advisory board was toiling with the idea that in order to maintain your real estate license, a minimum number of transactions would need to occur every year. This would essentially weed out part time agents, and was shot down. I personally thought it was a good idea because in order to stay on top of market trends you have to be actively involved in transactions.

The questions this brings up is how much do we want government to step in and regulate and how much do we want to marketplace to regulate. The fact is that consumers, every day, hire crappy agents. They don't interview and just call the biggest local company and hire whomever answers the phone. There are many average agents out there that do great business. If consumers set their expectations so low, and accept mediocrity there isn't a lot that good agents can do about that.

You can read Agent Genius, BloodHound Blog, Active Rain, which are all national real estate blog sites and read about the concerns and shifts happening in the industry.

[scone]

No, you have a misunderstanding of the gist of the last several posts. No one is pressuring you to give away the details of any particular business transaction, and there is no effective way to do so. The further statement about me having "more problems than I thought" is swerving too close to a personal attack, and any further such attacks will be reported.

If you had read some of my previous posts on this thread, you would know that I am no realtor basher. I am merely trying to state the obvious:

a) the industry has a severe image problem revolving around issues of trust and competence.

b) The industry is supposed to be self-policing. The NAR has struck a deal with the American public to the effect that it will get the bad apples out of the system in exchange for less regulation overall.

c) If the NAR rank and file does not get the bad apples out, the industry's image will further deteriorate.

d) In the current climate of "financial apocalypse,' if realtors don't do their part to clean things up, then Sen. Dodd, et.al. on the Senate Banking Committe will be under pressure to get some comprehensive reform legislation in place.

In other words, if you guys don't offer up some of the bad guys as sacrifices, the whole system may be blamed, leading to a lot more regulation.

OTOH, if effective reform starts to happen from the bottom up, the issues of trust and competence will gradually fade, and the image of the industry will improve tremendously. So it's all up to you.

[scone]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Scone, actually in Oregon all complaints are public. You can head to www.state.rea.or.us and if you click on the newsletter you can see who was reprimanded, suspended, revoked license, etc. If you are considering hiring an agent, you can also contact the REA about what, if any complaints have been filed against an agent. It is all public.

I know, but that's not what I'm referring to. I'm just stating the obvious, vizz, that the industry operates in a framework of publicly enacted law, regulated at the state level by the Department of Real Estate (or some such designation), and at the Federal level, such as HUD rules. As I'm sure you know, this law comes out of the Senate Banking Committee, usually.

Like all industries politics gets in the way. In Oregon the advisory board was toiling with the idea that in order to maintain your real estate license, a minimum number of transactions would need to occur every year. This would essentially weed out part time agents, and was shot down. I personally thought it was a good idea because in order to stay on top of market trends you have to be actively involved in transactions.

This is one reason why NAR should get out of the PAC business. But that's not the biggest issue, as you know. The basic problem here is the ineffective "self-policing" system. Bad agents are not punished, and that ends up punishing the good agents, directly or indirectly. And the good agents have disincentives to turn in their peers. There is too much "looking the other way."

The questions this brings up is how much do we want government to step in and regulate and how much do we want to marketplace to regulate. The fact is that consumers, every day, hire crappy agents. They don't interview and just call the biggest local company and hire whomever answers the phone. There are many average agents out there that do great business. If consumers set their expectations so low, and accept mediocrity there isn't a lot that good agents can do about that.

If most customers are ignorant of the process and therefore need "expert guidance," then how can you expect them to pick only the good agents? As for regulation, well, let's see what happens when after the elections. If the whole financial/credit/housing system continues to melt down, there will be hell to pay. Especially if the Congresspeople themselves are "upside-down!"

Bottom line, if you want respect, you have to earn it. I strongly suggest comprehensive internal reform. We civvies can't do that for you. Reform yourselves, or face a very, very angry public and Congress.

[Silverfall]

Originally Posted by scone

This is one reason why NAR should get out of the PAC business. But that's not the biggest issue, as you know. The basic problem here is the ineffective "self-policing" system. Bad agents are not punished, and that ends up punishing the good agents, directly or indirectly. And the good agents have disincentives to turn in their peers. There is too much "looking the other way."

