According to NAR, in addition to their primary residences, 26% of Realtors “owned other residential properties for investment.” That is, 26% of Realtors are landlords.
Clarification: we both agree that the NAR is self-interested and represents Realtors. I disagree that they do not, in their self-interest, advocate for policy&law that benefits primary homeowners. My argument is that this same self-interest is generally aligned with primary homeownership (not only with investor homeownership which is what I was reading from your column.) Investor represent a small segment of home owners and the NAR knows this and would be stupid to advocate for them over landlords (because self interest).
Is the conclusion of this column to dissolve, abolish, or otherwise do away with the NAR? I am reading between the lines and don’t want to misrepresent you.
Hating on the NAR is certainly fashionable these days. I have a hunch that NAR rants increase during tough markets (would Burnett have happened if RE was still shooting to the moon?) As a former Realtor, I admit to doing plenty of griping about that organization myself. However, every argument deserves a counter-argument so (for a limited time only) I will be an NAR and big trade group apologist…
1. Yes Realtors own real estate. Of course. Would you expect a financial advisor to not own stocks? Would you expect lawyers to not be partners in law firms? I would take Realtors not investing in residential real estate as a bad sign. Realtors are putting their money where their mouth is. I think this is a good thing. BUT! Here’s the rub... 26% isn’t that many. Here is the complement to your statement: 74% of Realtors DON’T own investment properties. Wow, that is a VAST MAJORITY of the population of Realtors. What gives? Why not?
2. Yes, the NAR advocates on behalf of its very large membership. That is their job. That is what Realtor members pay for. So why wouldn’t they? I’d be quite upset if I paid a doctor that wasn’t advancing my health interests! Here are some other professional groups with big lobbies: American Bar Association, American Medical Association, American Institute of CPAs, etc. Do these organizations lobby and shape law&policy on behalf of their membership base? You bet your bottom dollar they do. Does this come at the expense of the American public at times - you bet your bottom dollar it does (do you think CPAs and tax attorneys actually WANT tax law to become more simple?). Do these same organizations also lobby in support of policy and law that benefits the American public? Yes, an example: the plaintiff’s bar can be a big PITA but it inarguably allows David to cast stones at Goliath with little to no money down. Is it a good thing that there are barriers to entry to practice accounting, medicine, and law? Absolutely. The licensing process greatly reduces (but does not eliminate, not by a long-shot) a lot of the riff-raff that could otherwise harm the public. Generally speaking, I think the self-interested moat-keeping of these groups benefits the public - even though it also has costs on the other side of the balance sheet (everything in life has trade-offs).
3. “The NAR being self-interested” does NOT equal “the NAR does not lobby for policy&law” that benefits the public. The NAR has lobbied AGAINST excessive use of eminent domain. They have lobbied FOR environmental protections. They have argued FOR lower property taxes. These benefit everyone. They have consistently lobbied (heavily) FOR expanding federally subsidized loans to segments of the population that are historically underserved (whether for better or worse is a different argument). Is this self-interested? Of course. Has it helped that population group? You bet. Has the NAR been late to the game, obtuse, and wrong-headed before (Fair Housing laws in the 1970s). Yep. So have all the others. Now the question is… has the NAR done more harm than good? I guess that is a matter of perspective. For my own part, I can’t help but admit that, in their self-interest, Realtors and the NAR want EVERYBODY to be able to buy a house and will put a great deal of money and resources to work to effect that end. Because of course.
Human beings writ large are self-interested and act as such. The market system and our entire national culture (as codified in the constitution) are based on this absolute, unalienable FACT. We hold these truths to be self-evident…” is a very poetic way of saying that we each have a right to pursue our own self-interest with minimal government interference.
Now, if you write a column tomorrow and tell me that the NAR is the best thing to happen to humans since electricity, I will have plenty to say against the idea.
Clarification: we both agree that the NAR is self-interested and represents Realtors. I disagree that they do not, in their self-interest, advocate for policy&law that benefits primary homeowners. My argument is that this same self-interest is generally aligned with primary homeownership (not only with investor homeownership which is what I was reading from your column.) Investor represent a small segment of home owners and the NAR knows this and would be stupid to advocate for them over landlords (because self interest).
Goooooood morning John,
Is the conclusion of this column to dissolve, abolish, or otherwise do away with the NAR? I am reading between the lines and don’t want to misrepresent you.
Hating on the NAR is certainly fashionable these days. I have a hunch that NAR rants increase during tough markets (would Burnett have happened if RE was still shooting to the moon?) As a former Realtor, I admit to doing plenty of griping about that organization myself. However, every argument deserves a counter-argument so (for a limited time only) I will be an NAR and big trade group apologist…
1. Yes Realtors own real estate. Of course. Would you expect a financial advisor to not own stocks? Would you expect lawyers to not be partners in law firms? I would take Realtors not investing in residential real estate as a bad sign. Realtors are putting their money where their mouth is. I think this is a good thing. BUT! Here’s the rub... 26% isn’t that many. Here is the complement to your statement: 74% of Realtors DON’T own investment properties. Wow, that is a VAST MAJORITY of the population of Realtors. What gives? Why not?
2. Yes, the NAR advocates on behalf of its very large membership. That is their job. That is what Realtor members pay for. So why wouldn’t they? I’d be quite upset if I paid a doctor that wasn’t advancing my health interests! Here are some other professional groups with big lobbies: American Bar Association, American Medical Association, American Institute of CPAs, etc. Do these organizations lobby and shape law&policy on behalf of their membership base? You bet your bottom dollar they do. Does this come at the expense of the American public at times - you bet your bottom dollar it does (do you think CPAs and tax attorneys actually WANT tax law to become more simple?). Do these same organizations also lobby in support of policy and law that benefits the American public? Yes, an example: the plaintiff’s bar can be a big PITA but it inarguably allows David to cast stones at Goliath with little to no money down. Is it a good thing that there are barriers to entry to practice accounting, medicine, and law? Absolutely. The licensing process greatly reduces (but does not eliminate, not by a long-shot) a lot of the riff-raff that could otherwise harm the public. Generally speaking, I think the self-interested moat-keeping of these groups benefits the public - even though it also has costs on the other side of the balance sheet (everything in life has trade-offs).
3. “The NAR being self-interested” does NOT equal “the NAR does not lobby for policy&law” that benefits the public. The NAR has lobbied AGAINST excessive use of eminent domain. They have lobbied FOR environmental protections. They have argued FOR lower property taxes. These benefit everyone. They have consistently lobbied (heavily) FOR expanding federally subsidized loans to segments of the population that are historically underserved (whether for better or worse is a different argument). Is this self-interested? Of course. Has it helped that population group? You bet. Has the NAR been late to the game, obtuse, and wrong-headed before (Fair Housing laws in the 1970s). Yep. So have all the others. Now the question is… has the NAR done more harm than good? I guess that is a matter of perspective. For my own part, I can’t help but admit that, in their self-interest, Realtors and the NAR want EVERYBODY to be able to buy a house and will put a great deal of money and resources to work to effect that end. Because of course.
Human beings writ large are self-interested and act as such. The market system and our entire national culture (as codified in the constitution) are based on this absolute, unalienable FACT. We hold these truths to be self-evident…” is a very poetic way of saying that we each have a right to pursue our own self-interest with minimal government interference.
Now, if you write a column tomorrow and tell me that the NAR is the best thing to happen to humans since electricity, I will have plenty to say against the idea.
Best,
Dustin