Home : Blogs : ActiveRain Real Estate Network : The Official ActiveRain Blog

Talking About Prices

In light of recent news articles highlighting the state of real estate commissions many members on this network have engaged in tangential discussions with their colleagues. Many of these discussions have gone into areas that the put participants at risk.

I have brought to you the consequences of talking commissions before. We've had it re-featured a few weeks ago. Since then I've had a few members disagree with me on the content of that post. I've even had some tell me that this is a conspiracy propagated by The National Association of Realtors, to keep prices high.

To clear things up a bit today I spoke with Deputy Assistant Director Of The FTC's Anticompetitive Practices Division, Patrick J. Roach.

Mr Roach stated it very clearly for me. Do not discuss prices with your competitors. Anything beyond that opens you up for an investigation for possible criminal conduct.

Mr Roach offered a second piece of advice. He said do not sit there quietly while such a (price) discussion is going on. Make a loud demonstration of stating that you will not be a part of this conversation and then leave. I'd like you to flag the post and tell us why you did so that it can get taken care of it as soon as possible.

Mr. Roach referenced the National Association of Realtors saying that they very wisely talk about not engaging in discussions & agreements about pricing.

I am encouraging you all to review NAR's Field Guide to Antitrust. And once again I am saying that you cannot discuss pricing with each other. Leave that for a talk with your clients and your office.

Thank you,

Caleb

Update.

A reminder everyone The purpose of this is to protect the community. You may had these discussions off-line legally or not. But this is a new medium where your discussions are recorded and public. You may not be accustomed to this but what you say is permanent record here.

Posted by ActiveRain Real Estate Network on 05/18/2007 06:50 PM

Comments (81)

commissions, guidelines, pricing

81 Comments on Talking About Prices

MAY

2007

Where do they get off trying to decide how muach someone elses job is worth? Especially when they don't really have a clue. Hve they ever been sued because they were showing houses and sombody ran into the realtor and they sued the realtor, claiming that he stopped to fast instead of running the red light.

It seems to me to be getting worse and worse on here all the time (i.e. remarks that could lead to potential Anti-Trust violations)....

It is always a good thing to remember that any thing spoken or written in any public forum can, and probably will, be used against you in a court of law...

and it really goes beyond just the "C" word--- any comparison or discussion about the business practices of another competitor can lead to anti-trust violations..

good post....

Caleb,

Well said, It's up to each individual broker, PERIOD. Any discussion of standard, traditional, etc., in inappropriate.

I think we just simply forget the rules. No talking about commission except in your own office or with a client but it's so easy to get caught up in discussions without realizing it's a big no no

I also think this needs to be made very clear in the Q&A section. I have seen some things that might get people in trouble when talking about commissions. Thank you so much for this post. Sherry

Thanks Paul, you have a good point. I hope others get that.

Thank you too Lynda PERIOD, is right.

Chuck, this isn't just about real estate, this applies any business operating in the U.S.

The "don't discuss commissions-period" advice is overkill, in my opinion. A discussion about the value of a realtor's services is not the same as discussions or agreements which the law intends to protect consumers from.

What is interesting to me is that it appears that a non-licensed individual can give the public information all they want about licensees' commissions, whether what they say is true or not. (like 60 minutes recently did) but when actual licensed practitioners come to the public's defense by attempting to correct errors which were presented as fact, someone begins screaming "Sherman!"

It is as if they would prefer the public not be informed of truths. That seems more aggregious to me than what Sherman Anti-trust laws are intended to prevent. When a government wants to keep the truth from its people, that is truly dangerous grounds to trod apon...I hope we aren't heading in that direction.

Remember the following, exerpted from the Active Rain Bill of Rights:

5.    We believe that the constructive dialogue at ActiveRain fosters transparency among consumers about the industry. We understand that ActiveRain plays a key role in demonstrating the integrity and professionalism of those engaged in our industry.

6.    ActiveRain prides itself on editorial independence. We believe that an open, free exchange of ideas is our primary reason for being. We are not captive of any point of view or agenda - other than to advance the interests of homebuyers and sellers and real estate professionals.

7.    We encourage dissenting or contrarian points of view because our industry is better served by continually examining the status quo. Challenging conventional wisdom is often essential for the evolution of our industry and the development of new opportunities.

We work too hard. Each agent should make their own determination.

caleb,

hard to believe that as professionals there is something wrong in discussing something like this.

