It’s been going on quietly and steadily throughout the past year. Those of you who do not know…the United States Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the NRA.
Settlements are being made, quietly. The government builds its case steadily and strongly. The NRA continues to bleed money into this case from the dues of its dwindling members to attempt to preserve power where it never should have been in the first place.
A good blog to keep up with what is going on can be found here.
The whole “6% commission of gross (not net equity)” thing is fast coming to an end. They’ll all be working for set transaction fees soon. It was a good run and I enjoyed the ride.
Some of the Realtors told me that their National and Missouri dues went up dramatically. If you are a real estate salesman you have to pay the national and state dues if you want access to the MLS system and lock boxes. Not just local dues. According to the state of Missouri, if your broker belongs to these associations you need to too.
My affiliate dues of the local board of realtors went up $120.00 this year which you got to pay if you want a card to get in the lock boxes. A few years ago they went from a key to a card which dramatically increased the costs for the affiliates too. The local board is rolling in money. I have a feeling some of the dues I am paying is going to the lobbyists and lawyers.
** Lobbying to Sell Your House **
By GLEN JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - When the nation's largest banks decided at the start of the decade that they wanted to get into the real estate brokerage business, one major obstacle stood in their way: the National Association of Realtors.
Lobbyists for the huge trade group stonewalled the banks by tying up new rules at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Then the big score came in 2002 when the Realtors persuaded Congress to adopt a one-year moratorium to stop the banks altogether. It was a card the Realtors would play again and again. Four years later, bankers still have not cracked the real estate market.
“They are known as very aggressive,” said Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association. “Not many trade associations are willing to be that tough on an issue.”
But the ability of the National Association of Realtors to beat back competitors is being tested now as few times before. A broad range of critics say the organization and its state and local affiliates have worked to smother competition and protect the decades-old system that provides traditional brokers 5 percent to 6 percent commissions on most home sales.
The Justice Department sued the association last year, asserting that the group’s rules for online property listings discriminate against Internet-based brokers. Battles have also raged in the states as Realtor organizations pursued policies that opponents say would hurt discount brokers. The Consumer Federation of America is revving up to fight any such industry-sponsored legislation state by state in coming months.
“Because the industry functions as a cartel, it is able to overcharge consumers tens of billions of dollars a year,” said Stephen Brobeck, the federation’s executive director. “Consumers are increasingly wondering why they are often charged more to sell a home than to purchase a new car.”
At the same time, traditional brokers are under assault from Web-based companies and discount brokerage firms, many offering rebates and “à la carte” services that can drastically reduce costs. Many of these companies criticize the association as hostile to new business models.
“The industry is not as competitive as it could or should be,” said Representative Michael G. Oxley, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services and one of several lawmakers who opposed the organization’s stand against the banks.
Even some industry allies say the association may be too aggressive in protecting its interests. “They might have small victories, but they are losing the battle,” said Representative Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican who worked in real estate before joining Congress. “I think they should be relooking some of their tactics.”
Officials at the National Association of Realtors are quick to defend the organization. Stephen Cook, the group’s spokesman, said the organization and the industry were not under siege. Rather, Mr. Cook said, the current climate is the byproduct of a hot housing market that has focused much national attention on the industry. “The system can always be improved, but we don’t think it is broken,” Mr. Cook said.
The association’s power has swelled during the heady days of the real estate boom. Its ranks have grown by more than 500,000 in the last five years. With almost 1.3 million members, it is the largest trade association in the country. One out of every 203 adults is a dues-paying member, according to August statistics from the association and the United States Census.
The boom has enriched many brokers. With the average cost of a home reaching historic highs, consumers paid roughly $61 billion in brokerage fees for residential real estate in 2004 as some 6.8 million homes changed hands. Last year, the industry was on track to sell almost 7.1 million homes, according to estimates in December.
The Realtors association is also one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, spending nearly $94 million annually. It dates back almost 100 years. And it has an iron grip on its members. For access to property listings, individual agents and the brokers who employ them must belong to the national association and their state and local affiliates. Even the term “Realtor” is trademarked for use by members only.
