Home Buyer Beware...Realtors® Are Secretly Stealing Your Rights -- Public Service Announcement

[Steve Horrillo]

***************************************************************
Home Buyer Beware...Realtors® Are Secretly Stealing Your Rights
******************Public Service Announcement******************
***************************************************************
Better than 99% of all Realtors® have positioned themselves
to strip you of your right to representation from a buyer's
agent--representation from a specialist which could come at
no additional cost to you--just as a result of your going to
look at homes with them. (THIS IS EVEN TRUE OF OPEN HOUSES.)
You may find it hard to believe, but it's absolutely true.
Even if you live in a state where buyer agency is the default
relationship, your rights are in extreme jeopardy, as your
ability to make your own choices is being stolen from you,
without your knowledge, or consent.
To learn more about this theft...and to aid in protecting
yourself from becoming a victim of organized real estate's
http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf
If you have problems opening the file, you can download the
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Soon, you are likely to see messages from Realtors® who will
be wildly spinning lies of omission, or half-truths, in an
attempt to remove your focus from the substance of what you'll
find in the free report.
As you consider their protestations, just keep in mind that the
way to remove all doubt of what is true, is to simply use
the consumer friendly form that you'll find within the report.
That's your ticket to freedom. That's your protection from
the ethically challenged who would silently shackle you
without your knowledge/consent.

Try talking a buyer into exclusive buyers agency. That's when they tell you
they don't want to give up their freedom of choice. I'm all for having a
contract when working with a buyer. In fact I wouldn't handle one without
it. It benefits both of us. Just try getting a buyer to sign a contract. I
don't think demonizing the traditional process is going to get you buyers
for you business but it's an interesting approach. Make them think that
having no contract is bondage and being under contract is freedom. LOL

If you truly were in it to help you would be listing buyer's typical
objections to signing an exclusive buyers agency contract, and teach
realtors how to overcome those objections. In reality far more Realtors get
burned by the buyer because they don't have a contract. Contract or not the
vast majority of agents I know who handle buyers are on the buyers side.

BTW - this in no public service announcement being that at the end you try
to solicit business from these buyers. You make it appear you are trying to
educate but it's clear that it's just a scheme to find buyers. You're on the
right track. Buyer's Agency is a good thing. You're just taking the low
road.

[homan4]

Post by Steve Horrillo

***************************************************************
Home Buyer Beware...Realtors® Are Secretly Stealing Your Rights
******************Public Service Announcement******************
***************************************************************
Better than 99% of all Realtors® have positioned themselves
to strip you of your right to representation from a buyer's
agent--representation from a specialist which could come at
no additional cost to you--just as a result of your going to
look at homes with them. (THIS IS EVEN TRUE OF OPEN HOUSES.)
You may find it hard to believe, but it's absolutely true.
Even if you live in a state where buyer agency is the default
relationship, your rights are in extreme jeopardy, as your
ability to make your own choices is being stolen from you,
without your knowledge, or consent.
To learn more about this theft...and to aid in protecting
yourself from becoming a victim of organized real estate's
http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf
If you have problems opening the file, you can download the
http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html
Soon, you are likely to see messages from Realtors® who will
be wildly spinning lies of omission, or half-truths, in an
attempt to remove your focus from the substance of what you'll
find in the free report.
As you consider their protestations, just keep in mind that the
way to remove all doubt of what is true, is to simply use
the consumer friendly form that you'll find within the report.
That's your ticket to freedom. That's your protection from
the ethically challenged who would silently shackle you
without your knowledge/consent.