I wonder if this holds true with doctors,attorney`s,cpa`s, etc.

is it any wonder why the industry is fragmented?

Rich,

I don't think you get it. 60 minutes is not a competitor to you. They can talk about your competition, you cannot. This has nothing to do with ActiveRain editorial independence, it is federal law.

Scott, this holds true with attorney', doctor's, CPA's, gas companies, grocery stores, cereal makers, hot dog makers, auto manufacturers..., everyone. According to Mr. Roach larger corporations have corporate videos to teach their employee's not do engage in such discussions.

MaryAnn, you clearly "get it" thank you.

Sherry you are right about the Q&A Section members can state their own prices to consumers, but you cannot talk about what others charge, or what is "average."

caleb,

very interesting reading.anti-trust traps a must read..

Do you feel that this post was a problem?

Realtor offers 5% commission,feels our offer is too low to compensate !

This is why many states are increasing the education required for licensure. There are to many unprofessional agents in this business. All pending licensees are taught the consequences of the "Sherman anti Trust Act", but choose to ignore it.

Parking To Follow The Comment Thread

TLW,

Where the heck have you been? You in the Witness Protection Program? :))

I agree with Rich Schiffer above, I think that you guys are talking over-kill. If we are discussing the merits of a discounter vs. the merits of a traditional full-service company and I say that I charge a flat fee and they say that they charge a percentage based commission, we are not colluding to set a price.

Now, if I write an article that says, hey! I won't go below X percentage if you don't. Then that's anti trust.

If I get together at a function or on here or in a chat room and say something to the effect of, I think that traditional real estate company's charge too much (which I do think) that is free speech. If I go to the same venues and attempt to enlist the aid of other Realtors to boycott a particular company as punishment for not upholding some unwritten code, then that's anti-competitive and probably would be against the law.

Caleb, think that you could get that guy from the FTC to write a post for us? That would be interesting, don't you think?

Bob Mitchell

ValueList

I am interested to see Caleb's response to Scott Daniel's post.

Sorry, I'm still missing the part where I can't say what I happen to charge. It's not a discussion of whether others charge too little or too much. It's not a discussion of what I think others should charge. It's not a suggestion of what I believe others should charge.

All I'm saying is this is what I charge. That's all.

If advertising commissions was an anti-trust violation, then all of the flat-fee companies would be long gone because that's the bulk of their marketing. And I don't see anyone telling them they have to stop. Why? Because they aren't trying to coerce. They're trying to market to the public.

Rich: We (and by we I mean ActiveRain) aren't trying to say we won't allow discussions to take place. But we're trying to make sure people are warned they are doing it that their own peril and they do assume a substantial risk if they do decide to do so. I told Caleb this morning before he put the post up, we can't be put in a position of being the judge of grey areas in the law, but we also have to protect ourselves legally.

I'd love to see a discussion of whether enforcement of the Sherman Act in this context is actually benefitting the consumer or the industry.

Caleb, since you spoke with this gentlemen, how is it that an agent in California is my competitor in Minnesota? How could I possibly compete with them? Wouldn't the anti-trust law be relevant only in my licensed state? Just wondering as no one has really defined who a competitor is...local or nationwide?

I can see people's frustration...we aren't allowed to speak about commissions because we are licensed, but if I dropped my license tomorrow, then I would be able to hold an open discussion with anyone I wanted to about commission fees.

Isn't the commission discussion only "bad" if actual % amounts are discussed. I don't think there should be a problem talking about fees if the fee isn't mentioned, but only replaced by an "X". What say you and the FTC guy?

When I was first in the business I was given an easy simple rule to follow. When agents are together feel free to talk about anything except commission. Just don't do it!

Caleb,

You and I discussed this in detail when you called me so I am with you on this and have seen it more and more ever day so if it is an issue for me to say something then everyone else should really make sure of what they say...I for one do not need a problem with the FTC. I would rather just stay on the sidelines and not be part of the discussion unless I can speak without saying anything to do with any number or figures or compensation or prices etc. am I making sense?

John and the rest of the good people here on A/R,

I wrote a post today that was featured and than pulled.

Not all Discount Brokers are the Anti-Christ as some of you want to believe!

I have no idea why,except that it must have to do with anti trust laws.

I`m very concerned as a professional how anyone can deem certain posts as anti trust when we`re discussing something that`s part of our profession.