The association spent some $13.5 million in 2004 to lobby Congress and the administration on issues like housing, lending, insurance, small-business legislation and anything that might affect agents, according to lobbying disclosures.
Those who have opposed the Realtors speak of another asset as well: chutzpah. Over the years, the organization has gained a reputation as a fierce fighter in the nation’s capital, often willing to go further than many other Washington groups to win its battles.
One prime combatant in the antitrust case is Laurie Janik, the association’s general counsel. Ms. Janik said her organization, rather than fighting, tried for months to accommodate Justice Department requests to change its rules for online property listings. Ultimately, she said, the requests went too far and would have eroded the control that Realtors have over the listings, which they consider proprietary.
Ms. Janik said the department also wanted the association to sign a consent decree, raising the possibility of legal consequences if it violated the agreement. It was a step the Realtors were not willing to take. Her group held its ground, and the government filed suit in September.
“I think this is a big gamble for them,” she said. “They are very likely going to lose this case.”
When the suit was filed, J. Bruce McDonald, a deputy assistant attorney general, said, “Our job is to ensure that one group of competitors doesn’t tell some of its members they can’t compete in a certain way and undercut the level playing field.”
At the heart of the case are the roughly 850 multiple listing services through which brokers cooperate to list properties for sale. The system dates back decades. Once kept in large, heavy books, the lists are now maintained electronically and the data is used to market properties on the Internet.
Almost all agents and brokers - even competitors - use the lists to showcase sellers’ properties and obtain prospects for buyers. But the Realtors’ control over these lists is a controversial subject in the industry. David Barry, a California lawyer and longtime critic of Realtor associations, is seeking to put an initiative on the California ballot that would open the state’s multiple listing services to the public.
The association’s rules allow brokers to withhold their property listings from competing Internet sites, though that also means forfeiting the ability to show on their own sites houses listed by competitors.
The Justice Department lawsuit contends that these rules give an unfair advantage to large, traditional brokers that supply the majority of listings. The suit points to internal industry documents that identify online brokers as a threat.
Some discount brokers are elated. “We celebrate the Department of Justice involvement,” said Eric A. Danziger, chief executive of ZipRealty, a full-service brokerage firm that offers discounts and makes heavy use of the Internet. “What’s happening now is many years overdue, a focus on the consumer. There’s still huge resistance from the real estate industry.”
Steve Murray, editor of Real Trends, an industry newsletter, said that even if Realtors won the Justice Department case, industry efforts to slow market forces and technology might yield few gains. “Businesses that erect barriers and moats around their industry for protection end up getting slaughtered,” he said, adding that “a rational person could say these guys are a cartel.”
The Justice Department case is still in its early stages before a federal judge in Chicago, where the Realtors have asked for a dismissal and prosecutors will respond in coming weeks.
Ms. Janik warns that major changes to the multiple listing services could cause large nationwide brokerages to pull out of the system and establish their own private listings. That, she said, would be a far greater threat to small firms.
"I’m scratching my head, saying ‘what is the Justice Department thinking?’ " Ms. Janik said.
With the housing market showing signs of cooling, market forces could change the landscape a lot sooner than any legal battle might. If home sales decline, either because owners are reluctant to sell at lower prices or rising interest rates keep buyers on the sidelines, Realtors could be in for major changes.
Even industry heavyweights agree that change is imminent. Dave Liniger, chairman and co-founder of Re/Max, said he expected commissions to continue to drop and à la carte models, in which customers choose the services they want and pay accordingly, to continue to rise. But he said both would happen slowly over a period of years.
“It’s the evolution of the industry, but not the end of the industry,” he said.
At Cendant, which operates Century 21 and Coldwell Banker, Richard A. Smith, the chief executive of the real estate unit, said he expected traditional brokers to gain ground in a softer market. When the market tightens, he said, homeowners are often more interested in selling quickly than they are in saving money.
Still, Mr. Smith said his company, which operates its own discount brokerage, was closely watching the pressure on prices and any action by regulators. And he said that while his organization did not always support the association’s political positions, it agreed with the group in the Justice Department case.
