Knowledge@Wharton Finance and Investment Research Article

View Article on Knowledge@Wharton Mobile

The Subprime Blame Game: Where Were the Realtors?

Published: October 17, 2007 in Knowledge@Wharton
    Download Audio Play Audio
Article Image
Print Get PDF of Article Send a Comment
Share this Article

It is a scene millions of Americans have been in -- sitting next to a real estate agent at closing to sign the loan contract and other papers for a new home. Often, the buyer has spent months with the agent. And to hear agents tell it, they are indispensable guides through the hazardous home-buying terrain.

How is it, then, that millions of borrowers took on toxic subprime mortgages that could cost them their homes? Why did their agents not warn them off? While much criticism has been leveled at subprime lenders and mortgage brokers, real estate agents have yet to receive their fair share of the blame for the subprime mess, says Shanna Smith, president of the National Fair Housing Alliance. "I think the greed factor works with agents as well as loan originators," she recently noted.

Others say it's not that simple. "The broker, 99% of the time, is the agent of the seller, so the broker doesn't have any duty to the buyer," said Wharton real estate professor Georgette Chapman Phillips.

Subprime loans, typically offered to borrowers with poor credit, usually start with low "teaser" rates that keep monthly payments smaller than they'd be on fixed-rate loans for the same amount. But after one, two or three years the rates are adjusted annually, often leaving buyers paying more than if they'd taken fixed loans. Many subprime borrowers are now seeing their monthly payments jump by 30% or more.

This fall, Congress, the White House and numerous state and federal regulators are struggling to find remedies to the subprime mess, which some experts think could result in two million home foreclosures. Even the presidential candidates have chimed in. Some approaches would allow federally sponsored firms like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to help stressed borrowers refinance. Others target lenders by requiring better loan-risk disclosure to borrowers.

The real estate industry has not been sitting on the sidelines. The National Association of Realtors, which represents 1.3 million agents, this fall called for the Federal Reserve to tighten underwriting standards, which would make it harder for lenders to offer loans to borrowers who could not afford the higher payments that subprime loans often require down the road. The NAR also has supported a Senate bill that would offer subprime borrowers an alternative by expanding availability of fixed-rate loans backed by the Federal Housing Administration.

But there has been little focus on the role of the realtors themselves, even though the agent often serves as the home buyer's chief advisor. Indeed, many realtors help buyers find loans by recommending lenders or mortgage brokers. "A lot of these mortgage companies are captive lenders of the [real estate] brokers," Phillips said.

At the heart of the matter is the way agents are paid -- traditionally through a commission, paid by the seller, of 5% or 6% of the home's sales price. Nudging buyers toward subprime loans, or keeping mum about the risks, means more sales go through. Also, the low teaser rate on a subprime loan allows the buyer to borrow more, helping to boost sales prices and commissions. "You can't lie," Phillips said of the agents. "You cannot intentionally mislead somebody. But you work for the seller."

"It is my experience that real estate agents have been pushing people to buy more expensive homes than they were initially qualified to buy under 30-year, fixed-rate [loan]s," said Smith of the National Fair Housing Alliance.

She recalled a young Washington, D.C., couple that had pre-qualified for a fixed-rate loan no larger than $310,000. "Their agent kept pressing them to look at $400,000-plus properties because he could get the same payment, or even lower payment, for them for a more expensive home," she said. How? By encouraging them to get a "2/28" subprime, 30-year loan that started with a low rate which would reset two years later, and then again in each of the 28 subsequent years. The borrowers qualify for such a loan based on their ability to make the initial, low payments, even if they cannot afford the higher payments likely to come later. By selling the more expensive home, the agent earns a larger commission, she noted.

"Of course, he used the standard line of agents and loan offices: 'You can always refinance in two years,'" she said. "He never told them their payment would jump 30% in month 25, or how hard it may be to refinance.... And in two years, the borrower blames the lender for their fix, not the agent who steered them to a higher priced home and a 2/28 loan."

Many subprime borrowers are now finding they cannot refinance to escape their rising payments. In some cases, their homes have fallen in value so they cannot borrow enough to pay off the older loans. Others cannot qualify for the fixed-rate "prime" loans they need, or they are prohibited from refinancing by prepayment penalties meant to assure the lender that the borrower's high payments would continue for a minimum number of years.

Running Afoul of the Code

Real estate agents typically spend much more time with home buyers than mortgage brokers and lenders do, and presumably could issue warnings about risky loan products. But experts are divided over the agent's legal and ethical responsibilities. Only a minority of buyers hire a "buyer's agent" whose primary responsibility is to them. In most cases, an agent, even if he or she has been working with the buyer, is still paid by the seller, usually by splitting the commission with the seller's agent.