I have further read and re-read the anti-trust laws as well as the posts that have been written this week and wonder how Mr.Roach would deem any of them as harmful.

I realize however that caleb and matt must protect their interests and have a right to consider what they feel is right and that`s being totally respectful to these fine gentleman!As well as it should be.

I think this topic can be debated for the next 25 years, and feel that these discussions are meaningful as well as very educational.

It`s really not a matter that`s up for debate on A/R,it`s something that caleb feels shouldn`t be mentioned here and we need to adhere to the owners policies.

When we talk about X%, does X equal 10?. I wish.

matt,

is it a matter of policing or policy?

I guess the real issue is liability that you as owners of this wonderful site must be careful of.

I wouldn`t think it`s a police issue,it`s simple logic on your part as well as caleb`s and i personally believe that nobody would blame you if you decided to pull posts that are harmful.

I read realtor.org all day long and have enjoyed their opinions for years, whether i agree or disagree isn`t the issue,it`s what the laws are.

thanks again for doing a heck of a job with this forum!

I will zip my lips and remain silent. It's my right, after all. I definitely don't want some men in suit at my door!

Why do people challenge is beyond me.....thanks for once again shedding light to all of us here Caleb....

celeste,

Challenge or opinion, who`s questioning either matt or caleb in this discussion?

Scott,

I think it is not about the discussion here it is the content in the discussion..just no mentioning numbers and not to discuss them. Does that make sense?

NB,

of course it does. anti-tust laws are a very sensitive issue that is widely open for debate. This is a very important issue that caleb brings up below.

On Your ActiveRain Blog Directed At Professionals:

Do not discuss agree or imply anything regarding commissions, rates, fees charged or paid, formally or informally.
Do not discuss imply or agree to anything regarding a boycott of a competitor.

Talk about rates with consumers, not your colleagues.

There are a lot of other rules surrounding this. Please refresh your knowledge on commissions, and antitrust laws

Scott,

The thing that I cannot understand is Redfin can discuss and assume on public TV but no repercussions against them?

Caleb, Matt, Neal (with an A)

Is my post today a violation ? It was in members only, if so I'll take it down asap.

Scott, I'm not a Lawyer, but I can't see how your that post (realtor offers 5%....) would be a problem.
1. You didn't mention your competitor by name.
2. You didn't discuss your prices.
I did unfeature "not all discount brokers are the Anti-Christ" because I was unsure if it was a violation and to be on the safe side chose to have it unfeatured. As far as I could tell you were talking about the fees you offer other agents. But I wasn't clear enough on the potential violation to leave it featured.

Bob please read the post. By entering the discussion you are opening yourself up to investigation. This isn't protected speech. As a real estate licensee you are held to a different standard. Mr. Roach did say essentially that the only way to keep yourself out of it is to not talk about it.

Jonathan D. You can't say what you charge to competitors, only to customers. I did not say that advertising prices is a violation of antitrust. I said talking about it with competitors opens you up to the possibility of criminal investigation.

Jennifer your point is valid, and I can't help you with it. Except to say again that not talking about your prices with your competitors is the only way to avoid a problem. As far as talking about X, I don't know I can't imagine that being a problem.

A reminder everyone The purpose of this is to protect the community. You may had these discussions offline illegally or not. But this is a new medium where your discussions are recorded and public. You may not be use to this but what you say is permanent record here.

Thank you Ashley you get it.

Neal I get it. Staying on the sidelines if you are present in a conversation doesn't necessarily help you. Which is why point 2 is important. Make a demonstration of not being apart of the conversation so that you can have it shown that you weren't passively a part of it.

We can all talk about commissions and advertise them all we want. When we take them to a forum of fellow professionals however we are in antitrust territory. So for a company on 60 minutes to talk about it's rates is no problem. I don't know if Redfin went beyond because I didn't watch the program and I am not a lawyer.

Missy, I believe this post directed at consumers is OK, but again I'm not a lawyer and not qualified to make that determination. Any real estate professionals that comment on this are likely in violation and should remove their comments. I have noticed that your post is not to real estate professionals, but it is members only so I would wonder what the intended audience is.

Thank you everyone for engaging in this discussion. I think it benefits the community. Remember we are only trying to protect you. This is not protected speech, and your comments and blogs are public, and recorded.

Oh and I want to repeat, this is true for all industries not just us here in real estate.

