<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:creativeCommons="http://backend.userland.com/creativeCommonsRssModule"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: realtors fight unbundling (and pols help them)</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/</link>
	<description>news, views and info on self-help law and pro se litigation</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 23:11:37 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: raubin</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/comment-page-1/#comment-1984</link>
		<dc:creator>raubin</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Jun 2007 12:15:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help#comment-1984</guid>
		<description>Or go the way that the Spanish real estate market has taken. Basically what happens here is that if you are looking to sale your property, you visit every single agent you can find and let them list the property.

They will then ask you what you are looking for in terms of prices, then compare your asking price to others on the market due to the unsteady property market at the moment, also the property will be looked upon by its build size which all the banks value the property upon.

You basically agree a price, they will then add their commission on top of the property price - anything from 3% to 15%! They will then market your property at the agreed price, obviously unless the property is cheap - you more or less never get what you wanted for you property.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Or go the way that the Spanish real estate market has taken. Basically what happens here is that if you are looking to sale your property, you visit every single agent you can find and let them list the property.</p>
<p>They will then ask you what you are looking for in terms of prices, then compare your asking price to others on the market due to the unsteady property market at the moment, also the property will be looked upon by its build size which all the banks value the property upon.</p>
<p>You basically agree a price, they will then add their commission on top of the property price &#8211; anything from 3% to 15%! They will then market your property at the agreed price, obviously unless the property is cheap &#8211; you more or less never get what you wanted for you property.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Terry Shortt</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/comment-page-1/#comment-269</link>
		<dc:creator>Terry Shortt</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 16:47:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help#comment-269</guid>
		<description>Kentucky Real Estate Commission Slammed by Consumer Group 

  NewswireToday - /newswire/ - Elizabethtown, KY, United States, 07/28/2006 - A report by the Consumer Federation Of America labels the Kentucky Real Estate Commission (KREC) as &quot;amongst the most aggresive at promoting the interests of the real estate industry over that of consumers&quot;
 
    
  At issue is the dominance of the state real estate regulatory body by active brokers and lawyers and their close ties to the industry that they are chartered to oversee.

There seems to be at least three major areas of contention that caused consumer groups, the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the Federal Trade Commission to focus attention on state real estate regulatory bodies. They are:

• Minimum Service Laws and Rules imposed by the regulatory body on brokers that virtually eliminates the possibility of purchasing real estate services on an a la carte basis that has the potential to save sellers thousands of dollars on the sale of their house.

• Promotion by the real estate regulatory body of a convoluted form of representation called &quot;&quot;duel agency and designated agency&quot;&quot; that makes it legal to represent two opposing parties to the same transaction.

• The imposition of &quot;&quot;anti-rebate&quot;&quot; laws that make it virtually impossible for brokers to compete with each other for business based on the price of their service.

The Kentucky Real Estate Commission suffered a set-back in the 2006 state legislature when it&#039;s proposed minimum service law was struck down under pressure from antitrust official, flat fee brokers and consumer groups. The commission then circumvented the lawmakers and exercised its power to create a minimum service &quot;&quot;rule&quot;&quot; that has the same effect as the originally proposed law but did not require legislative approval. Kentucky&#039;s current minimum service rule has reportedly been a factor in the demise of some Kentucky limited service brokerage operations.

&quot;&quot;Duel Agency and designated agency&quot;&quot; are promoted by the Kentucky Real Estate Commission and serve the industry well to the detriment of consumers, according to some observers. These convoluted deviations from common agency law make it possible for brokers to shield the fact that they actually represent neither party in the transaction while collecting a larger commission and remaining in compliance with Kentucky real estate license law.

Up until 2005, The Kentucky Real Estate Commission enforced an &quot;&quot;anti-rebate&quot;&quot; law that made it impossible for brokers to compete for customers based on the price of their service. Served with a federal lawsuit objecting to this provision as an antitrust violation and charging the commissioners with conspiracy, the Feds and the Kentucky Real Estate Commission reached a settlement agreement that forced the Commission to stop enforcing the rebate law.

The Kentucky Real estate commission was also criticized recently for running radio commercials (krec.ky.gov) that posed as &quot;&quot;public service announcements&quot;&quot; claiming that Kentucky licensees are &quot;&quot;trained real estate negotiators&quot;&quot; and by not working with one of them a seller could expect to lose up to 3% on their home sale. Pre-licensing training for sales agents and brokers in Kentucky actually offers no training in real estate negotiating.

