Most in our society do not follow the constitution - but many still do.

There are many Professional Realtors who still believe in, and abide by, every word this document says. You have to search to find them, but they are there.

The NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS® adopted the Code of Ethics in 1913,

The Code of Ethics addresses a Realtor's® duties and obligations to clients and customers, the public and other Realtors®. The code consists of 17-points that outline the following expectations:

1.A Realtor's® first duty is to protect the interests of their client, and to treat all parties honestly.
2.Realtors® shall avoid concealment or misrepresentation pertinent information in relation to the property or the transaction. Realtors® also may not disclose confidential information.
3.Realtors® shall cooperate with other brokers, except when the cooperation is not in the best interest of their client. Cooperation doesn't include compensation.
4.Realtors® must disclose any personal share or interest in a property involved in a transaction. In other words, when interested in buying or selling a property they must make it clear that they are representing themselves not a client.
5.Realtors® shall avoid conflicts of interest, and must make their interest known to all parties if they do provide services for a transaction in which they have a personal interest.
6.Realtors® shall not accept a commission, rebate, a fee, or other financial benefit without disclosing it to the client.
7.Realtors® cannot be compensated by more than one party in a transaction without making it clear to all parties.
8.Realtors® must maintain a special account (separate from their own personal account) for escrows, client's monies, trust funds and the like.
9.Realtors® must assure that contracts, leases, agreements, etc. are in clear and understandable language in writing, and must be explained at the time of signing or initialing.
10.Realtors® cannot deny professional services on the basis of race, religion, sex, family status, handicap or national origin.
11.Realtors® cannot provide services outside of their field of competence (such as a residential realtor working in commercial real estate) without disclosing it to the client.
12.Realtors® must adhere to truth in advertising and marketing, and must disclose their professional status in advertising.
13.Realtors® shall not give legal advice, and shall advise clients to seek legal counsel when applicable.
14.Realtors® shall make full disclosure of all pertinent facts if charged with unethical practice.
15.Realtors® shall not make false or misleading statements about their competitors or their own businesses.
16.Realtors® shall not work outside of the exclusive agreements with their clients.
17.Realtors® agree to arbitration in the case of a violation.

Bookmarked so I can read this back (and check it off one by one) to the next Realtor I talk to.

I am sold on your ethics halfbrite...can you get to Columbus and move my house :)).

Unlike many here I'm not a Realtor hater but

Quote:

1.A Realtor's® first duty is to protect the interests of their client, and to treat all parties honestly.

this is a clear logic fail since those are two separate items and are completely unrelated to one another.

One of them may be a 'first duty' but both of them cannot.

Mez: Most buyers/sellers do not want to screw someone - if they do, a good Realtor will dump that client. Most clients interest is an honest and fair transaction, so I don't believe they are mutually exclusive. (to most)

Jv - Nothing succeeds like valueing and practicing integrity.

Quote:

5.Realtors® shall avoid conflicts of interest, and must make their interest known to all parties if they do provide services for a transaction in which they have a personal interest.

A Real*****'s first interest is getting their ****ing 3%. If they don't get absolute top dollar for their client on the sell side, what the **** do they care? A thousand dollars here or there off the sales price is only $30 in commission.

I agree with you on that Half. I have always looked at every deal I have ever been in as an opportunity to lay another brick for the future instead of the short term gratification of making money. I always tell my customers if I screw one person everything I have done over 15 years would be worthless. Anyway, every industry has more bad than good IMO and the people who do it right should let everyone know there philosophy. Good for you trying to put your customers first.

Quote:

Most buyers/sellers prefer to convince themselves that they do not want to screw someone

We just have a different take on that I guess.

Mez, I would appreciate if you quote me, you would do so accurately.
If you insert your comments on a separate line, I'd appreciate it.

My apologies, Half, if the portion I inserted was not clear.

LOL, that is funny.

another thread where halfbrite refuses to acknowledge that realtors (hardly) ever participate in fraud. read and judge for yourselves, starting about 1/3 of the way down the page:

http://tickerforum.org/akcs-www?post=160....

I'm not going to join the "halfbrite bashing" because, well, its not really fair. I'm glad he is here giving his opinion, so those who disagree, stick to the facts and stay focused on the arguments.