Try talking a buyer into exclusive buyers agency. That's when they tell you
they don't want to give up their freedom of choice. I'm all for having a
contract when working with a buyer. In fact I wouldn't handle one without
it. It benefits both of us. Just try getting a buyer to sign a contract. I
don't think demonizing the traditional process is going to get you buyers
for you business but it's an interesting approach. Make them think that
having no contract is bondage and being under contract is freedom. LOL
If you truly were in it to help you would be listing buyer's typical
objections to signing an exclusive buyers agency contract, and teach
realtors how to overcome those objections. In reality far more Realtors get
burned by the buyer because they don't have a contract. Contract or not the
vast majority of agents I know who handle buyers are on the buyers side.
BTW - this in no public service announcement being that at the end you try
to solicit business from these buyers. You make it appear you are trying to
educate but it's clear that it's just a scheme to find buyers. You're on the
right track. Buyer's Agency is a good thing. You're just taking the low
road.
--
Warmest regards,
Steve Horrillo, Realtor / C.Ht. =^..^=
http://BrokerAgentTraining.com http://over100percent.com

The representation a buyer receives is largely controlled by the agency laws
of the state they are looking to purchase a home in. This is a matter of
individual state law, not a dirty little secret of realtors. I agree with
the article where it said that buyers should interview agents before they
choose to work with one or another. The problem is that most buyers call
and say "I am in front of a home with your sign at 123 Humpty Dumpty Lane,
can you come over right now and show it to me?" Hardly an interview. I
think agents who drop their fork and leave the family dinner table to show a
home to this type of buyer are a blight on our industry. Ideally, a buyer
who is interviewing agents should come prepared with their mortgage approval
papers in hand, and refuse to work with any agent who does not ask to see
them before they show homes. Any agent who does not prequalify buyers in
this way is wasting everyone's time, and is demonstrating desperation for
any deal rather than a commitment to get the buyers to close on a home.

The biggest problems I have seen with exclusive buyer agency agreements are:

1 - Many buyers who sign one don't realize that they are agreeing to pay a
commission, and fond another agent, who sold them a home as a subagent or
transaction broker (yes there are rotten exclusive buyer agents too), who
when they try to sell their home find a lien on it from the other buyer
agent. There is no dispute, absent extraordinary circumstances, procuring
cause is the agent who writes the contract. BYW - the NAR realized that
this is an issue, and in the 2005 revision to the Code of Ethics now
requires agents to ask all parties up front if they are under a contractual
obligation to another realtor.

2 - Many exclusive buyer agency agreements specify a commission to be paid
by the buyer, such as 3%, which is to be offset by a co-broke offered on a
listing. I have seen where this type of agreement has cost buyers. The
buyer agent in this situation is forced to either limit the scope of homes
they show, or, and this creates an ethical dilemma, the buyer agent would
need to negotiate their fee into the sale which comes close to interfering
with another broker's listing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that for the consumer the downside of an
exclusive buyer agreement could cost the buyer more, and serves only to
guarantee the exclusive selling agent a paycheck if the buyer buys in the
next year.

[NOYB]

Post by homan4
I guess what I am trying to say is that for the consumer the downside of an
exclusive buyer agreement could cost the buyer more, and serves only to
guarantee the exclusive selling agent a paycheck if the buyer buys in the
next year.

According to Jay's article it's not supposed to cost the buyer anything. He
even left a message on my cell phone in response to my post. From his tone
of voice he's developed an us against them attitude. He's probably
frustrated that agents who don't require the customer to sign an agreement
keep taking his business. He thinks his pdf file is going to shake up the
system. In reality giving someone an explanation of procuring cause would be
a good way to give the buyer a subtle warning not to use one Realtor to do
the leg work and then have their Realtor friend put in the offer. Far from a
dirty little secret. The fabrication of "dirty little secrets" are just a
lame attempt to create a "buzz." If I were a buyer I wouldn't want to sign a
document that committed me to one Realtor for an alotted period of time. The
only good thing is that the agent could show me FSBO's too.

[Jay Reifert]

Homan,

You are substantively wrong on virtually every comment that
you make. I wish I had the time to address everything that
you have said, but am left having to paste in a reply that
I made to Steve Horillo.

First, though, just let me say, Realtor® Procuring Cause has
absolutely NOTHING to do with state law. It has to do with
the agreement to arbitrate that all Realtors® sign in order
to gain access to the multiple listing service, MLS. Not
exactly a voluntary agreement to arbitrate, as the MLS is
vital to anyone who wants to make a living in this business.