"You work for whoever pays you," Phillips said, adding: "Should a broker tell a buyer, 'You realize that you're in completely over your head here?' -- when the mortgage company has already said to the buyer, 'Sure, you can have the money.' Why would the broker ever do that?"

"It's pretty complicated," said NAR policy expert Jeff Lischer. "A good agent, in order to get the job done and help the person buy or sell ... is going to do whatever has to be done to [accomplish that]." In his view, an agent working for the seller might be free to suggest that the buyer get professional help with lending issues, but a seller's agent should not give advice on the pros and cons of different types of loans.

The NAR has a consumers' brochure describing the pros and cons of various loans, and another one warning home buyers about predatory lending. But Lischer said he did not know how many agents hand the brochures out. The NAR also has a lengthy code of ethics which calls for agents to "treat all parties honestly" and to "protect and promote the interests of their client," whether the client be buyer or seller. Since it is usually the seller, a realtor could run afoul of the code by warning a buyer off a particular loan and killing a deal. Moreover, the code bars realtors from professing to be experts in areas in which they are not.

David Berenbaum, executive vice president of the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, a non-profit organization that works to improve credit access in poor communities, said he has known some real estate agents to look out for borrowers. But, he added, "we see problems where in fact ....real estate agents, like the mortgage brokers, have been part of the problem, or silent."

The realtors' code of ethics, he said, does require a commitment to fair-housing laws and "transparency," or openness about all aspects of the sale's transaction. That leaves room for the realtor to raise a red flag over a hazardous loan, he said. "If a deal is not sustainable -- meaning, if a consumer cannot afford the transaction -- they should not be proceeding with it," he noted.

Agents, even if working for the seller, do have some ethical duties to buyers, adds Alan Strudler, professor of legal studies and business ethics at Wharton. "It's wrong to exploit the vulnerable, and that's what goes on when you stick somebody with one of these loans.... If the law is behind in recognizing this, then it's time for the law to change."

Legally, the agent's obligations to buyer and seller are generally governed by state laws, and most of those emphasize the agent's fiduciary responsibility to the seller, said real estate expert Jack M. Guttentag, emeritus finance professor at Wharton.

Under federal law, it is illegal for lenders to pay kickbacks to real estate agents who steer them business, Guttentag said, but he said virtually no effort is put into enforcing this rule. "It's very difficult to prevent one party from delivering something of value to another party, even if it's just a Christmas present," he said. "I'm sure that on a small scale it's violated all the time." When real estate agents recommend specific lenders or mortgage brokers, the chief incentive is to assure that a loan is made so the sale is complete and the agent receives the commission, he said.

"Realtors care about only one thing -- making the sale," added Kenneth Thomas, a lecturer on finance at Wharton, adding that if the buyer needs a subprime loan for the deal to go through, the agent is likely to keep silent about the hazards.

Wharton real estate professor Todd Sinai argues that even if the seller's agent offered the buyer objective loan advice, the buyer should be wary. "In order for the agent to say this is an appropriate mortgage for you, you would have to reveal a lot of stuff to that agent that you might not want to reveal," he said, noting that a smart buyer would lose negotiating leverage if she let the seller's agent know how much she could afford to spend.

While many critics feel that real estate agents contributed to the subprime mess by aiding and abetting unscrupulous lenders and mortgage brokers, not many argue that the agents are the best target for reform. Thomas believes the Federal Reserve and other banking regulators need more authority over the currently unregulated lenders who were most active in the subprime market. Sinai thinks lenders should be required to more fully disclose subprime-loan risks -- by showing how high monthly payments could go, for example.

Guttentag suggests prohibiting lenders from charging many of the fees that have made subprime loans so profitable. But he warns there will always be loan products that are too risky for some borrowers. It's just not realistic to expect much help from real estate agents who make money only when a sale goes through. "I wouldn't tell a consumer that he can rely on the real estate broker to protect him from an avaricious loan provider," said Guttentag. "That would not be good advice."

Back to Top

Here's what you think...

Total Comments: 45

#1    Fiduciary Duty to Clients

As a California licensed Real Estate Agent, I think you should be aware that California brokers and agents must specifically disclose whether they represent the buyer or the seller; as well, they must disclose to both parties and obtain informed consent for dual agency. It may still be the rule in other places that the MLS rules make the buyer's agent a sub-agent of the seller, but not in California.
By: Andy Hartman,
Sent: 02:20 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#2    The Sub-prime Blame Game - Where are the Realtors!