I'm sure there's lots of honest bankers. They're just not loud enough about the dishonest ones to be on my side. Same for Realtors.

if someone refuses to acknowledge there's a problem where one clearly exists...

Whole industry is one big conflict of interest...

Realtors and ethics in the same sentence. Now that's a novel idea.

Halfbrite, since this thread is now in not-so-breaking, I can't post on it anymore because I don't have posting privileges there: http://tickerforum.org/cgi-ticker/akcs-w....

To continue that discussion, you stated:

Quote:

Rather than rebut every factual error in your post, let's take just one: Title insurance. Fact: Prices are all the same from every company.

After I posted a link showing that title insurance prices are NOT all the same, you tried to discount my link by calling it a wacky apples and oranges comparison. WTF?
You then choose to link to a report using 1999-2005 data as your proof. While the prices fluctuated only slightly in that report, there was variation in prices. The report also did not include prices from EnTitle's previous name, Guardian National Title Insurance Company. Perhaps because their prices were significantly lower than the title companies used in the report?

But since you posted this report: http://www.insurance.ca.gov/0400-news/02....
I read some 'interesting' comments in it that prove kickbacks to realtors. From section 5.2.1.1 California Department of Insurance Enforcement Actions:

Quote:

In July 2005, the California Department of Insurance reached agreement
with nine major title companies to pay $37.8 million in refunds and
penalties for illegal rebating through a captive reinsurance scheme in which
national homebuilders, lenders and realtors were encouraged to steer
business to particular title insurers. Under the arrangement, the
homebuilder formed a reinsurance company affiliate – a captive reinsurer.
Under an agreement with the title insurer, the homebuilder would steer the
consumer to the title insurer and the title insurer would cede a portion of the
premium – typically 50% after the first $200 to $350 – to the captive
reinsurer with no substantive risk of loss associated with the reinsurance
transaction. In effect, the arrangement allowed for the title insurer to rebate
50% of the premium to the homebuilder. The companies were accused of
paying $25.4 million in illegal kickbacks to various lenders, builders and
realtors in exchange for the referral of title insurance business. The nine
companies, members of three insurance groups -- LandAmerica Financial
Corporation, the First American Title Insurance Company, and Fidelity
National Financial Inc. -- control roughly 75% of the California title
insurance market. Their actions in this case involved more than 82,000
California households which purchased or refinanced a home between 1997
and 2004. In agreeing to the settlement, the title insurers admitted no
wrongdoing.

Quote:

In April 2005, Stewart Title reached a settlement with the California
Department of Insurance over allegations of unlawful rebate activities from
1999 through 2001. Stewart agreed to a cease and desist order, paid
$750,000 for a penalty and reimbursed the Department’s cost of
investigation.93 The investigation found that the inducements Stewart gave
to agents amounted to $594,102.67. They came in the form of payments for
business support services, providing gift certificates and door prizes for
realtor events, making rent payments, funding special events, and
sponsoring broker activities. The activities took place in Los Angeles,
Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego Counties. In agreeing to
the settlement, Stewart admitted no wrongdoing.

Quote:

In December 2004, the California Department of Insurance reached an
agreement with Commonwealth Land Title Company over allegations of
unlawful rebate activity. Commonwealth agreed to pay a penalty of $1.25
million and another $250,000 for reimbursement of the Department’s cost
of investigation. Commonwealth also agreed to cease and desist the
activities alleged as unlawful rebates by the Department.95 These activities
included fraudulent receipts for gifts, entertainment, food and beverage and
business support services to referrers of title insurance and escrow business.
In agreeing to the settlement, Commonwealth admitted no wrongdoing.

Quote:

In 2001, the California Department of Insurance initiated an enforcement
action against Old Republic Title Co. for allegedly giving illegal kickbacks
to real estate agents. The Department alleged that Old Republic Title Co.
spent more than $540,000 to give real estate agents computer training
unrelated to title insurance products or services in Old Republic offices and
that the Old Republic printed real estate booklets for the agents, valued at
$226,000.99 Old Republic subsequently agreed to pay a $1 million fine and
stop offering illegal rebates. In agreeing to the settlement, Old Republic
admitted no wrongdoing.