I'm sticking to Localism.com

In other words...better safe than sorry....is my opinion.

I just GOOGLED "anti trust violations real estate"

#7 on of the top 10 returns was

===============================================

Real Estate Blog - Antitrust violation

Has any one been to the redfin site? On there they say "A traditional sellers agent's commission is 3%. Isn't this a violation of anti-trust laws?
activerain.com/blogsview/98824/Antitrust-violation - 21k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this

====================================================================

This is an example of why we have to BE VERY CAREFUL. I just went back to review a months blogs and made some deletions.

Caleb,

Thanks for the clarification and for watching our backs!

Caleb, Even though I disagree what constitutes anti trust violations, I completely agree that we have to err on the side of caution. This site is too important to get caught up in an anti trust suit. There are many ways for us to get our points across without mentioning specific commission rates and being negative towards someone else's business model. Let's talk about more important issues like how Broker Bryant can make more money:) Just my xx cents worth.

Caleb,

I'm not saying they did not or cannot discuss rates but it was implied standard rates,they mentioned what standard commission is and Leslie Stahl showed how it is split and that is not true..there is no such thing as a standard rate nor is it always the same for each side..that is all I am trying to get across that Redfin seem to dictate to the public and seemed to manipulate the public to think traditional is standard which it is not.

"all I am trying to get across that Redfin dictated to the public not just theirs but manipulated the public to think ours is standard which it is not."

Your references to "theirs" vs "ours" is one example of what will get you in trouble.

I definitely think that Missy's post could be trouble. Her audience sure sounds like it is fellow agents by her use of we and them(sellers).

Caleb...

Anyway you could bump this back up on the dashboard?

I am also thinking that this discussion needs to be heard over at the new member group.

There are a lot of new Real Estate Bloggers in that group that need to read all of this.

TLW...ROAR!

Neal, Redfin may very well be in violation. It's not up to me to decide that. I am only here to do my best to protect members. And Bob Wilson might have a point as well.

BB, you're right it's just not worth it. The point is that having the discussion about prices is what opens a person to investigation.

Tim yes you mat be right.

TLW, OK

watch the video
So what can we call-----------------------?

oy ve' I give up...lets move onto something else maybe how nice it is here on Active Rain.

I guess it is not worth it..I like BB's idea but can I say that? LOL!

Ok guys, I am down and out. I deleted it. No worries, just a short post on how I help my sellers. It wasn't intended to try and convince anyone else to do it. Just how I overcome objections.

Thank you Caleb. Excellent reminder.

I have not personally read anything that strikes me to be "price fixing" but I don't read every single post. I tend to disagree with some of what has been said on the thread...but I'm not an attorney.

I posted something earlier in the week that mentioned X%-Although I said directly in the post that I did not agree nor disagree with the statement I will remove it now. Geez, can't speak hypothetically anymore.

I think I want to be a lobbyist.

Caleb, Thank you for taking a more proactive role on this issue. I am glad you went to the FTC and then reported back.

There have been a few discussions on here that I refused to be part of for the very reasons you mentioned.

These rules do not only apply to Realtors. When I was in Corporate America we would not even ride on the same elevator with a competitor. That was company policy.

Caleb,

This point needs to be brought up on a regular basis!

This very thing was what cocerned my Broker about my using a Blog. I have since convinced him that this is a site for "professionals"....and you just proved me right!

Caleb -

Thank you for reminding us about the rules. This medium is newer for many of us and even when someone is not purposely trying to break the rules, in writing there's evidence that could be used against someone should there ever be a question.

There is so many things of importance that can be discussed on AR. There is simply no need to get close to discussing commissions. It is a red flag and why take such a risk when there is so much to gain from the participation on AR. I think this is a great vehicle to get to know each other -- and to take back our profession from others. We can network and refer to each other -- we can share ideas to make all of us better professionals and better people. I think localism is brilliant and it is going to bring lots of business to the members of AR. We need to keep focus -- the commission discussion is off limits and it is not relevant!

Like Joan said, there are entirely too many other things to talk about and learn, here on AR besides pricing and commissions.

We should be proving our value, rather than discussing this anyway.

Thank you, Caleb, for the reminder.

I think the guidelines as well as pertinent links to our laws and ethics should be on the home page..in BIG BOLD DARK letters....again, that's my opinion...bottom line, I have posted many "read between the line" post all directed toward writing and blogging is PUBLIC content...no matter if posted to member only or what....anyone can join....and all this is black and white.