Hey wait a minute!! I have been a Realtor for 32 years. I write a monthly newsletter and in it have warned clients not to do interest-only loans, 100% loans, non-verifying loans, or risky loans. I warn my buyers not to "get in over their heads". I take offense that we are only interested in making the sale! I have told sellers not to sell in a bad market if it wasn't in their best interest. I warn buyers about buying more than they can afford or getting into something they can't handle. However, buyers do what they want to do - sellers do what they want to do. I don't make decisions for my sellers or buyers - I can only give them all the facts - which I do! There are always bad apples but to lump all Realtors into one bad lot is a disservice to our industry. Get your facts straight before you attack us.
By: Betty Jung, Re/Max Equity Group, Broker
Sent: 02:36 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#3    A measure of personal responsibility

In many articles I've read, people talk about the lenders and realtors who were unethical and very few people talk about the personal responsibiility of taking on a mortgage. No one cares about your money more than you. The people taking out these subprime loans should have asked themselves, "How can I afford this?" And not just for a few years, for the life of the loan. It is unfortunate that people are losing their homes, but unless they were lied to, they have no one to blame but themselves.
By: Amanda Gordon,
Sent: 07:52 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#4    sub prime

Most people get in financial trouble due to credit cards, not the mortgage payment. People buy their first home, then go out and buy a lawn mower, drapes, furniture, etc. and put on everything on their credit cards.
By: l Gray,
Sent: 08:10 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#5    Exploitation or High Stakes Poker?

Next to patents, creative financing is the hallmark of capitalism. Yet greed is not limited to lenders and brokers. You need to add homebuyers and speculators who overheated the market, bidding up the prices for land and housing faster than tuition at high-priced universities.

The unsustainable run-up in housing prices was fueled by both fear and speculation. It was high stakes poker and all were at the table.

The American Dream becomes a nightmare when buyers believe it is an entitlement, not an aspiration. No one puts a gun to your head and forces you to buy a house.

Even capitalists should welcome limits to restore certainty, if not to protect consumers from themselves.



By: Ann Oliveri,
Sent: 08:29 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#6    The Blame Game

I am a realtor and I have to say that it is clear where the blame should squarely fall -- the geniuses on Wall Street who figured out another way to bleed the "little people". They understood selling the dream. They packaged it, consolidated the loans and infected the entire banking world.
Shame on them. They knew exactly what they were doing.
By: Janice Barandes, Associate Broker
Sent: 08:54 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#7    Lay off the realtors -- they don't know the terms of the loans

As a formerly active realtor myself (I haven't been active since 2004, and I never dealt with any borrowers who would have been subprime, so this is not self-defense), I can tell you that I never got into the details of the loans my clients got. My job was to insure that they stuck with the purchase process. I introduced them to a mortgage broker, whom they were free to use, or not, as they chose. The buyer would agree with the lender on the type of loan they wanted, which would affect how much house they could buy. I was not part of that discussion. I found them a house, negotiated the terms of the sale. After that, I did not deal with the lender, or the buyer, around the loan at all, except to say to the buyer, "You have to remove the financing contingency by X date" and to make sure that the loan docs showed up at escrow. I never discussed the terms of the loan with them, and never even saw the loan docs. So how could I be even partially responsible?

I never saw, or heard of, kickbacks being paid, though I suppose it happens.
By: Hollis Polk, real estate broker
Sent: 09:11 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - -

#8    The Subprime Blame Game

This article is peppered with non-truths and scorn. No clear distinction is made between "Agents" and "Brokers", the effect of which is to confuse the reader as to how much money is made by the individual agent. It is suggested here that an agent can receive 5-6% on the sale price of a home. That is patently incorrect. The agent typically receives 1/4 of that amount, or 1.25-1.5%. Also, the article states that 99% of the time, the agent represents the seller. That is completely inaccurate - my colleagues and I would put that closer to 50/50 since many of us specialize in representing the buyer exclusively. To suggest the agents are solely interested in maximizing their take is offensive to the many fine professionals in this industry who represent their clients at the highest levels of integrity and trust.

Typically, agents will ask clients if they have secured financing and will request a commitment letter from the lending company. It is not usual for (or incumbent upon) the agent to review the terms and conditions of the loan - it is expected that the buyer has satisfied him/herself as to the terms and their ability to repay the loan. I know of no agent who would presume to advise the buyer as to which mortgage instrument would be best for them - this would open the agent up to potential suit. Furthermore, it is quite normal for an attorney to be involved in real estate transactions. Indeed in some states, there is a requirement for attorney review of all real estate transactions. I have not seen anyone calling for a review of the attorneys' involvement.