“People shouldn’t be forced to market their homes the way the government wants them to market their homes,” Mr. Smith said. “What’s next?”
Realtors have also collided with the Justice Department in several state capitals, where the industry has pushed legal changes that some say will harm nontraditional brokers. Some of the new rules ban rebates to home buyers or sellers. Others, known as minimum-service bills, which require brokers to offer a broad range of services to obtain a real estate license, can hurt discounters who offer fewer services for lower fees.
In Missouri, for example, the legislature unanimously passed a minimum-services bill that sent lobbyists on both sides scrambling to sway Gov. Matt Blunt. As they had done in other states, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission urged Mr. Blunt to veto the measure.
Ms. Janik had weighed in with a letter to state associations months earlier, saying the Justice Department was merely lobbying and could not apply federal antitrust laws to cases in which states have regulatory authority.
“Realtor associations have the right to lobby for legislative and regulatory action that they support - even if the effect of such action would be anticompetitive,” she wrote in a strongly worded memo.
The Missouri Association of Realtors hired Gregg L. Hartley, chief operating officer of Cassidy & Associates, one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington. Mr. Hartley is a former chief of staff to Representative Roy Blunt, the governor’s father and one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. When Representative Tom DeLay was indicted earlier this year, Mr. Blunt took over his duties as majority leader.
The Missouri association paid Mr. Hartley $50,000 for a single month of lobbying, according to state records, which listed his only task as working to enact the bill. Mr. Hartley did not return calls for comment.
Ultimately, Governor Blunt signed the bill.
** Lobbying to Sell Your House **
By GLEN JUSTICE
WASHINGTON, Jan. 11 - When the nation's largest banks decided at the start of the decade that they wanted to get into the real estate brokerage business, one major obstacle stood in their way: the National Association of Realtors.
Lobbyists for the huge trade group stonewalled the banks by tying up new rules at the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve. Then the big score came in 2002 when the Realtors persuaded Congress to adopt a one-year moratorium to stop the banks altogether. It was a card the Realtors would play again and again. Four years later, bankers still have not cracked the real estate market.
“They are known as very aggressive,” said Edward L. Yingling, president of the American Bankers Association. “Not many trade associations are willing to be that tough on an issue.”
But the ability of the National Association of Realtors to beat back competitors is being tested now as few times before. A broad range of critics say the organization and its state and local affiliates have worked to smother competition and protect the decades-old system that provides traditional brokers 5 percent to 6 percent commissions on most home sales.
The Justice Department sued the association last year, asserting that the group’s rules for online property listings discriminate against Internet-based brokers. Battles have also raged in the states as Realtor organizations pursued policies that opponents say would hurt discount brokers. The Consumer Federation of America is revving up to fight any such industry-sponsored legislation state by state in coming months.
“Because the industry functions as a cartel, it is able to overcharge consumers tens of billions of dollars a year,” said Stephen Brobeck, the federation’s executive director. “Consumers are increasingly wondering why they are often charged more to sell a home than to purchase a new car.”
At the same time, traditional brokers are under assault from Web-based companies and discount brokerage firms, many offering rebates and “à la carte” services that can drastically reduce costs. Many of these companies criticize the association as hostile to new business models.
“The industry is not as competitive as it could or should be,” said Representative Michael G. Oxley, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services and one of several lawmakers who opposed the organization’s stand against the banks.
Even some industry allies say the association may be too aggressive in protecting its interests. “They might have small victories, but they are losing the battle,” said Representative Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican who worked in real estate before joining Congress. “I think they should be relooking some of their tactics.”
Officials at the National Association of Realtors are quick to defend the organization. Stephen Cook, the group’s spokesman, said the organization and the industry were not under siege. Rather, Mr. Cook said, the current climate is the byproduct of a hot housing market that has focused much national attention on the industry. “The system can always be improved, but we don’t think it is broken,” Mr. Cook said.
The association’s power has swelled during the heady days of the real estate boom. Its ranks have grown by more than 500,000 in the last five years. With almost 1.3 million members, it is the largest trade association in the country. One out of every 203 adults is a dues-paying member, according to August statistics from the association and the United States Census.