Absolutely a good reminder. Having recently passed my Broker's Exam, Realtors should NEVER discuss their commissions. That can be a HUGE violation. Sherman Anti Trust Act????? if I recall correctly.

Caleb & Matt,

Your point has been noted. No discusion of fees/commissions. It's a CYA thing. Thanks for watching out.

Caleb,

Thanks for doing this. We don't want this forum taken down by reckless comments of a few.

Lucky :)

The FTC won't touch public forums. They have no jurisdiction. They will go after a few agents to make examples of though if dared to by agents who thumb their noses at the Sherman Act.

MAY

2007

Fast forward about 20 years, and when banks and/or government have taken over our industry, I would bet there is ONLY one number used to calculate brokerage fees. And none of us today would like it... Sorry to be a fun-sponge on such an important topic, but I fear for the future of the industry, and this discussion brings awkward thoughts to the surface. Orwellian thoughts.

Caleb -

Thanks for the reminder.

Like the rules/laws or not-

Agree with the rules/laws or not-

They are what they are for the time being.

As several other members have pointed out: Cover your a$$ - just don't discuss it - ESPECIALLY on-line.

I'm sure I'll be told if I'm wrong here, but my understanding of the "price fixing" type of laws is that if we all got together and said something like we all would charge the same price, that would be price fixing.

If I say I charge X and you say "I charge X+1" and someone else says "I charge X-1" that's just a discussion of business models and practice. People in this business advertise price every day in print, on the web and in mailers. Usually these are in the context of some kind of "discount brokerage model". But since there is no such think as a fixed commission rate, there is no benchmark from which to discount .

I'm sure the FTC guy looked at this in the manner of risk reduction for brokers. I clearly would walk away from any discussion that morphed into talk about all charging the same fee. That clearly would violate the law. But a discussion of business models and services provided should not be a problem.

Why don't they look at Redfin which continually states that 6% is a standard commission. They even use a 3% co-broke as their benchmark in the advertising. Anyone who has been in this business longer than a week knows that there is no "standard commission" in real estate.

I turned on the new comments notification and am awaiting the barrage.

Thanks for the additional clarification. When responding to posts regarding commissions, I guess that it's very easy to take that "competitor" word and decide that a broker in California, or Florida, or wherever, is not MY competitor- thus, no worries. If a broker in NY were having a specific discussion with me, also in NY, I'd see the point more clearly (and also wouldn't get into that discussion). Because this site has national viewer and responder-ship (not a word) it's rife for misinterpretations. Nonetheless, the government entities tend not to look at specific circumstances- they'd rather invoke a fine- so I suppose to "err on the side of caution" is the best approach. You've provided a valuable service; in order to participate, this is a rule that you have every right to request be respected. It's just that darned "competitor" word...

A good reminder and one to keep us out of difficult situations. Thanks for posting.

Hey, Fred,

How about sending me "X+2" of those great Hershey bars! They really are awesome, especially when you buy them right from the factory!

Lucky :)

This is so true for other industries as well. I'm a member of another trade association and while members typically charge hourly or 'project' prices, we are not allowed to discuss actual numbers, period. It's even harder in that association as most newcomers don't have any idea what to charge, there is no perceived 'standard' in that industry.

Caleb...You are so right and I appreciate your taking the time to check into this issue and then posting it. The consequences are enormous!

Regards...Jay

It's even harder in that association as most newcomers don't have any idea what to charge, there is no perceived 'standard' in that industry.

UNLESS I AM WAY OFF BASE HERE, THERE IS NO PERCEIVED "STANDARD" IN THE REAL ESTATE INDUSTRY.

I think for my own safety, I will just avoid the issue all together. It's better to be safe than sorry!

Caleb, I know there are many different opinions here, but I for one am glad that you've taken the time to put the word out there again. You're just trying to keep us all from getting.in trouble, and I appreciate your effort.

> Jonathan D. You can't say what you charge to competitors, only to customers. I did not say that advertising prices is a violation of antitrust. I said talking about it with competitors opens you up to the possibility of criminal investigation.

Ummmm ... if you're one of my competitors, kindly close your eyes. My advertising is directed at the public at large. I apologize for the inconvenience.