Frankly, I feel strongly that Caveat Emptor applies - it is all too easy to point the finger at any and all involved in a transaction when the onus falls on the buyer taking the loan. If they are not in a position to understand the terms of the loan, they should seek professional assistance.
By: Terry Banyard, Kurfiss Sotheby's International Realty
Sent: 10:00 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#9    The subprime blame game

I would like to set the record straight. As a Realtor of 19 years and the past president of the Greater Association of Realtors for two of those years, there are some inaccuracies in this article. Georgette Chapman Phillips is incorrect when she states, "The broker, 99% of the time, is the agent for the seller". In PA and many other states, there are agency laws and the agents are either representing the seller or the buyer. In 99% percent of the transactions our company has where we are working directly with the buyer, we are doing so as their representatives.

As far as where were the Realtors during this sub prime issue, we were there telling the buyers that we were uncomfortable with the situtation their mortgage brokers were suggesting. We would all like the buyers to use the mortgage companies that we, as real estate agents, trust, but the truth is, most of the time the buyers have already established a relationship and in some cases have paid money to a mortgage company before they ever start working with an agent. That mortgage broker has almost brainwashed them into believing that they will get them a great program at a great rate and to not let their real estate agent tell them otherwise. In the end, we were right, but that doesn't help anyone after settlement. I welcome any questions you may have.
By: Anne Rubin, Century 21 Advantage Gold/Owner
Sent: 10:13 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#10    follow the cycle

Look, find, evaluate, loan, buy. Now if this simplistic example covers the life cycle of the buying of a home, where does the agent show up?

The loan life cycle has its own story line. Qualifying terms is a risk game played out in all deals. The agent is neither qualified nor asked for a character reference on the buyer and shouldn’t be.

They are like car salesmen. If you get a lemon or a bad loan on a car, is the salesman at fault?
The financial responsibility an agent plays is with pricing and some loosely defined structure on consulting on the deal. That is the seller side.

No responsibility is on the buy side for the financial end, as that is the lenders deal. They are responsible to the owners of the paper.

Realtors aren’t qualified for much more than they do today.

The scale of this problem isn't showing that it is an agent issue.
By: John La Costa, Partner LCG, Inc.
Sent: 10:16 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#11    The Subprime Blame Game

I am disappointed in the quality of research done for the article. On the issue of who represents whom in a real estate transaction; every state had a mandated Agency Disclosure form that serves the purpose of informing the buyer and seller as to who is their agent and whether or not the principals agree to dual agency.
Also the use of anecdotal comments using one instance that the person interviewed was familiar with is of no value.
In some instances, the real estate agent has no choice in the matter because the buyer shows up in their office after having visited with the mortgage lender and has been preapproved for a loan amount. Is it now the duty of the real estate agent to inform the buyer of the pros and cons of the mortgage that the mortgage broker has sold them? Is the real estate agent the only player in this scenario who is faced with "Hobsons Choice"?
It seems to me that what we are dealing with here is a fiction that gets created whenever the "public" appears to have been misled: Blame someone else and claim complete ignorance on the part of the poor innocent public. Perhaps this may be correct in a minority of cases; however, in general I think that the borrowers knew what they where doing. In some cases these loans were made to investors who hoped to flip the property and make a substantial profit; this could also have been the motivation that drove a certain percentage of the non-investor borrower.

In the last real estate debacle it was the appraiser who was assigned the blame. This lead to federally mandated changes to the appraisal business which has created a very difficult situation in the appraisal business and based upon what we see in the current situation did not solve the problem.
I disclose at this point that I have been a real estate broker for over 25 years, I am also have a real estate appraisers license and my business is commercial brokerage.
Since 1971 this is the fifth mortgage crises in the US, none of which as caused by the real estate brokers, appraisers, buyers or sellers. They can always be traced to the top of the pyramid because the real estate business follows the golden rule; he who has the gold makes the rules.
By: PJ Kavanaugh, RE Broker
Sent: 11:43 AM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#12    Subprime Blame Game

There is more than enough blame to go around. My personal experience with real estate brokers is that they are only interested in making their commissions and will mislead, omit and sell the house at the highest price they can -- whether or not they represent the seller. One of the brokers I dealt with even tried to force a sale by saying she was giving up her share of the commission (she wasn't-- I reviewed all the papers afterwards). She, of course, also tried to lead the borrower towards her mortgage broker. This is not an isolated circumstance, as I have seen this happen over and over again, in my many years in the banking industry in a bank that lends all over the United States.