Currently the Kentucky Real Estate Commission operates independent of oversight by any branch of state government. The panel is made up of active real estate brokers and a lawyer. They generate their own taxes (fees from licensee) and spend it in any way they see fit. Expenses like $20,000 for radio commercials require the approval of no superior agency or person. Some are calling on the state legislature to review this arrangement and an effort is under way to legislate a reorganization of the Kentucky Real Estate Commission to make it more responsive.

These and other industry friendly real estate laws/rules either created or proposed by the Kentucky Real Estate Commission (KREC) make them seem more like an industry tool than a consumer protection arm of state government in the view of many consumers.

Many of the rules, policies and laws on the books of real estate regulatory bodies nationwide are adverse to consumers and are forcing them to pay too much for real estate services according to reports. Real estate commission cover for the industry is not unique to Kentucky. The majority of real estate regulatory bodies nationwide need closer scrutiny to detect the abuse of power when and were it exist.
 
   
  Agency / Source: TW Short Realty - FlatFeeDirect.com 270-769-2468
 
   
  Availability: All Regions (Including Int&#039;l)
 
  Distribution: [+] Press Release &amp; Newswire Distribution Network. via PRZOOM - Newswire Today (NewswireToday.com)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kentucky Real Estate Commission Slammed by Consumer Group </p>
<p>  NewswireToday &#8211; /newswire/ &#8211; Elizabethtown, KY, United States, 07/28/2006 &#8211; A report by the Consumer Federation Of America labels the Kentucky Real Estate Commission (KREC) as &#8220;amongst the most aggresive at promoting the interests of the real estate industry over that of consumers&#8221;</p>
<p>  At issue is the dominance of the state real estate regulatory body by active brokers and lawyers and their close ties to the industry that they are chartered to oversee.</p>
<p>There seems to be at least three major areas of contention that caused consumer groups, the Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, and the Federal Trade Commission to focus attention on state real estate regulatory bodies. They are:</p>
<p>• Minimum Service Laws and Rules imposed by the regulatory body on brokers that virtually eliminates the possibility of purchasing real estate services on an a la carte basis that has the potential to save sellers thousands of dollars on the sale of their house.</p>
<p>• Promotion by the real estate regulatory body of a convoluted form of representation called &#8220;&#8221;duel agency and designated agency&#8221;" that makes it legal to represent two opposing parties to the same transaction.</p>
<p>• The imposition of &#8220;&#8221;anti-rebate&#8221;" laws that make it virtually impossible for brokers to compete with each other for business based on the price of their service.</p>
<p>The Kentucky Real Estate Commission suffered a set-back in the 2006 state legislature when it&#8217;s proposed minimum service law was struck down under pressure from antitrust official, flat fee brokers and consumer groups. The commission then circumvented the lawmakers and exercised its power to create a minimum service &#8220;&#8221;rule&#8221;" that has the same effect as the originally proposed law but did not require legislative approval. Kentucky&#8217;s current minimum service rule has reportedly been a factor in the demise of some Kentucky limited service brokerage operations.</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;Duel Agency and designated agency&#8221;" are promoted by the Kentucky Real Estate Commission and serve the industry well to the detriment of consumers, according to some observers. These convoluted deviations from common agency law make it possible for brokers to shield the fact that they actually represent neither party in the transaction while collecting a larger commission and remaining in compliance with Kentucky real estate license law.</p>
<p>Up until 2005, The Kentucky Real Estate Commission enforced an &#8220;&#8221;anti-rebate&#8221;" law that made it impossible for brokers to compete for customers based on the price of their service. Served with a federal lawsuit objecting to this provision as an antitrust violation and charging the commissioners with conspiracy, the Feds and the Kentucky Real Estate Commission reached a settlement agreement that forced the Commission to stop enforcing the rebate law.</p>
<p>The Kentucky Real estate commission was also criticized recently for running radio commercials &nbsp;<a href="http://krec.ky.gov" title="http://krec.ky.(" target="_blank">krec.ky.gov</a>) that posed as &#8220;&#8221;public service announcements&#8221;" claiming that Kentucky licensees are &#8220;&#8221;trained real estate negotiators&#8221;" and by not working with one of them a seller could expect to lose up to 3% on their home sale. Pre-licensing training for sales agents and brokers in Kentucky actually offers no training in real estate negotiating.</p>