You want MLS access? You're stuck with Kangaroo Court and a
system that is designed to keep buyers away from true buyer
agents.

Here's the response I made to Horillo:

There are less than 2000 exclusive buyer agents in the United
States of America. They, and their firms, only represent
home buyers. No seller representation. The only licensees
who can enter into "exclusive buyer agency" agreements, are
exclusive buyer agents.

Any other use of the terminology is a corruption, intended to
deceive. Oh, yes...you may lock a buyer into a contract,
with what you call an "exclusive buyer agency" agreement...but
you will also be locking them into a myriad of potential,
and real, conflicts of interest. (Most of which are never
disclosed.)

Not so with exclusive buyer agents who only represent home
buyers and have no loyalty obligations, at any level, to
sellers. We also do not have company created incentives
that benefit those who concentrate on putting together the
in-house transaction. (In other words, where the home that
the buyer's agent sells is also listed by the same firm for
which that agent works. Of course, disclosure of these
incentives are also never made to the buyers who have
chosen buyer agents from firms which also list property.)

If we have incentives, they are geared toward getting the
buyer the lowest price, at the best possible terms, on the
home that the buyer wants. Not the home that we want the
buyer to have...the home that the buyer wants.

So it isn't forgotten...and gets archived all over the web
for the use of prospective home buyers everywhere, here is
the link to the brochure that gives all the details about
the ongoing theft of home buyer rights, and includes the
form that can help to eliminate that threat:

http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf


Jay Reifert -- Fitchburg/Madison ****** http://www.real-reform.org
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jay_reifert ** http://www.true-agent.com
http://www.madison-real-estate.com

mailto:true-***@12345true-agent.com <-----------Remember to
remove the numbers from
the email address before
hitting send.

Post by homan4
The representation a buyer receives is largely controlled by the agency
laws of the state they are looking to purchase a home in. This is a
matter of individual state law, not a dirty little secret of realtors. I
agree with the article where it said that buyers should interview agents
before they choose to work with one or another. The problem is that most
buyers call and say "I am in front of a home with your sign at 123 Humpty
Dumpty Lane, can you come over right now and show it to me?" Hardly an
interview. I think agents who drop their fork and leave the family dinner
table to show a home to this type of buyer are a blight on our industry.
Ideally, a buyer who is interviewing agents should come prepared with
their mortgage approval papers in hand, and refuse to work with any agent
who does not ask to see them before they show homes. Any agent who does
not prequalify buyers in this way is wasting everyone's time, and is
demonstrating desperation for any deal rather than a commitment to get the
buyers to close on a home.
1 - Many buyers who sign one don't realize that they are agreeing to pay a
commission, and fond another agent, who sold them a home as a subagent or
transaction broker (yes there are rotten exclusive buyer agents too), who
when they try to sell their home find a lien on it from the other buyer
agent. There is no dispute, absent extraordinary circumstances, procuring
cause is the agent who writes the contract. BYW - the NAR realized that
this is an issue, and in the 2005 revision to the Code of Ethics now
requires agents to ask all parties up front if they are under a
contractual obligation to another realtor.
2 - Many exclusive buyer agency agreements specify a commission to be paid
by the buyer, such as 3%, which is to be offset by a co-broke offered on a
listing. I have seen where this type of agreement has cost buyers. The
buyer agent in this situation is forced to either limit the scope of homes
they show, or, and this creates an ethical dilemma, the buyer agent would
need to negotiate their fee into the sale which comes close to interfering
with another broker's listing.
I guess what I am trying to say is that for the consumer the downside of
an exclusive buyer agreement could cost the buyer more, and serves only to
guarantee the exclusive selling agent a paycheck if the buyer buys in the
next year.

[Steve Horrillo]

has consistently avoided talking about the issue...undisclosed
Procuring Cause

What's to talk about? Procuring cause is just common sense business
practice. It works the same way in any company that employs commissioned
sales people. The one who greets and gets the customer to buy gets the
commission. Simple as that. You're trying to make a big something out of
nothing.