Banks came up with new and innovative ways to fund the booming market. But the market would not have boomed to that extent if homebuyers had kept their eyes and ears open to what they were getting into. A 2/28 loan is not a good idea if you are being qualified using the teaser rate and your initial debt to income ratio going in is 55%. That is definitely a recipe for disaster. Negative amortization loans are always a bad idea, whichever way you look at it. And yes, mortgage brokers have told their borrowers that they could refinance out of it-- "just look at how the market has been rising!" -- apparently relying on the idea that there will always be a greater fool out there willing to refinance you out of your troubles.

These loans were packaged and repackaged into mortgage derivatives by investment banks, who backed their derivative sales with the triple A ratings of the ratings agencies. They all share part of the blame for the mortgage mess.

Borrowers apparently did not learn anything from the last housing downturn, and Wall Street did not learn anything from the LTCM mess. The question remains: Who will be the greater fool left holding the bag when the game of pass the buck is over?
By: Ruby Tom,
Sent: 12:34 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#13    Foul Ball

Nice try on the blame game but it doesn't work. With the exception of realtors who also act as mortgage professionals, they do not have access to the intimate day-to-day workings of real estate finance. It's one thing to get financing, often times it takes far more effort to just get the deal done on time so all parties are professionally served.

If you're going to blame the realtors for the mortgage mess, then you might as well blame the mortgage companies when someone buys a house without enough bedrooms.

Better yet, let's blame the mortgage mess on state/local governments for the increased tax revenues, or the furniture companies, home improvement companies, developers, the world economy and the academic community (for educating the people who created the mess).

Or why don't we stop blaming anyone in our path, accept the situation, fix it and move on.
By: Thomas Beyer, First Fed Mortgage,Inc.
Sent: 01:01 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - -

#14    Blame Game

Lots of Blame Game in the responses. It isn't possible to eliminate ignorance and greed when significant lucre is attainable. I believe this debacle is only the tip of the iceberg in that a very large number of foolish homeowners cashed in home equity and are at high risk when the economy cools.
By: Roger Brown,
Sent: 01:19 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#15   

Realtor Hollis Polk writes: "I never discussed the terms of the loan with them, and never even saw the loan docs. So how could I be even partially responsible?"

I wonder if Hollis told his clients his task, as he saw it, was to get them to buy a house (and reap his commission) with whatever funds they claimed to have available. The largest transaction in most people's life, perhaps the most important ones, and realtors know that the majority of the people are inexperienced in assessing what/where to buy and what they can afford.

Too many realtors carefully avoided learning about anything untoward or paying attention to any of the obvious signs hinting of problems under the surface. Could any realtor honestly claim not to know that adjustable loans and zero-down loans were becoming prevalent and not wonder whether their clients were using them?
By: Mike Thompson,
Sent: 01:54 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#16    The Subprime Blame Game

Your article presents a valid case for the culpability of some realtors in the current mess. However, in my experience as an appraiser, the portion of blame properly apportioned to some realtors is paltry in comparison to liquidity-drunk derivative investors in the international markets and the new home builders who eagerly played along for fun and profit.

In my experience, the vast majority of sub-prime loans which included below-market introductory interest rates involved purchases of new homes by borrowers with extremely limited reserves and no equity in the purchase. In the vast majority of those cases, the reported purchase price of those homes had been "grossed-up" to include not only the cost of the short-term rate buy-down (typically 3% - 4% under conventional fixed rates for two to three years), but also the cost of down-payment assistance (typically 5.5% - 6%) and a long-term rate buy-down of the post-adjustment rate to eliminate the risk premium that would be charged by a rational lender on zero-equity loans (another 4% - 6%).

Larding up the original sale price with these non-realty costs resulted, in my market, in several-dozen subdivisions, each with hundreds of homes, selling at reported sale prices which were 13% - 17% above any rational market (cash) value. Marketing their wares through newspaper and radio advertising, and using on-site builder's sales representatives with the builder's mortgage financing subsidiary on speed-dial, the vast majority of these grossly inflated sales did not involve a realtor on the buyer's side of the transaction.

In the end, although there is plenty of blame to go around, the bulk of the blame belongs to the foolish investors who knew almost nothing about the quality of the assets underlying their bonds. Secondary blame belongs to the National Education Association, for churning out at least two generations of non-functioning financially illiterate sheep to be sheared by such "free lunch" offers. Although SOME realtors are definitely in line for a share of the tertiary blame, along with SOME appraisers and other enablers, to the extent that the problems are centered in new housing sales over the past 3 - 7 years, they played only a minor role in this fiasco.
By: Fred Holtsberry, Mid-Ohio Appraisal Services
Sent: 02:34 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#17    Realtors

Realtors steer buyers to loan officers, and if the appraiser doesn't hit the right numbers in a time frame that the realtor sets, the loan officer is pressured to get rid of the appraiser.