Actually I don't think NAR should get out of the PAC business, I think they should get out of the MLS business. I think MLS's and NAR should be separate and not connected. 82% of MLS's require NAR membership. Mine does not and I think about 50% of members belong to NAR. The real estate industry does need lobbyists, I just don't think that group should be involved with the local MLS's.

NAR has a code of ethics which is pretty good if it was enforced. Right now the Realtor designation doesn't mean a whole lot since it is forced membership for most agents. They could care less about the Code of Ethics, but just join in order to get MLS access.

Originally Posted by scone

If most customers are ignorant of the process and therefore need "expert guidance," then how can you expect them to pick only the good agents?

The same way you pick other service providers. I interviewed 3 pediatricians before I picked one for my kids. You ask for referrals and interview people. Your instincts should help you from there.

Originally Posted by scone

Bottom line, if you want respect, you have to earn it. I strongly suggest comprehensive internal reform. We civvies can't do that for you. Reform yourselves, or face a very, very angry public and Congress.

I agree that trust is earned, but that is true for any profession. Actually Consumer Reports just came out (September issue) that indicated that 71% of consumers were very or completely satisfied with their real estate agent. 12% were very dissatisfied. Numbers like that aren't great, but they aren't bad enough to force comprehensive internal reforms. The question is whether or not the 12%, like yourself and some others on the forum, will make a significant impact.

[scone]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

Actually I don't think NAR should get out of the PAC business, I think they should get out of the MLS business. I think MLS's and NAR should be separate and not connected. 82% of MLS's require NAR membership. Mine does not and I think about 50% of members belong to NAR. The real estate industry does need lobbyists, I just don't think that group should be involved with the local MLS's.

As long as real estate lobbyists can buy Congresspeople through political contributions, the system will have a built in incentive to cater to realtors first, and the public second. The "money as free speech" notion has had nasty consequences. But that's another thread.

NAR has a code of ethics which is pretty good if it was enforced. Right now the Realtor designation doesn't mean a whole lot since it is forced membership for most agents. They could care less about the Code of Ethics, but just join in order to get MLS access.

That's the point. The code is not enforced. Bad agents prosper. The good are not rewarded.

The same way you pick other service providers. I interviewed 3 pediatricians before I picked one for my kids. You ask for referrals and interview people. Your instincts should help you from there.

And your friends are experts in pediatric medicine? The standard advice to "ask one's friends" makes some very big assumptions about one's friends' ability to deliver sound information. And "instinct" doesn't help the person who hasn't had a lot of experience with the process. You yourself have stated that people often pick realtors on irrational grounds, i.e., they like the agent, or the agent is telling them something they want to hear. Instinct isn't a good enough "filter" to weed out the bad guys. If it were, we would not be having this image/trust/respect problem.

I agree that trust is earned, but that is true for any profession. Actually Consumer Reports just came out (September issue) that indicated that 71% of consumers were very or completely satisfied with their real estate agent. 12% were very dissatisfied. Numbers like that aren't great, but they aren't bad enough to force comprehensive internal reforms. The question is whether or not the 12%, like yourself and some others on the forum, will make a significant impact.

Classical cognitive bias. People have positive warm and fuzzies for those with whom they have a personal relationship. People report they are happy with their own Congressperson, for example, but they are consistently unhappy with Congress as an institution. I suspect the same is true with Realtors. In any case, if you are going to make this report the crux of your argument, I think you should post the link so it can be publicly scrutinized in detail. As you know, statistics taken out of context can be easily misapplied.

And, by the way, putting me into that 12% you mentioned, is rhethorical persiflage. I never said I was unhappy with my realtor, nor am I unhappy with any particular realtor. I am merely pointing out what you already know: you (collectively, meaning all realtors) have a problem, and it is your job, not mine, to fix that problem.

But if I were a realtor, I would be saying "Yes, you're right, there are lots of issues here. What can we do to fix this and stave off heavy-handed legislation?" The day I find a realtor like that, I'll be their client for life.

