Lucky, I liked it when I read it on Bloodhound and I like it more reading it here. Thanks for posting this, it needs to be said. Now I have to go and get back to my game of monopoly:)

BTW I entered my post into the Carnival of RE so maybe it will get mentioned and we can get more exposure for our side of the equation. The right side of course:)

Thanks, BB, for all you do for our profession!

Lucky :)

No one is listening to us.  The DOJ is still pursuing processes that are no longer in effect.  They pursued a Texas group for implementing minimum services AFTER it has been withdrawn.  I can't keep up with the details.  But, it appears to me that the DOJ and the FTC has designed an outcome and is determined to fit the circumstances into the income.  Facts don't matter.  Nothing matters except the outcome and that is pre-determined.   

DOJ went after a software developer some years ago, Enslaw.  The DOJ stole the case tracking system sold by the Enslaw company, refused to pay for it.  Put the company in bankruptcy.  The bankruptcy judge said that the government acted with "lies, trickery and deceit. 

That is what is happening to the NAR and all of us.

Lenn

:)

Lenn:  Wow, that's scary!  What country do we live in?  Oh yeah, home of the free.  Somebody stop me!

TLW:  :) Back at ya!!!

Lucky :)

You are kidding right?

This has nothing to do with why the Department of Justice is suing NAR. 

Ever hear an agent not want to show the listing of "a discount broker"?

Lucky, very nicely worded. Better words were never spoken... good job.

Interesting post and I agree that there is no Monopoloy in the real estate industry.  Free trade is very active and commissions range from high to very low in the market I work. 

Yep...that's one of the posts that got me going over on Bloodhoundblog.  It's kind of like an addiction.

Monopoly? Hey my thoughts are they can sell their home by themselves all day long for all I care. It's not my loss.I strive to be a professional and that's the service I provide each and everyone of my clients. Professionlism to it's highest level.

And to the "Discount" Broker. My professional services are not watered down either. Even when I show one of your lisitngs. If anything it's at an even higher level then.

Good points, Lucky. We certainly aren't a monopoly - membership is open to anyone who gets a license, pays his dues, and agrees to the ethical standards. Does DOJ feel every trade organization, union, private club, etc should be outlawed as a Monopoly? Guess they need a win of some kind to justify the time and expense spent so far.

Wouldn't it be nice if DOJ contributed all that money (including the salaries etc) to make more affordable housing available? 

Lucky,

Thanks for the post. So on point. Anyone in doubt or claiming ignorance/confusion, should be very clear on the subject now!

Lucky, I'm going off topic here.  BB is not, in my humble opinion, infamous.  His reputation's nothing but the best!

Main Entry: in·fa·mous
Pronunciation: 'in-f&-m&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin infamis, from in- + fama fame
1 : having a reputation of the worst kind : notoriously evil <an infamous traitor>
2 : causing or bringing infamy : DISGRACEFUL <an infamous crime>
3 : convicted of an offense bringing infamy
- in·fa·mous·ly adverb

Thanks for your post. 

Maggie, thanks for going off topic and thanks for educating me.  Notice I changed it to reflect our true feelings of BB.  I always thought it meant REALLY REALLY famous. DUH.  I also called BB to personally apologize.  He laughed it off as the true professional he is!  Thanks again, Lucky :)

I once negotiated with a Realtor to reduce her commissions.  She did so because this house was going to be a slam dunk and she knew we were fairly knowledgeable about the process.

and then

 I had a house sell in six days, with the closing following in another twenty.  My agent remarked that this was the easiest deal she had ever done, then promptly took her seven percent cut (3.5% to be fair) right to the bank.

Reduced to 7%???

This fellow is confused at best. 

Great post.

Go, Lucky. Great post - thanks for saying what needs to be said...again and again.

Right on.  Thanx. 

Joan 

Ardell:  My post is actually about Mr. Cook's blog.  I commented about the DOJ looking at real estate agents because of people whining about commissions.  If discount brokerage companies aren't about commissions, please enlighten me.

Gena, Sam, Marty, Danny, Sharon, William, Jeff, Irian, Jeff, and Joan: Thanks for the comments and encouragement!

Lucky :)

I once negotiated with a Realtor to reduce her commissions.  She did so because this house was going to be a slam dunk and she knew we were fairly knowledgeable about the process.

and then

 I had a house sell in six days, with the closing following in another twenty.  My agent remarked that this was the easiest deal she had ever done, then promptly took her seven percent cut (3.5% to be fair) right to the bank.

Reduced to 7%???

This fellow is confused at best.

I would like to make clear that I agree with Lucky on his post.  I think the subject of his concern is the one who is confused at best. 

Good post Lucky. 

Thank you for giving Mr. Cook such an eloquent  come to Jesus.

Congrats on the featured post.  Great blog topic and it needed to be said.

Lucky: Perhaps we could un-confuse the DOJ if we presented commissions in decimals or basis points?

I have never really understood how the DOJ has rationalized this law suite of theirs.  MLS® systems are a product created by member REALTORS®, for member REALTORS®.  It is a service and like any service it has its rules and codes of conduct to insure that it is used in a manner that was intended and benefits all of its members, and through them their clients.  not allowing unrepresented sellers onto an MLS® system is totally within their right.  I have noticed though that some MLS® systems in the USA seem to allow the general public near full access to the listing information and allow all members to post all of the listings on their websites through IDX agreements (not just there own or their companies listings).  I feel that this does undermine there service and the services of there members. 