The boom has enriched many brokers. With the average cost of a home reaching historic highs, consumers paid roughly $61 billion in brokerage fees for residential real estate in 2004 as some 6.8 million homes changed hands. Last year, the industry was on track to sell almost 7.1 million homes, according to estimates in December.
The Realtors association is also one of the most powerful lobbies in Washington, spending nearly $94 million annually. It dates back almost 100 years. And it has an iron grip on its members. For access to property listings, individual agents and the brokers who employ them must belong to the national association and their state and local affiliates. Even the term “Realtor” is trademarked for use by members only.
The association spent some $13.5 million in 2004 to lobby Congress and the administration on issues like housing, lending, insurance, small-business legislation and anything that might affect agents, according to lobbying disclosures.
Those who have opposed the Realtors speak of another asset as well: chutzpah. Over the years, the organization has gained a reputation as a fierce fighter in the nation’s capital, often willing to go further than many other Washington groups to win its battles.
One prime combatant in the antitrust case is Laurie Janik, the association’s general counsel. Ms. Janik said her organization, rather than fighting, tried for months to accommodate Justice Department requests to change its rules for online property listings. Ultimately, she said, the requests went too far and would have eroded the control that Realtors have over the listings, which they consider proprietary.
Ms. Janik said the department also wanted the association to sign a consent decree, raising the possibility of legal consequences if it violated the agreement. It was a step the Realtors were not willing to take. Her group held its ground, and the government filed suit in September.
“I think this is a big gamble for them,” she said. “They are very likely going to lose this case.”
When the suit was filed, J. Bruce McDonald, a deputy assistant attorney general, said, “Our job is to ensure that one group of competitors doesn’t tell some of its members they can’t compete in a certain way and undercut the level playing field.”
At the heart of the case are the roughly 850 multiple listing services through which brokers cooperate to list properties for sale. The system dates back decades. Once kept in large, heavy books, the lists are now maintained electronically and the data is used to market properties on the Internet.
Almost all agents and brokers - even competitors - use the lists to showcase sellers’ properties and obtain prospects for buyers. But the Realtors’ control over these lists is a controversial subject in the industry. David Barry, a California lawyer and longtime critic of Realtor associations, is seeking to put an initiative on the California ballot that would open the state’s multiple listing services to the public.
The association’s rules allow brokers to withhold their property listings from competing Internet sites, though that also means forfeiting the ability to show on their own sites houses listed by competitors.
The Justice Department lawsuit contends that these rules give an unfair advantage to large, traditional brokers that supply the majority of listings. The suit points to internal industry documents that identify online brokers as a threat.
Some discount brokers are elated. “We celebrate the Department of Justice involvement,” said Eric A. Danziger, chief executive of ZipRealty, a full-service brokerage firm that offers discounts and makes heavy use of the Internet. “What’s happening now is many years overdue, a focus on the consumer. There’s still huge resistance from the real estate industry.”
Steve Murray, editor of Real Trends, an industry newsletter, said that even if Realtors won the Justice Department case, industry efforts to slow market forces and technology might yield few gains. “Businesses that erect barriers and moats around their industry for protection end up getting slaughtered,” he said, adding that “a rational person could say these guys are a cartel.”
The Justice Department case is still in its early stages before a federal judge in Chicago, where the Realtors have asked for a dismissal and prosecutors will respond in coming weeks.
Ms. Janik warns that major changes to the multiple listing services could cause large nationwide brokerages to pull out of the system and establish their own private listings. That, she said, would be a far greater threat to small firms.
"I’m scratching my head, saying ‘what is the Justice Department thinking?’ " Ms. Janik said.
With the housing market showing signs of cooling, market forces could change the landscape a lot sooner than any legal battle might. If home sales decline, either because owners are reluctant to sell at lower prices or rising interest rates keep buyers on the sidelines, Realtors could be in for major changes.
Even industry heavyweights agree that change is imminent. Dave Liniger, chairman and co-founder of Re/Max, said he expected commissions to continue to drop and à la carte models, in which customers choose the services they want and pay accordingly, to continue to rise. But he said both would happen slowly over a period of years.