[sunny57]

Maybe we all can agree ...there's a lot of anger and resentment on both side of the fence... due in part to the current housing market, stock market, gas prices, food prices and in general...the demands of everyday life.

We all see our markets have slowed down & in some areas.... dried up. When your homes equity (civvies/agents...etc....remember, we do own homes) or liveliyhoood (agent, brokers, lenders, insurance, builders, inspectators...etc.) is based on an industry which is rapidly changing, there will be an element of fustration & fear based on the unperdictability of the outcome. This is not the time to be fighting each other...more a time to find the common ground and work together as a team. It doesn't have to be an "us against them battle" ....it begins with each individuals decision to clean up their own act.

In all fields/industries there will be newbies, average joes, seasoned pro's & idots...do your homework... choose wisely and don't credit/blame others for your decisions.

Well... that's all I have left to say on the subject...let's move on to more productive things!...Sunny

[Silverfall]

ConsumerReports.org - Real estate, what the survey found (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/real-estate/real-estate/what-the-survey-found/real-estate-what-the-survey-found.htm - broken link)

Here is the link. I guess I didn't think it was that hard to google CR.

It doesn't matter that my friends are not experts in pediatric medicine. It's about whether or not the pediatrician earned their trust. Maybe you have friends you don't trust? People have to start somewhere and if you trust your friends judgment, then that is a good place to start.

[stevep]

There should be a national or regional database system that is open to everyone that would list all of the realtors and then annual stats for each realtor, such as number of homes listed, number of homes sold, number of listings expired, avg number of days on market before sold, avg drop in price (list price - sold price), etc. Plus have either a sellers/buyers comments field or a ratings scale (1-5). This would be extremely helpful in picking a realtor and it would be an easy way to weed out the good realtors from the bad realtors.

[DMenscha]

Originally Posted by stevep

There should be a national or regional database system that is open to everyone that would list all of the realtors and then annual stats for each realtor, such as number of homes listed, number of homes sold, number of listings expired, avg number of days on market before sold, avg drop in price (list price - sold price), etc. Plus have either a sellers/buyers comments field or a ratings scale (1-5). This would be extremely helpful in picking a realtor and it would be an easy way to weed out the good realtors from the bad realtors.

Just a sidebar.

I think one of the slimiest real estate agents I've ever met is in the top 10 of all agents in our county. I don't consider her to be ethical or honest at all, but she talks a good line apparently and throws a lot of stuff on the wall. She's a listing machine and buys most of her listings. someday when I'm really bored, I'll look at all her listings and track the price drops.

[scone]

Originally Posted by Silverfall

ConsumerReports.org - Real estate, what the survey found (http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/money/real-estate/real-estate/what-the-survey-found/real-estate-what-the-survey-found.htm - broken link)

Here is the link. I guess I didn't think it was that hard to google CR.

It's not. I guess I expect a professional person to provide proof of their statements.

It doesn't matter that my friends are not experts in pediatric medicine. It's about whether or not the pediatrician earned their trust.

If you are going to put you childrens' lives in the hands of a complete stanger, wouldn't you want something more than some vague recommendation? I'm sure Patel got many patients based on the trust people have in their friends' recommendations. But that's just it, we may love and trust people but that does not mean they have some special ability to rationally evaluate risk, especially in an area where they themselves have ho personal expertise. I may like you very much, but I have no way of knowing, at the moment, whether you are a good realtor or not. If a friend then says to me, "Silverfall is a good realtor," I can't rationally evaluate that statement unless I know a lot more about my friend's expertise in real estate. Even then, I would not take such a statement at face value. Many people are trustworthy, but mistaken. Even experts can be wrong. I would submit that that's why we are in trouble now, too many people made unwarranted assumptions about the rationality of their "risk analysis decision matrix." In other words, they made bad real estate and credit decisions, based on nothing more than instinct, a friend's recommendation, "everybody else is doing it," etc.

Maybe you have friends you don't trust? People have to start somewhere and if you trust your friends judgment, then that is a good place to start.

See above. Love and trust has nothing to do with one's ability to evaluate risk. You are confusing two unrelated matters.