Because of realtors, I could no longer do the job as regulated by the federal and state governments. Every sale had a buyer's agent and a seller's agent and sometimes that was the same person using the dual relationship for a double dip.

Take a good look at the size of that realtor lobby. That is why they are getting away with this.
By: Geri Lillis, Appraisal Service
Sent: 02:48 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#18    Disappointing

This is not something I would expect to see come out of Wharton.

Luckily, there are enough comments from my fellow real estate agents and realtors above so as to set the record straight just a bit.

Funny thing is, many of the people who were directly involved -- those who created the sub-prime loan programs, the presidents of the mortgage brokerages that sold them, the securities brokers who packaged and sold them, and the investors that bought them (fueling the insanity) held MBAs-- not real estate licenses.
By: Daniel Rothamel, http://www.RealEstateZebra.com
Sent: 02:54 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#19    Another major contributing factor

Of all the factors that have been mentioned as a cause of the subprime mess, one of the primary factors has never been mentioned anywhere that I've read.

That factor is Federally required disclosures (and to a lesser degree, some State disclosures).

I've been a loan officer for 33 years and have seen the pile of paper, called loan documents, that buyers/borrowers must sign grow by approximately 400% in that time, almost all of that due to well-intentioned government-required disclosures.

But in all that time, only one borrower read their loan documents before signing. I attend my customers' closings. I encourage them to read the documents; but when faced with a 3/4" stack of paper, they simply won't. "I have to...get back to work...pick up the kids at school...etc." A few are honest and just say "I'm not going to read all that". So I explain them in summary to the borrowers on the fly as they sign. The one borrower who did read his documents took 3 hours to do so and asked a lot of questions because the congressmen and regulators that designed them did not write them in English. That was about 10 years ago and about 20% less disclosures than we have today.

So for those who are blaming the lenders for forcing borrowers into subprime ARMS without telling them the terms, I believe the borrowers simply chose not to read nor understand what they were signing before signing it.

Congress, legislatures, and regulators: You've defeated the whole purpose of disclosure by requiring so many of them and writing them in bureaucrat [speak] rather than English. No one reads them.

One final comment. In 33 years NO ONE, not one borrower, has understood what an Annual Percentage Rate is, not even after I explain the concept and tell them how it's calculated. Get rid of it.
By: Pat Flanagan, CFS Mortgage/Loan Officer
Sent: 02:55 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#20    Buyer's Agents SHOULD help buyers select loan products

I'm a real estate borker with an office (NJHomeBuyer.com Realty) in Cherry Hill, NJ. Realtors SHOULD guide the clients they represent. They SHOULD help them avoid loans that are not appropriate for them or that they cannot afford. Realtors that truly represent their buyer/client will do those things. Which loan to choose is the buyer's decision but they should be able to rely on a Realtor that is REPRESENTING them for assistance and information. If they use a Realtor that is representing the seller (or a dual agent) I should say shame on them, but many buyers don't know that they have an actual choice. The first step is DON'T CALL THE COMPANY THAT HAS THEIR NAME ON THE SIGN.

OF COURSE part of the blame is the Realtors.
By: Paul Howard, NJHomeBuyer.com Realty/owner
Sent: 04:00 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#21    You get what you pay for...

The real estate agent nor the mortgage salesperson are financial advisors, and unfortunately many buyers often fail to make this distinction. Neither is the homebuilder. A quality agent would in theory refer the buyer not to these sources, but rather to independent advisory sources. I've been around comercial banking for 25 years at various levels and organizations and have heard not once of such networking or referrals. Maybe it's time for marketing partnerships with advisory services and realtors?
By: Chuck Giska, banker
Sent: 04:12 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - -

#22    Real estate agents are not financial advisors

I'm an agent in NYC. I think that it is important that customers get proper guidance. That's why we refer them to competent professionals. Buyers have a few groups of advisors that they need to keep near; each performs a distinct function. A real estate broker, a mortgage broker or bank, a CPA and an attorney. The financial team in that mix is the CPA and the lender. Both should be consulted. To say that the sales person should be responsible for giving mortgage advice is simply misguided. Many of us do give our opinion when asked, but to say that it is a systemic abuse is overreaching.

It seems like common sense that people who are buying should be getting independent advice on financing. Would I take out a large loan without calling my CPA? I'd also want advice from someone familiar with financial products, not the inventory. A problem in one part of the supply chain should not affect the the credibility of the whole system.
By: Peter Comitini, comitini.com
Sent: 05:15 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#23    How can you blame the majority of Realtors?

How could you blame Realtors when the majority of people in our business put their clients first?

Successful Realtors are the ones whom clients pursue for repeat business. Who would ever give wrong advice to golden goose clients?