I am not fully fond of MLS.ca but at least they only post a client version and not sold data.  It is truly a marketing site and not an income generator or an effective market research portal for the public. (although the public often feels that it can replace an agent that is only because they do not understand the limitations of the public system.)

Jeff, thanks for the update and clarification!

Rob, thanks for stopping by big brother!

Roberta, what a great idea.  (I like the 7.279)  DOJ & banks in real estate?  You don't think there could be a connection, do you?  Hmmm......

Lucky :)

Good post, and I like your name, it rolls of the tongue nicely.

Wow!  Awesome Post!  I havent read one like this in a while.

Great post Lucky.  This is what happens when someone decides to play politics.  All it takes is the right person or group to lodge a complaint that smacks of populist ideals and WHAM!

BTW - Lenn - Of course they are looking at issues that have been fixed and are as always behind the curve.  They are a branch of government.  These are the same folks who made it illegal (section z or is it x) to thank one of my Realtors by sending flowers or a gift card on a closed deal.

Would that they spent as much effort examining congress.

Yo! You only make $140 per commission? Maybe you need to increase your Admin Fees.

Love to get your take on my new blog: $395 Realty Firm's "Admin Fee": Junk or Legit?

Frank Borges LL0SA- Virginia Broker/ Owner FranklyRealty.com

Blog.FranklyRealty.com Featured in BusinessWeek, CNBC, WSJ etc.

Lucky: Doth the DOJ protest too much about monopolies? What powers lurk behind the charges of these pawns? Banks seem like a logical whisper.

Lucky, BB is pretty great, isn't he?  Thanks again for your post.  I enjoyed it.

btw, is that your real name?  It's a great one!

Michael, Jennifer, Terry: Thanks for your comments!

Frank: Very interesting post you had.  We don't have an admin fee and when I said "our company", I was referring to the company I am licensed with.

Roberta: You speaketh words of wisdom!  Useth caution, oh wise one, to not giveth awayeth too mucheth!   (Try saying that fast three times!)

Maggie: BB is awesome!  Lucky is my real name!  I named my son after me: Lucky Lang II http://activerain.com/luckster77 so he is Lucky too! (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

Lucky :)

Roberta: I believe that the law suit is more about MLS® systems preventing none member and FSBO services from posting their listings on the MLS®.  But then there is a reason why I need to keep punching "Alt 0174"(® for those that do not recognize it) as MLS® systems were never meant to be free public use tools.  Unfortunately it seems that some of the systems have opened themselves up to being seen as public systems through their rules and practices.  I do not know how the DOJ can really justify their attack on MLS® systems and boards, but it does seem to be something that they are willing to waste money on and at the expense of the REALTOR® boards which of course will only cause fees to rise and commissions to have to remain high or go higher in order to off set the extra costs of remaining in business.

Most likely it is a political move to distract people from other issues and make them look like they are trying to protect the public but it will be the public that ends up paying for it in the long run, through taxes and higher real estate fees.

What can I say?  That put a big smile on my face for sure.  Lucky indeed!

Lucky,

The DOJ suit is/was about the opt out clause.  About agents opting not to share their listings, via IDX, with only certain companies such as "discounters".  Any marketplace that is topheavy is considered to be a monopoly.  It's not because they want to or try to, such as the old AT&T, sometimes it just happens that way without intent.

Ardell,

Thank you for your comments, however I respectfully disagree with some of them.  I know what the suit is/was about.  Mr. Cook was trying to take the headlines of the suit and sensationalize them to his view.  Mr. Cook stated in his blog, "If you stop to really think about this, you will realize that real estate agents have created one of the longest standing monopolies out there."  As Broker Bryant properly stated, Monopoly my a..!  He then went on to reason that the DOJ was going after NAR because the commission, "has stayed fixed for so long".  His comments in his blog were reckless, wrong, and hurtful to an industry that feeds him (he's a real estate investor).  As I stated in my blog, if it weren't for uninformed whiners out there, like Mr. Cook, the DOJ wouldn't have bothered.  They are a department of reactionaries, usually not proactive, in practice.  In economics, the definition of a monopoly is a persistent market situation where there is only one provider of a kind of product or service, in other words, a market type in which there is a sole supplier of a good, service, or resource that has no close substitutes and in which there is a barrier preventing the entry of new firms into the industry.  The mere existence of "discounters", as you called them, PROVES there is no monopoly!  The old AT&T was a totally different situation.  When I got my first phone service, I had no choice.  There were no "discounters".  It was "Ma Bell" or nothing.  In my market, someone trying to sell their home can "go it alone", can call a "discounter", can call someone in my own company who may cut .25% off their commission (or whatever), or call me...a full service REALTOR(R) who will, on average, sell their home for more money and/or in less time.  The bottom line....is the BOTTOM LINE!
IF YOU WANT TO DANCE TO THE MUSIC, YOU GOTTA PAY THE PIPER!

Lucky :)