In the movie classic Network, Howard Beal, played by Peter Finch in one of the iconic moments in movie history gives us the classic line: "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take this anymore!" 

I'm wondering when we as Realtors and our clients as consumers are "not going to take this anymore!"

Those of you who believe that the banks/lenders who control the REO properties are going to negotiate fairly and protect your client's interest, can probably stop reading here. 

If you think, your job is to protect your client's best interest and negotiate the best possible terms for them, might want to read on.

If you haven't heard about it yet, you will. Chase Bank in a memo to its Asset Managers, announced the Chase Finance Initiative. In an attempt to capture more of the loans that are being done on their REO properties, Chase is encouraging their asset managers to promote Chase financing.  

Problem is, they are in violation of RESPA and FTC guidelines and more importantly putting your clients at a serious disadvantage in the negotiation process.  

I'm going to quote directly from RESPA Section 9 and FTC Guidelines for Antitrust Laws, so bear with me if it's a little dry. I'm also going to quote directly from the Chase memo that outlines their Chase Finance Initiative.  

RESPA Section 9 - "Section 9 prohibits home sellers from requiring home buyers to purchase their settlement services from a particular company either directly or indirectly, as a condition of sale. Buyers may sue a seller who violates this provision for an amount equal to three times for all charges made for the title insurance." "Settlement service means any serive provided in connection with a prospective or actual settlement including but not limited to any one of the following: Origination of a federally related mortgage loan...Rendering of services by a mortgage broker..."  

FTC Guide to the Antitrust Laws - "For competitive purposes, a monopolist may use forced buying, or "tie-in" sales to gain sales in other markets where it is not dominant and to make it more difficult for rivals in those markets to obtain sales. This may limit consumer choices for buyers wanting to purchase one ("tying") product by forcing them to also buy a second ("tied") product as well. Typically, the "tied product may be a less desirable one that the buyer might not purchase unless required to do so, or may prefer to get them from a different seller. If the seller offering the tied products has sufficient market power in the "tying" product, these arrangements can violate the antitrust laws."

Refusal to Deal - Sometimes the refusal to deal is with customers or supplier, with the effect of preventing them from dealing with a rival: "I refuse to deal with you if you deal with my competitor".

     Chase's plan?   "3. Sell the fact that buyers are more likely to receive seller assistance with closing costs by using Chase financing" "8. In multiple offer situations, advise the agent that the seller will generally put more weight" on an offer with Chase financing than any other offer."  

As a Realtor, you're really going to like this section from the Chase Finance initiative: "With Chase as our primary client, (asset manager name withheld) must work with Realtors who understand the importance of Chase financing on Chase owned properties and we will begin to limit our relationships to those who can adhere to these guidelines."

I'm sure there are more examples but here are three brief ones, that amplify the disadvantage your clients would have when negotiating with Chase:

1) The lender selected by your client has a more favorable interest rate than Chase, but in order to get their offer accepted, they will have to take the higher rate by using Chase.

2) Your client asks for closing costs to be paid by Chase, but in reviewing your client's financials determines your client has the ability to pay them, and Chase counters accordingly.

3) Your client makes an offer on a Chase home that is priced below the maximum amount for which they qualify. Even though your buyers are making a prudent financial decision, Chase can counter to a higher amount solely because they know your buyer can qualify for the higher price. Think your buyers might accept the higher price if they've already written 20 offers?  

This probably isn't something that can be won in a court of law, but perhaps it can be won in "the court of public opinion".

Pass the word, reblog, protest, make t-shirts, just do something. As other banks follow this lead it will be more difficult for us to best represent your client's interest.  

As Howard Beal said: "I want you to get up right now! and go to the window, open it, stick your head out and yell I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!