[Steve Horrillo]

Stay on point, Steve. Let's
hear you defend the non-disclosure of procuring cause.

Why not start a thread on procuring cause rather than using buzz words like,
"secret" and "theft?" You're trying to toy with peoples emotions. IMO you
would have a better chance being taken seriously if you start talking like
an expert rather than a Buzz Marketing politician. While I understand you
think you've found gold in this procuring cause angle but it's not as you
are trying to present it.

I agree with you that only exclusive buyer's agency should be allowed. The
buyer's agent does most of the work and should be afforded some protection
beyond the impotent procuring cause rule. Yet this is a one sided view. You
need to understand that any industry in the world ultimately has to respond
to what the consumer wants. You're making it sound like Realtors don't want
their client to be contractually bound to them like the seller is. They
would love it if the buyer had no choice but to sign with someone. Doing all
the work then having another agent get the commission is one of the biggest
heart breaks there is for those that handle buyers. The fact is in practice
if given the choice the potential buyer will choose not to sign a contract
just to be shown some houses.

I understand your reasoning. Taking away procuring cause will take away any
shread of protection the buyer's agent has, in the hopes it will force the
agent to force the public into contractual obligation. All I can tell you is
I've been a consumer far longer than I've been a Realtor and I personally
would never put all my eggs in one basket with regards to finding a home.
Why aren't you telling the public the exclusive agent's "dirty little
secret?" That during the contract period they're stuck with you. That even
if they find a FSBO on their own they will owe you your commisssion.

[homan4]

Stay on point, Steve. Let's
hear you defend the non-disclosure of procuring cause.

I have been an agent in NY and am now an agent in Florida. In both states
it is required by state law to disclose both your agency relationship and
who is paying the fee for your services. This sounds like disclosure of
procuring cause if ever I heard it.

The fact of the matter is the debate over procuring cause is usually settled
between the brokers and is does not involve the buyers, except as witnesses.

As I have previously stated, the Realtor code of ethics as revised in
January 2005 requires agents to ask all prospects, seller or buyer if they
have any contractual relationships with other Realtors. This alone would
give any agent the information needed to identify your hostages. Combine
this with your education process and the only procuring cause issue you face
is suing your disloyal clients who did not know what they signed.

[Jay Reifert]

Well, that may satisfy you as a licensee, but it sure as
hell shouldn't be enough to satisfy any buyer who has
not heard the words come out of your mouth to the effect
of: "Say, by the way...before we enter this property, I
need you to understand that you are going to be obligated
to use me to buy this home, if you wish to purchase it.
Is that okay with you?"

Absent that, you're still trapping them, because, as they
did not sign a contract with you for representation, they
are most likely thinking they are NOT obligated to use
you...and that they are free to consider other options
for purchasing that, or any other, home.

That's the trap. It's just in many instances the trap is
compounded because unethical licensees do not make proper
disclosure of who represents whom, even though disclosure
is, in many states, mandatory. (Florida is set to do away
with mandatory disclosure, this year.)

In Massachusetts, a sting operation from a state governmental
agency found ZERO compliance with mandatory agency
disclosure. The National Association of Realtors® just
put out a report stating that lack of disclosure is a huge
problem, to this very day.

http://www.realtyplan.com/homes/press/theotherguys.htm

http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20060124_disclosure.htm

http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/20021008_agencydisclosure.htm

Note that of the last two links, one of them is from 2006
and the other is from 2002. What a pitiful commentary on
this industry that you are hellbent to defend. (Say, why
don't you guys ever post links that support your ill
conceived positions? <lol><lol><lol> )

Don't you, and your small-minded buddies, get tired of giving
me opportunity after opportunity to show you how deficient
your knowledge of this business is? Pretty soon I'm going
to have to just let you fellas spin, because I don't have
enough time to keep up with your comedy routines.

http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf

In fact...let me just make this clear, right now. I simply
don't have time to keep correcting the errors that all of
you are making. I'm simply going to engineer a new signature
line that makes it clear that my lack of response to you,
and your ilk, is in no way meant to constitute agreement
with anything you say. There simply aren't enough hours in
the day to keep track of, let alone respond to, the incorrect
assertions coming from you, Horillo, Montrose and anyone
else that I've forgotten to mention.