“It’s the evolution of the industry, but not the end of the industry,” he said.
At Cendant, which operates Century 21 and Coldwell Banker, Richard A. Smith, the chief executive of the real estate unit, said he expected traditional brokers to gain ground in a softer market. When the market tightens, he said, homeowners are often more interested in selling quickly than they are in saving money.
Still, Mr. Smith said his company, which operates its own discount brokerage, was closely watching the pressure on prices and any action by regulators. And he said that while his organization did not always support the association’s political positions, it agreed with the group in the Justice Department case.
“People shouldn’t be forced to market their homes the way the government wants them to market their homes,” Mr. Smith said. “What’s next?”
Realtors have also collided with the Justice Department in several state capitals, where the industry has pushed legal changes that some say will harm nontraditional brokers. Some of the new rules ban rebates to home buyers or sellers. Others, known as minimum-service bills, which require brokers to offer a broad range of services to obtain a real estate license, can hurt discounters who offer fewer services for lower fees.
In Missouri, for example, the legislature unanimously passed a minimum-services bill that sent lobbyists on both sides scrambling to sway Gov. Matt Blunt. As they had done in other states, the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission urged Mr. Blunt to veto the measure.
Ms. Janik had weighed in with a letter to state associations months earlier, saying the Justice Department was merely lobbying and could not apply federal antitrust laws to cases in which states have regulatory authority.
“Realtor associations have the right to lobby for legislative and regulatory action that they support - even if the effect of such action would be anticompetitive,” she wrote in a strongly worded memo.
The Missouri Association of Realtors hired Gregg L. Hartley, chief operating officer of Cassidy & Associates, one of the largest lobbying firms in Washington. Mr. Hartley is a former chief of staff to Representative Roy Blunt, the governor’s father and one of the most powerful Republicans in Congress. When Representative Tom DeLay was indicted earlier this year, Mr. Blunt took over his duties as majority leader.
The Missouri association paid Mr. Hartley $50,000 for a single month of lobbying, according to state records, which listed his only task as working to enact the bill. Mr. Hartley did not return calls for comment.
Ultimately, Governor Blunt signed the bill.
Jim -
In your 1st post you refer to the Realtors group as “NRA”. I think you mean “NAR”. Typically we refer to the National Rifle Association as “NRA”.
Freudian slip Jim?? :mrgreen:
Regards
Gerry
Gerry is right, they are both strong lobbing groups that have no regard for the general public.
Actually James, I think the NRA is a quality group - of the two.
True, but they are not holding a hunting gun (automatic assault weapon) to your head when you said that. 
James,
Although this is not a hunting forum, and probably not the place to argue facts about gun control but, if you go by the assult weapon ban most of my “hunting” guns are illegal!
And if they do ban guns, I guess you think the criminals will be the first in line to turn theirs in?
Guns should not be banned just automatics and semi-automatics. I am a hunter but I believe in giving the wildlife a chance. All hunters should use a single shot. If you can not kill with just one shot, you should not be hunting.
And they all should be Muskets Too make it even better.
Thanks but no Thanks .
I am happy with what I have now do not need to change .
…Cookie
I agree with your sentiments on hunting(I too am a hunter).
Since the constitution provides for a “well armed militias” why should we be restricted from owning any particular weapon?
Just asking;-)
Okay, but will you please be the one to ask that nice tiger that escaped from his cage to stop attacking people?
Yes, you can take your single shot with you. He was over there last we saw him. :mrgreen:
Why should we be protecting ourselves against our own army?
I am not even going close to an uncaged tiger, even with an automatic weapon.
There are Musket seasons in Missouri.
That misses the point James.
What is the rationale for restricting citizens to only certain types weapons?
There is too many crazy people out there.
Why does somebody need an automatic weapon?
To protect ourselves and family from those crazy people?
Just because our military has a weapon does not mean the citizens should have one. Someday I hope to own a tank but I do not think the government should allow me to own one with the guns not disabled.