Paul Howard

• Manage |RSSAlternative Business Models
• Manage |RSSReforming Real Estate

A refreshing bit of wit - as usual. And somehow I think it comes easily to you. Thanks. Paul Howard, Broker NJHomeBuyer.com Realty Cherry Hill NJ 08002

Every time this issue comes up I get another chance to ask why the DOJ and FTC don't get on the MLS for continuing the practice of the MLS "offer" of compensation from a seller's agent to a buyer's agent. The existence of that practice is a core cause of the failure of the majority of buyers and their agents entering into a contract and negotiating a fee for the services to be performed by the buyer's agent. If that were standard practice (rather than a relatively rare one) what the MLS 'offer' was would not be related to the agents actual compensation as that would be determined by the buyer agent contract. The 'standard' practice keeps fees higher than they would be if buyers and their agents routinely negotiated the agent's fee. Any 'incentive' from the seller would not exist. It would be good for buyer's agents too as they would spend less time with buyers that jump from agent to agent. Changing the current 'standard' practice would also go a long way toward eliminating the practice of dual agency. Paul Howard, Broker www.NJHomeBuyer.com Realty Cherry Hill NJ 08002

The problem of the APR being based on the assumption of a 30 year loan has not gotten nearly the press it deserves. It is fairly well known that the APR is an unreliable measure of the comparative cost of loans for that very reason. It is almost beyond comprehension that the requirement that it be provided on loan documents has not been revisited. Paul Howard, Broker www.NJHomeBuyer.com Realty Cherry Hill NJ 08002