I responded to Bryant Tudas' post "Looking at the Past to Predict the Future" this morning, which is re-post of one he wrote back in '06 expressing some concern about the wisdom of perhaps being a bit too aggressive in our sales efforts, and thereby contributing to future problems for clients who turn out to be unable to handle the debt they contracted for.
Actually, although it was an excellent post, my response was really to one of the commentators on the post, and as sometimes happens, I got so involved in commenting, that what I ended up doing was writing what turned out to be most of a post of my own.
First let me give you my comment (or most of it):
"Yes we want folks to be able to buy homes (that's our business). And if they've got some skin in the game, that's ideal. But the most important criterion has zero to do with whether or not they are deserving. It has only to do with whether they are likely to be able to pay the debt they incur.
Like Bryant, in '05 and '06, I saw this train wreck coming because [some] lenders were giving mortgages to people based primarily (apparently) upon the fact that they could fog a mirror.
Certainly consumers bear primary responsibility for their choices, but the Professional -- the one with education, training, experience and DUTY to protect the client (that includes the mortgage loan officers, too) should have as [their] primary concern, assuring that the borrowers are purchasing a product that will meet their needs and with which they will be happy over the long term.
If we sell things to people that don't meet these criteria, and with which they are ultimately unhappy, we have, in fact, harmed them, and even if they don't end up in foreclosure or doing a short sale, they'll still have a nasty taste in their mouths over the whole deal and will be very unlikely to come back, or refer business, to us in the future. Hence, we've harmed ourselves as well.
Finally, with regard to the success of ARMs, I would simply point out that popularity is not necessarily equivalent to success, for all the reasons I just enumerated."
The main reason I wanted to turn this into a post -- and I'm sorta passionate about it -- is that we as professional real estate agents, have a moral and ethical (not just fiduciary) duty to serve our clients and protect their interests. And I think it's a thing we should all reflect on more frequently.
We all know that this can be a very hazardous business. If that's true for us -- who have tremendous amounts of time and energy devoted to education, training and front-line experience -- it is doubly true for those wonderful people who place their faith and trust in us. They have a right to expect that we will unequivocally place their interests ahead of our next paycheck, every time.
This duty absolutely includes the weighty responsibility to warn them if our training and experience shows us that they may be headed into harm's way, even if it means this deal doesn't get done this time -- or at all!
Physicians take an oath, before being allowed to bear responsibility for our lives and health, that they will "Do No Harm". Maybe we don't actually or officially take that oath, but implicitly, I think we do.
So, let this post be my challenge and admonition to all of us who have the privilege of calling ourselves REALTORS, to take a few minutes to reflect upon, and consciously renew that oath and commitment -- today and every working day in the future!
Comments(1)