I see the point if it's a members only post as there's little doubt who the intended party is. But on a general post or (shudder) a post or a website not connected to AR ... I can't stop competitors from looking at my sites. I look at theirs all the time - part of being, well, competitive.

I'm not condoning discussions that border on collusion, Caleb. Never have. But I disagreed with you before and I disagree now with the notion that if I say I charge X, a competitor sees it and they also decide to charge X, then we're price fixing. There's no agreement. There's no intent.

If they don't heed the warnings their posts need to be deleted. The same with stolen content. Why should the majority suffer for the infractions of the few?

'Thanks for the reminder Caleb.

Seen some pretty astounding statements around AR.

The Q & A has seen a few responses that precisely identify standard commission rates.

Keep working at warning us about ourselves.

MAY

2007

Thank you Caleb, this is a great post and reminder! I don't think it's fair, but it's not worth losing my career over.

MAY

2007

Caleb--

It is sad that this is a reminder that is all too necessary. As Realtors, we are held to a higher standard than the general public. There are rules: ability to negotiate on a commission is a private discussion between broker/agent and client.

While some discussions on AR will feel like sitting on your back porch over a beer, they often can be viewed publicly. Other than when our broker has a meeting to set our office rules, I don't discuss what I charge with anyone in my office other than client and manager...The end.

Beyond full service and discount as terms in general, the discussion should end on AR. No percentages should be discussed or eluded to as every market, every neighborhood and every client is different.

Teri E. Thank you for putting it that way.
Ana. Thank you. But remember this stuff affects all industries, it's not that it's being directed at real estate agents.
Mike, Thanks for the update.
Jonathan, I never said there was intent. I do say that if one engages in a discussion with a competitor on these issues, then they are opening themselves up to the possibility of investigation.
Of course there's nothing wrong with a competitor seeing your advertisement. To insinuate that companies don't shop their competition is ridiculous. What a business wishing to be compliant will not do however, is engage in a discussion of prices, or what they ought to be with a competitor. That is illegal.
A post discussing pricing shouldn't be members only you are right, it should also not be checked "for professionals," and lastly members shouldn't engage.
Mott, There's no big hush, everyone else can talk about it all they want.
Thanks Jay, Jim, Diane, Marc, Lucky, Jason, Sally, Mariana, Joan W, Joan M, Marlene,
Thanks for the extra perspective Christina.
Laurie, I know what you mean about "competitor" and I wonder about that myself. I do know however that it's just as likely that one of the comentors is the competitor next door.
Fred I don't think you've got it and I would encourage you to look further into this. Your assumptions aren't correct as far as I know. I've written the FTC asking about that very question on a company advertising a standard commission rate. Everything I know tells me it's a violation.
Patrick I wish i could get into a philosophical discussion on this. :)
Cynthia, that's what I hope everyone gets from this.
Randy thank you for sharing your experience.
Michelle, they have jurisdiction where laws are being broken in the U.S. I of course don't know about Canadian law and what it says about this.
If anyone has an issue with the law then please take it up with the Justice department this isn't Caleb's law here. :)

Caleb,

Right ON!

But Caleb's Law does have a nice ring to it.

Lucky :)

MAY

2007

Len and Fred I questioned the FTC guy about this and he said that the "traditional" remark wasn't a violation.

JUL

2007

Since the excitement has died down with this post, I have a question. Actually, its been a question for a long time. I think it may be more on the "Truth in Advertising" area than the Anti-trust. Every day we read ads, websites and profiles here and other places in which the agent or REO is advertising "We will or (I will )save you thousands. Or, even the more general "save on commissions". If we don't know what figure we are comparing to--how can anyone, ever claim to save any amount?" Check out some of AR profiles to see what I mean. Surely, it must be legal because so many people do it. But, is believing it without a point from which to save, logical?

JUL

2007

Suzi,

Thanks for the question. I do think it has more to do with advertising. The thing is "saving" can ultimately end up being pretty subjective. It would really depend upon the specific claims of a specific ad. I know that when I've worked with people, my claims of "saving" them money were about what I could offer them in terms of time, preparation, and negotiations. So regardless of my fee, I knew I was, "saving" them quite a bit.

Thank you for your response Caleb. I think I am too literal at times. It seemed to me that saving had to have a starting point. I think I need to chill out and claim savings myself:-)

Leave a response…

Name:

Email:
(optional)

Comment:

What does the graphic say?