There are a few bad apples in every profession, they are the ones who give the industry a bad name.

Why don't you blame poor fiscal policies of the Federal regulators and the industry gatekeepers like the National Fair Housing Alliance? It seems that they were all sleeping for all those many years when lenders were selling all sorts of loans.

Why didn't this happen in Canada? Reason: subprime loans and teaser rates like those in the US were never introduced.

By: Amit Kalia, Royal LePage Real Estate Ltd, Brokerage
Sent: 06:50 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - -

#24    There's plenty of blame to go around, but most of it lies with the buyer

It's easy to point our finger at the lenders or the brokers, but let's ask ourselves something: Who signed the note? And when a person signs a note promising to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars, wouldn't it be wise for that person to do a bit of research to determine how this loan will impact them in years to come? I agree, these lenders and brokers need to be reprimanded, but ultimately, it's the consumer of these loans that needs to be held accountable. It's a shame that as a society we don't' have more sense than this. Couldn't we see the impending disaster? Couldn't we see how this would ultimately impact our economy? Unfortunately some folks were too quick to encourage consumers to purchase these mortgage products and some consumers were too quick to sign on the dotted line. It's truly a shame. Are there other "credit bubbles" looming on the economic horizon that will impact us as well? I hope we're wise enough to avoid future tragedies like this.
By: Chris , Assocaite Professor
Sent: 07:17 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#25    my loss is your gain

In any home purchase the buyer is always alone. Realtors, whether representing a buyer or seller, make money only when a sale happens and they make more money when the sale price is more. The lender makes more money if the interest rate is high and only if the sale happens. No amount of ethics can change this significantly. The buyer's loss is everyone else's gain. In an "up" market there is nothing the buyer can do. In a "down" market, he can make the sellers compete to his advantage...but again: he is alone and the agents, banks and sellers are on the opposing side. Assuming the buyer has enough street smarts to play this game, one can say that he is primarily responsible for any consequences. However, the vast majority of people are not and cannot be good players of this game.

Perhaps having a buyer's agent that works on a flat fee as a consultant and is held accountable by law for the advice he gives (like lawyers, doctors) can help fix this problem.
By: Mohit ,
Sent: 07:23 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#26    realtors to blame?? no way

I am not in any way professionally associated with the real estate or mortgage industries.

At the end of the day, it comes down to borrowers having payments they cannot afford. Furthermore, these are the exact payment amounts the borrowers would not have been approved for in a fixed-rate environment. In effect, based on the likelihood of rate increases, mortgage brokers were, in conjunction with the underwriters, providing mortgages for which they KNEW the buyers did not qualify.

How can real estate agents be reasonably included in this mess? As a gross generalization, I'm sure the real estate profession has many of the same problems afflicting any commission-based job. But to include real estate agents in the same discussion as the "mortgage meltdown" is ridiculous.

Excuse me while I go blame Home Depot for selling me paint that didn't match my existing color even though I told the salesman which can I wanted...
By: Brian Rink, actuary
Sent: 10:49 PM Thu Oct.18.2007 - US

#27    The way agents are paid

At the heart of the matter is the way agents are paid -- traditionally through a commission, paid by the seller, of 5% or 6% of the home's sales price. Nudging buyers toward subprime loans, or keeping mum about the risks, means more sales go through.

The meat of the article is the above quote. Until a sensible incentive structure is created, there is no such thing as a "buyers broker".
By: JP ,
Sent: 08:13 AM Fri Oct.19.2007 - -

#28    Expensive Chauffeur?

I find it quite interesting that the Realtors responding to this article have many years of experience and have obviously built successful careers. Based on my experience teaching mortgage financing related classes (continuing education) to Realtors and a state mandated licensing course for mortgage originators, anyone with five years' experience or less does NOT know anything about the mortgage financing process. Unfortunately, the largest growth in new agents and loan originators has been in the various minority groups (a good thing!), representing the same groups everyone has identified as the main groups being taken advantage of in the recent environment.

How anyone can say they represent the BUYER and represent their interest in the marketplace without understanding mortgage financing is beyond my comprehension, especially since the real estate agent earns more than every other party in the transaction, including the loan originator. The Realtor's conflict in the transaction is that they don't really care what loan the buyer takes as long as the loan closes and they get their commission. It appears Realtors have changed their relationship with their buyers from that of order taker to a very highly paid chauffeur that lays blame on other service providers for the market's problems. All settlement service providers have varying levels of liability in what has been and is continuing to take place.