I'll simply make my points, append my signature...and let
you guys have your meaningless digression festivals.

Sayonara, you spin doctors!

Jay Reifert -- Fitchburg/Madison ****** http://www.real-reform.org
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jay_reifert ** http://www.true-agent.com
http://www.madison-real-estate.com

mailto:true-***@12345true-agent.com <-----------Remember to
remove the numbers from
the email address before
hitting send.

Post by homan4

Stay on point, Steve. Let's
hear you defend the non-disclosure of procuring cause.

I have been an agent in NY and am now an agent in Florida. In both states
it is required by state law to disclose both your agency relationship and
who is paying the fee for your services. This sounds like disclosure of
procuring cause if ever I heard it.
The fact of the matter is the debate over procuring cause is usually
settled between the brokers and is does not involve the buyers, except as
witnesses.
As I have previously stated, the Realtor code of ethics as revised in
January 2005 requires agents to ask all prospects, seller or buyer if they
have any contractual relationships with other Realtors. This alone would
give any agent the information needed to identify your hostages. Combine
this with your education process and the only procuring cause issue you
face is suing your disloyal clients who did not know what they signed.

[Steve Foley]

Shouldn't it be more like:

"Say, by the way,...before we enter this property, I need
you to understand that if you wish to purchase this home, I
will have earned my commission by showing it to you. If you
decide you want third-party representation, that party will
be in no way entitled to a sales commission on this property"

Post by Jay Reifert
Well, that may satisfy you as a licensee, but it sure as
hell shouldn't be enough to satisfy any buyer who has
not heard the words come out of your mouth to the effect
of: "Say, by the way...before we enter this property, I
need you to understand that you are going to be obligated
to use me to buy this home, if you wish to purchase it.
Is that okay with you?"

[Steve Horrillo]

3) My clients are not trapped into using my service. They
know what they can expect from me, and what I expect from
them. They have the contractual ability to fire me,

How about posting a copy of you your contract so we can see what you're
talking about? If you're not willing to do that this is the last time I'm
going to take you seriously enough to reply to.

[homan4]

3) My clients are not trapped into using my service. They
know what they can expect from me, and what I expect from
them. They have the contractual ability to fire me,

I am glad that you are not like other agents you talk about who treat buyers
as their possessions.

[Steve Horrillo]

You're a riot, Steve. My contract is a proprietary document,
built out of years worth of my research, experience and fine
tuning. Why don't you ask Coca Cola to post their secret
recipe here? I have no intention of putting it out here for
you, and your kind, to copy.

Now you're comparing yourself to Coca Cola. LOL. Every agent that dealt with
you and every buyer has a copy of your contract. It's no big secret. If I
thought you ever had any clients or dealings with agents I would ask them to
post it but that would be a long shot.

I figured you wouldn't let the public see how you try to trap buyers.
Legitimate agents use approved forms not home made ones. You're bad news
dude.

[homan4]

You're a riot, Steve. My contract is a proprietary document,
built out of years worth of my research, experience and fine
tuning. Why don't you ask Coca Cola to post their secret
recipe here? I have no intention of putting it out here for
you, and your kind, to copy.

I guess you work in a state where disclosure is not an issue.

It is your type of antics that causes most buyers to say "No Coke, Pepsi."

[homan4]

You're a riot, Steve. My contract is a proprietary document,
built out of years worth of my research, experience and fine
tuning.

I think your problem is you spent years of research, while those of us who
are serious about the buseness have spent years listing and selling. Your
"public service" efforts to "educate" reminds me of the old saying, "those
that can do, those that can't teach."