Quote:

In 1999, the California Department of Insurance fined Chicago Title
$235,000 for unlawful rebates to real estate agents in exchange for the
referral of title and escrow business. In agreeing to the settlement, Chicago
Title admitted no wrongdoing. Chicago Title agreed to stop the following
activities that the Department of Insurance investigators uncovered during
their probe:
1. Leasing or subleasing work space within real estate licensees’
offices
2. Providing coordinator services to real estate agents
3. Picking up and delivering real estate flyer orders on behalf of
real estate licensees
4. Providing real estate licensees with computer software,
education, and training not related to the business of title
insurance
5. Providing printing services to real estate licensees
6. Waiving sub-escrow fees and charging unfiled rates for title
and escrow services
7. Providing certificates to customers for free installation of
home security systems
8. Offering to pay part of the costs for showing a “for sale”
property on an Internet video service.

Quote:

In 1997, North American Title Company paid a fine to the California
Department of Insurance of $100,000 for giving cash and free services to
real estate agents. The title company placed its employees in the real estate
offices, paid rent for the space and used the employees as “escrow
coordinators” to steer business of homebuyers to the title insurance
companies placing the employees in the real estate offices. A spokesman
for North American Title Company claimed that all national title companies
engaged in the practice of placing “escrow coordinators” in real estate
offices. In agreeing to the settlement, North American admitted no
wrongdoing.

etc, etc

Note the common theme is that real estate agents referred their clients to particular title insurance companies in exchange for kickbacks. Also note that while Guardian is mentioned in appendix 5 of the report you cited, their prices are not ever mentioned in the report. Guardian is also not mentioned as a company that paid kickbacks.

Ifly: Congrats - by using the report professionally provided to you, by me, you now have a miniscule knowledge of 2 of the 30 or so area's of RE that amateurs really should know before they boast, or disparage professionals.

You now dump your own sources, repost the info from my sources that I just gave you, then try to interpret my info and suggest you have a clue as to what that info means in the real world, to real people?

You're hopeless.

And give KD a couple hundred bucks and get a star - you're too cheap for your own good.

Ifly said:

Quote:

Note the common theme is that real estate agents referred their clients to particular title insurance companies in exchange for kickbacks.

No, the common theme is that title companies provide kickbacks and bribe THE OWNERS of real estate companies.

If you had a clue what you were talking about, you'd know that agents never get a dime of kickbacks and are unaware they even occur. The owners of the RE companies pocket the bribe money from the title companies.

Halfbrite, you're definitely a realtor. You dodged all of my questions, totally misinterpreted everything that I said, dismissed problematic issues, want to spend more of my money than I care to, and have congratulated yourself for 'delivering a (cough, cough) professional report' in spite of the fact that it is badly out of date.

A Realtor's® first duty is to protect the interests of their client, and to treat all parties honestly.

Who wrote this trash? It's not even grammatically correct. "their" is the possessive for pural they. His is the singular possessive:

A Realtor's® first duty is to protect the interests of his client, and to treat all parties honestly.

Ifly gets a slam dunk and the crowd goes wild....

Boz, do you really want to bring your outdated, offensive, and incorrect english grammar into the discussion? Shame on you, women are great Realtors too!
How bout that PS Girl? You gonna agree with the sexist pig or with the most gender neutral profession in America - Real Estate! And lighten up - I'm just kidding you - even when you're wrong -- again.


www.dailywritingtips.com/needed-new-singular-possessive-adjective-combining-his-and-her/ -

Quote:

White asserted that the masculine pronoun “has no pejorative connotations; it is never incorrect.”

White has been overruled.

The editors of the Fourth Edition of Elements acknowledge that “many writers find the use of the generic he or his to rename indefinite antecedents limiting or offensive,” and offer suggestions for avoiding it.

The problem arises from the fact that English pronouns and possessive adjectives must agree with their antecedents in gender as well as in number. (Antecedent=the word that the pronoun stands for or to which the possessive adjective refers.)

Halbrite, your chances of convincing anyone here that Realtor's® are honest is basically nil.