Letters to the Editor

Re: 'Justice not served in real estate dispute' (Oct. 25)

Dear Editor:

Are semantics clouding the real issue? When you have thousands of real estate agents competing for a limited amount of business this is construed as competitive, just as Realogy and RE/MAX suggest. However, this does not equate to competitive real estate models, which should -- but do not -- benefit consumers.

In this agent's opinion, the issue is not whether there is competition between agents to obtain business -- it is the competition as it relates to commissions that have these companies on edge. This should be considered "anti-consumer," not necessarily an anti-competitive issue, which is simply a case of semantics.

These companies readily admit and demonstrate that they will do and say almost anything to thwart competition with regard to commission dollars.

How many times do they have to say that they are worried about the pressures of lower commissions? It is well documented and stated by these companies that they spend inordinate amounts of money to attract business, thereby placing them in a position where they cannot compete with other models that use pricing (commissions) to compete with the "anti-consumer" real estate models that hire thousands of agents and spend millions of dollars to obtain market dominance.

Ironically, these "anti-consumer" companies are honest about the reasons they continue to frustrate a decline in commission rates. They cannot "compete" within these confines. This is about commissions, not competition to attract business.

What the public should consider is whether they want to do business with companies that knowingly take advantage of their mere size as opposed to finding ways to lower the costs and becoming more efficient when it comes to actually selling homes. Besides higher commission prices, these companies are also inclined to add "junk" fees such as storage fees (for the file), transactions fees (which is why the agent is being paid in the first place), and other assorted fees and costs.

It is my opinion that this compromises the integrity of these companies.

It is also partially the responsibility of the media, which continues to use the word discount when relating to lower-commission models. This is the wrong message, as discount applies only to commissions. If there are no set commissions, why are lower commissions described and considered discount? As a lower-fee broker, I take exception to this because I offer the same, if not better, service than those charging higher commissions. Nothing is discounted; it is merely what I elect to charge.

The DOJ should be spending money to attack the dishonesty of these high-commissioned firms and inform the consumers that lower fees do work and probably work better than higher fees for many reasons.

Even NAR has said in the past that real estate commissions will not decrease as long as consumers continue to pay higher commissions.

Jeff Fox
mail@jefffox.com

All rights reserved. This content may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this content without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.