I have no intention of putting it out here for
you, and your kind, to copy.

Paraphrased: "I have no intention of making full, honest and legal
disclosure."

Sounds like you are a real Secret Agent man.

[Jay Reifert]

I'm a sole proprietor with 20 to 30 buyer clients annually.
Five to seven million in production, annually. Own the firm,
so I keep 100 percent of what I generate. Normal fee: Three
percent. You do the math.

As for my contract, that is between me and my clients. They,
and my prospective clients, are the only ones I owe anything
in the way of disclosure. I don't owe you diversionary
dissemblers anything. All any of you do is strip things of
context and conspire to confuse, anyway.

http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf

--

Jay Reifert -- Fitchburg/Madison ****** http://www.real-reform.org
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jay_reifert ** http://www.true-agent.com
http://www.madison-real-estate.com

mailto:true-***@12345true-agent.com <-----------Remember to
remove the numbers from
the email address before
hitting send.

Post by homan4

You're a riot, Steve. My contract is a proprietary document,
built out of years worth of my research, experience and fine
tuning.

I think your problem is you spent years of research, while those of
us who are serious about the buseness have spent years listing and
selling. Your "public service" efforts to "educate" reminds me of
the old saying, "those that can do, those that can't teach."

I have no intention of putting it out here for
you, and your kind, to copy.

Paraphrased: "I have no intention of making full, honest and legal
disclosure."
Sounds like you are a real Secret Agent man.

[homan4]

Post by Jay Reifert
I'm a sole proprietor with 20 to 30 buyer clients annually.
Five to seven million in production, annually. Own the firm,
so I keep 100 percent of what I generate.

If you are a broker with no agents, how do you make money with no one to
sell signs and copies to. Besides, if you are a sole proprietor, you
actually have more expenses than the average agent. Office rent,
advertising, commercial phone listings, light heat and power, etc..

Normal fee: Three

Post by Jay Reifert
percent. You do the math.

This ends my participation in the conversation. I know I had raised the
issue of how you recover the differance between a low co-broke and your
contractual fee. I won't participate in a discussion of actual numbers,
that is shall we say an anti-trust violation. But, hey you are a broker,
the smartest one in this news group, I guess if the feds even think about
investigating you for discussing actual fees with other brokers and agents,
you can sue them too.

It is interesting that you are unwilling to discuss the terms of your
exclusive agreement, with the exception of the one thing that is a violation
of law. Do you really know what you are doing in real estate? Or are you a
Don Quixote chasing the windmills of procuring cause?

[Jay Reifert]

Once again, you show how little you know, other than what
you get at your Realtor® (lack of) education sessions.

Antitrust is a lot more complex than what you think. Try
to remember that you are talking to someone who is the
plaintiff--that means party who is suing someone else,
Homan--in a federal antitrust suit.

One of the elements necessary in an antitrust case is that
you have to have market power. In other words, the ability
to actually impact the market in which the "collusion"
occurs.

My telling you what MY normal fee is, does not constitute
collusion, nor do you and I have market power.

On the other note, I office one hundred percent from my
home. It is not, at all, necessary to have an office
to engage in my trade. As for signs and forms, what kind
of claptrap is that? I am an exclusive buyer agent. I
do not list property or represent seller interests. My
firm, which has no agents at this point in time--does
not represent sellers...EVER.

Why do I need signs? The laugh riot with you guys never
ends.

http://www.real-reform.org/pcnonebas.pdf

--

Jay Reifert -- Fitchburg/Madison ****** http://www.real-reform.org
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jay_reifert ** http://www.true-agent.com
http://www.madison-real-estate.com

mailto:true-***@12345true-agent.com <-----------Remember to
remove the numbers from
the email address before
hitting send.

Post by homan4

Post by Jay Reifert
I'm a sole proprietor with 20 to 30 buyer clients annually.
Five to seven million in production, annually. Own the firm,
so I keep 100 percent of what I generate.

