Regarding the March 21 editorial, “There’s a real estate shakeup — but more can be done,” and Megan McArdle’s March 22 op-ed, “We’ll soon learn the true value of real estate agents”:
Real estate agents handle so many issues. Some are questions about the physical condition of the property. Does the home have radon, lead paint, mold, asbestos or wells or septic tanks? Is it subject to obscure zoning rules, unusual property lines, conservation easements or historic overlays? We can tell buyers if a home inspector or contractor is reliable, and how to navigate mortgage financing guidelines or find a skilled underwriter. And we are their partners in the emotional parts of real estate: tough negotiations, nasty divorces or adult children who won’t move out.
In helping buyers handle these issues, real estate agents create a community network of homeowners and service providers. Most people don’t know the depth of what their agent does for them. We can do a better job explaining that.
This is already a highly competitive industry. Inexpensive options for obtaining brokerage services have always been available to all clients. Sellers who choose not to offer compensation to a buyer’s agent will eliminate opportunities for Veterans Affairs-financed buyers and for most first-time buyers who cannot pay their agent because of loan-underwriting guidelines. That reduces access to homeownership unless these buyers buy without the benefit of representation. That feels discriminatory to me. Often, buyers would not even know they could buy a home without the help of a buyer’s agent.
Also, consider that for buyers and sellers getting their information off the internet, context is quickly lost. Relying on a website alone to buy a house or condo is sort of like diagnosing your medical problems by looking online and dismissing the need for a doctor.
Holly Worthington, Chevy Chase
I much appreciated the Editorial Board’s take on the National Association of Realtors with regard to “limited competition among agents on price and service quality.” For me, the editorial was, as Yogi Berra is famously thought to have said, “déjà vu all over again.”
From the spring of 1978 until the end of winter 1979, I led the Seattle office of the Federal Trade Commission investigation into NAR’s use of its multiple-listing services as a price-fixing scheme. The investigation, which received full cooperation from the NAR general counsel’s office, covered five metropolitan areas across the country.
Based upon MLS data, our investigation concluded that collusion between brokers was patent and the MLS was the vehicle that promoted price-fixing and service uniformity. My office sought to treat the listings database as an essential public service and proposed opening the MLS to consumers on a “user fee” basis. However, the FTC rejected the proposal in its entirety and reassigned the NAR matter to the Los Angeles office to pursue a market-driven, nonenforcement approach based on the development of “buyer broker representation.”
And here we are today. Perhaps there are lessons for the future in our work from the late 1970s and from the research conducted by our regional director, William C. Erxleben, on brokerage price fixing.
Michael Katz, Washington
As a long-retired Realtor, I was intrigued by Megan McArdle’s op-ed on real estate agents.
When I was active in the profession, I thought about a third of the active agents in my market were competent, knowledgeable and diligent and worked hard for their clients. Another third were inexperienced and learning, while the final third were unsuccessful and trying to find other employment.
Ms. McArdle wrote that she would pay pay a buyer’s agent between $500 to $2,000 for assistance. Her estimate of an agent’s worth assumes a buyer will establish market value, has knowledge of any needed inspections and understands the requirements when closing a transaction. I doubt many buyers have the necessary time and ability.
And Ms. McArdle ignored commercial and other nonresidential real estate transactions, which could be even more complicated. All buyers and sellers will continue to choose their agents. A more important question might be: What method could the industry develop to help them make an informed choice?
Certainly, technological innovations will affect residential marketing expenses. And it will be very interesting to see how the housing industry’s cost of goods sold evolves.
Frank Brodersen, Springfield
Contrary to the impression given in a recent Post editorial, a decrease in Realtors’ commissions will not decrease the price of homes. Home prices will continue to be determined by supply and demand, especially in a market in which there are very few listings. If real estate commissions decline, sellers might receive more money on closing. But in a market with hundreds of potential buyers and six listings, why would sellers lower their asking prices?
Roy Relph, Arlington
The editorial on real estate costs accepted without much question the narrative that waiving title insurance — which protects home buyers in the event that someone makes a claim to their new home — will help solve the nation’s housing affordability challenges. Unfortunately, the administration’s title insurance pilot program will exacerbate housing costs by exposing lenders, consumers and taxpayers to greater financial risk.
This experiment would allow some refinancers of federally backed mortgages to skip paying for title insurance in favor of inadequate verification methods. The program targets only higher-wealth homeowners, not first-time homebuyers. It will do little to spur new ownership.
And the program would put Fannie Mae, which was neither created, chartered, licensed, regulated nor reserved for such purposes, into the title insurance business. Fannie Mae helped implode the U.S. economy in 2008 and cost taxpayers more than $200 billion the last time it engaged in significant risk-taking beyond its charter.
For the protection it provides, title insurance is a good deal. While many other fees have increased, the cost of title insurance coverage has declined nearly 8 percent since 2004. We need to focus on the barriers to homeownership that exist today, but title insurance isn’t one of them.
Diane Tomb, Arlington
The author is chief executive of the American Land Title Association.
The long, and thorny, U.S.-Israel relationship
Regarding the March 25 front-page article “Gaza dissenter plans second act”:
This coverage of Josh Paul appropriately honored a man who acts on his conscience to bring an important and informed point of view to others.
However, the article gave the impression that Israel has always enjoyed an exclusive free ride from the highest levels of our government. This history is much more complicated.
No less a figure than U.S. Secretary of State George C. Marshall opposed recognition of the new state of Israel in 1948; he and his allies on the question feared ongoing war in the region and threats to U.S. access to oil. President Dwight D. Eisenhower demanded the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the Sinai Peninsula after the 1956 Suez Crisis and threatened to cut off U.S. aid if Israel did not comply. Citing larger geopolitical considerations, Secretary of State Henry Kissinger favored a stalemate rather than outright Israeli victory in the 1973 Yom Kippur War, even though Israel had been attacked. President George H.W. Bush withheld loan guarantees to Israel to accelerate Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir’s negotiations with Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. And in 2005, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon withdrew Israeli forces from Gaza in an attempt to improve Israel’s standing.
It is appropriate for Americans to convey to the Israelis what our nation has learned about warfare from the ugly experience of destroying Vietnamese villages in order to save them and inadvertently incinerating Afghan families unfortunate enough to live too close to military targets. But let’s not pretend that it’s simple to ask Israel to shield the innocent from a war started and pursued by people sworn to destroy it, or that any other nation has been held to this standard.
David Hornestay, Silver Spring
I want to offer high praise for the outstanding profile of Josh Paul. Mr. Paul’s thoughts and actions about the Israeli war on Gaza were measured and reflective of what many Americans , including me, think and believe. His integrity and determination to speak truth to power were inspirational.
I wish President Biden — who, until giving a catastrophically misguided hug to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in October, had been a good president — would listen to what Mr. Paul is saying. I agree with him that “what Israel is doing right now is deeply harmful to America” and contrary to the values America espouses around the world.
The courage demonstrated by Mr. Paul, a Maryland resident, and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), who has spoken out against selling Israel offensive weapons and in favor of more aid to Gaza, has given me reason to take pride in Maryland, our people and our leadership.
Robert J. Latham, Ellicott City