<p>Currently the Kentucky Real Estate Commission operates independent of oversight by any branch of state government. The panel is made up of active real estate brokers and a lawyer. They generate their own taxes (fees from licensee) and spend it in any way they see fit. Expenses like $20,000 for radio commercials require the approval of no superior agency or person. Some are calling on the state legislature to review this arrangement and an effort is under way to legislate a reorganization of the Kentucky Real Estate Commission to make it more responsive.</p>
<p>These and other industry friendly real estate laws/rules either created or proposed by the Kentucky Real Estate Commission (KREC) make them seem more like an industry tool than a consumer protection arm of state government in the view of many consumers.</p>
<p>Many of the rules, policies and laws on the books of real estate regulatory bodies nationwide are adverse to consumers and are forcing them to pay too much for real estate services according to reports. Real estate commission cover for the industry is not unique to Kentucky. The majority of real estate regulatory bodies nationwide need closer scrutiny to detect the abuse of power when and were it exist.</p>
<p>  Agency / Source: TW Short Realty -&nbsp;<a href="http://FlatFeeDirect.com" title="http://FlatFeeDirect. " target="_blank">FlatFeeDirect.com</a> 270-769-2468</p>
<p>  Availability: All Regions (Including Int&#8217;l)</p>
<p>  Distribution: [+] Press Release &amp; Newswire Distribution Network. via PRZOOM &#8211; Newswire Today &nbsp;<a href="http://NewswireToday.com" title="http://NewswireToday.(" target="_blank">NewswireToday.com</a>)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Stu</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/comment-page-1/#comment-267</link>
		<dc:creator>Stu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 Nov 2006 10:34:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help#comment-267</guid>
		<description>There needs to be a better way for people to conduct a simple real estate transaction.  We often point people to real estate firms for the paperwork this way people can sell there homes FSBO and save from not having to pay the commision.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There needs to be a better way for people to conduct a simple real estate transaction.  We often point people to real estate firms for the paperwork this way people can sell there homes FSBO and save from not having to pay the commision.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress &#187; Blog Archive &#187; real estate &#8220;broker&#8221; updates</title>
		<link>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help-them/comment-page-1/#comment-54</link>
		<dc:creator>shlep: the Self-Help Law ExPress &#187; Blog Archive &#187; real estate &#8220;broker&#8221; updates</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2006 00:27:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/shlep/2006/10/12/realtors-fight-unbundling-and-pols-help#comment-54</guid>
		<description>[...] david giacalone - October 12, 2006 @ 8:27 pm &#183; Studies &amp; Reports, News Items   Here are two new items that relate to last night&#8217;s post realtors fight unbundling, and to the theme that real estate brokers are trying to keep home buyers and sellers &#8220;broker&#8221; than should happen in a truly competitive marketplace:   1]  The Federal Trade Commission announced a real estate broker enforcement sweep today, explaining that it would litigate against two real estate groups and accept consent agreements from five others: According to the press release (dated Oct. 12, 2006):  The Federal Trade Commission today charged two real estate groups operating multiple listing services in the Detroit, Michigan, area with illegally restraining competition by limiting consumers’ ability to obtain low-cost real estate brokerage services. The Commission also announced consent agreements with five other groups operating multiple listing services in parts of Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin, that have discontinued the challenged conduct. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] david giacalone &#8211; October 12, 2006 @ 8:27 pm &#183; Studies &#38; Reports, News Items   Here are two new items that relate to last night&#8217;s post realtors fight unbundling, and to the theme that real estate brokers are trying to keep home buyers and sellers &#8220;broker&#8221; than should happen in a truly competitive marketplace:   1]  The Federal Trade Commission announced a real estate broker enforcement sweep today, explaining that it would litigate against two real estate groups and accept consent agreements from five others: According to the press release (dated Oct. 12, 2006):  The Federal Trade Commission today charged two real estate groups operating multiple listing services in the Detroit, Michigan, area with illegally restraining competition by limiting consumers’ ability to obtain low-cost real estate brokerage services. The Commission also announced consent agreements with five other groups operating multiple listing services in parts of Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, and Wisconsin, that have discontinued the challenged conduct. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