If you are a broker with no agents, how do you make money with no one to
sell signs and copies to. Besides, if you are a sole proprietor, you
actually have more expenses than the average agent. Office rent,
advertising, commercial phone listings, light heat and power, etc..
Normal fee: Three

Post by Jay Reifert
percent. You do the math.

This ends my participation in the conversation. I know I had raised the
issue of how you recover the differance between a low co-broke and your
contractual fee. I won't participate in a discussion of actual numbers,
that is shall we say an anti-trust violation. But, hey you are a broker,
the smartest one in this news group, I guess if the feds even think about
investigating you for discussing actual fees with other brokers and
agents, you can sue them too.
It is interesting that you are unwilling to discuss the terms of your
exclusive agreement, with the exception of the one thing that is a
violation of law. Do you really know what you are doing in real estate?
Or are you a Don Quixote chasing the windmills of procuring cause?

[Montrose]

Post by Jay Reifert
Try
to remember that you are talking to someone who is the
plaintiff--that means party who is suing someone else,
Homan--in a federal antitrust suit.

I searched out you case. You lost. That Barry guy is of course going to work
for you as long as you keep paying him. Anyone can sue anyone. It doesn't
mean you are going to win. Which in your case you didn't. If I was the
defendant I would have had you blown off as a serial litigant.

[homan4]

Post by Jay Reifert
Once again, you show how little you know, other than what
you get at your Realtor® (lack of) education sessions.
Antitrust is a lot more complex than what you think. Try
to remember that you are talking to someone who is the
plaintiff--that means party who is suing someone else,
Homan--in a federal antitrust suit.

Does your history of litigation mean you show homes that are vacant on lock
box, because some sellers are not as available for showings as you hoped?
Also, when you work FSBOS who by definition are unrepresented, do you fully
disclose your relationship with the buyer to FSBOs? Do you let them know
that your brokerage relationship requires you to work against them, or do
you just quickly gloss over the details in a preditory manner. I think you
work so many FSBOs because, although you can't put your finger on why, you
just find it hard get showings on MLS listings. By the way I know you are
paranoid about other realtors conspiring against you, but, perhaps it is
individual decisions on the part of other agents to avoid hassels.

Post by Jay Reifert
One of the elements necessary in an antitrust case is that
you have to have market power. In other words, the ability
to actually impact the market in which the "collusion"
occurs.

I guess you are more interested in sharing what you know about suing people,
than buyer agency. Maybe this demonstrates your true area of expertise.

Post by Jay Reifert
My telling you what MY normal fee is, does not constitute
collusion, nor do you and I have market power.

I guess the litigation expert would know.

[Jay Reifert]

Every agent has a copy of my buyer agency agreement? What
planet are you from...? My clients do. Agents do not.
Other agents are not party to the buyer agency agreement
between my client and myself...therefore, they do not
have copies of my buyer agency agreement.

Do you actually work in this industry?

Jay Reifert -- Fitchburg/Madison ****** http://www.real-reform.org
http://profiles.yahoo.com/jay_reifert ** http://www.true-agent.com
http://www.madison-real-estate.com

mailto:true-***@12345true-agent.com <-----------Remember to
remove the numbers from
the email address before
hitting send.

Post by Steve Horrillo

You're a riot, Steve. My contract is a proprietary document,
built out of years worth of my research, experience and fine
tuning. Why don't you ask Coca Cola to post their secret
recipe here? I have no intention of putting it out here for
you, and your kind, to copy.

Now you're comparing yourself to Coca Cola. LOL. Every agent that
dealt with you and every buyer has a copy of your contract. It's no
big secret. If I thought you ever had any clients or dealings with
agents I would ask them to post it but that would be a long shot.
I figured you wouldn't let the public see how you try to trap buyers.
Legitimate agents use approved forms not home made ones. You're bad
news dude.

[Montrose]

Post by Jay Reifert
Every agent has a copy of my buyer agency agreement? What
planet are you from...? My clients do. Agents do not.

Who do you submit your offers to dipshit?