Also, subprime loans represent only about three percent or less of the purchase market. The real problem area is loan products that allow even great credit buyers to buy more house than they can afford. Look back to the very early 1990's to see what happened to defaults in CA and metropolitan DC. That is why we have a long way to go to work out of the current market dislocation. Hopefully, only the true professional will survive.
By: Tom Dean, Intra-Coastal Consulting
Sent: 12:58 PM Fri Oct.19.2007 - US

#29    Financial Professionals

At the risk of sounding self-serving, I'd suggest that it may make sense for people making big financial decisions to seek the advice of a financial planner. I'd further suggest that they seek advice from a fee based (not commission based) planner and from someone qualified as a Certified Financial Planner (CFP). Like all professionals, some are better than others, but at least they would be seeking financial advice from someone who focuses on financial planning. Most realtors are not competent or incented to help buyers determine what house price is affordable and what mortgage structure makes the most sense. And the pile of disclosure pages that buyers sign at closing are worse than useless.
By: Joseph Tomlinson, Tomlinson Financial Planning, LLC
Sent: 01:19 PM Fri Oct.19.2007 - US

#30    Exclusive Buyer Brokers Work Only for the Buyer

I was a bit disappointed that this article made no mention of exclusive buyer agents, which only work for buyers. Instead, this article made sweeping generalizations that did not consider the different types of real estate practitioners in the real estate industry. Exclusive buyer agents and brokers do not work for sellers at all. Regardless of who paid the commission, they only represent buyers. They do not take listings, and neither do the companies that employ them. EBA's are not plentiful. According to the National Association of Exclusive Buyer Agents, only 1/2% of all real estate licensees are actually EBAs. Perhaps if these statistics were higher, the mortgage crisis would not be as severe as it is.

It is the job of an exclusive buyer agent to protect the interests of their buyer clients. This includes alerting buyers to the potential risks and red flags of the mortgages they choose. However, a good exclusive buyer's agent will also recommend to their buyer-clients that they have their loan and closing docs reviewed by an attorney before signing them.

Since these are legal documents, an attorney is qualified to review them, interpret them, and give legal advice. A real estate agent is not qualified or allowed to interpret legal documents, and an agent could get into a lot of trouble unless they are also an attorney.

If buyers want to avoid dual agency, where an agent or his/her company represents both buyer and seller in the same transaction, then they need an exclusive buyer agency agreement that contains specific language prohibiting "dual agency." Otherwise, a buyer will not know the kind of representation they will receive.
By: Suzette West, http://exclusivebuyeragentseattle.blogspot.com/
Sent: 05:01 PM Fri Oct.19.2007 - US

#31   

I agree with many of the comments posted here. The saying is buyer beware, not buyer's agent beware. Real estate agents are not responsible for this mess. This is/was a funding scheme created by powerful banking and investment professionals and it was bound to effect buyers in a precarious financial position.

The trouble is, the borrowers and the investors (and whoever else has a stake in the scheme) want to be bailed out – likely at the expense of those who were not involved in the first place.

I lost 25% of my home equity when I bought a home in the late 1980’s financed by a variable rate mortgage and the rising rate caused my monthly mortgage payment to threaten my ability to stay current with all my payments. In spite of the sudden drop in real estate prices at the time, I consider myself fortunate enough to have sold before the sales price was less than the outstanding mortgage (I had to bring money to the closing).

Today’s financing scheme was concocted with a similar mindset as Long Term Capital Management although the effects obviously have a much broader impact and unfortunately the results we are now facing were probably predictable.
By: Kevin Lawton,
Sent: 09:50 PM Fri Oct.19.2007 - US

#32    Blame?

Blame? For what exactly? The market worked. Greedy lenders lent to non-creditworthy people, (predictable)defaults ensued, and assets were written off. That's as it should be. Any government interference will only distort the market.

Everyone was happy. Greedy homeowners were able to buy big houses to keep up with the Trumps while earning minimum wage. Brokers and realtors made commissions. Lenders earned interest income (later recallibrated by the market meltdown).

However, if we want to 'blame' someone, I'm still waiting for the article holding the greedy, social-climbing home buyers responsible for their own behaviour. It is irksome how we never hold people accountable for their folly any more.

YOU chose the house you knew you couldn't afford, because you wanted to impress your in-laws. YOU signed the papers without a gun to your head. YOU wanted to buy and flip and be the next Donald Trump. YOU thought it would be cool to have five homes on a bus driver's salary. YOU were greedy and covetous, running out to take out cheap mortgages because Bob in the next cubicle had one.

So guess what. YOU should accept blame and responsibility for the foreclosures that now beset you, and will beset you more when your mortgage resets. YOU didn't want to live within your means. Don't blame the broker, baker, mortgage lender or candlestick maker. They made an offer as is their job. YOU accepted it.

Good luck living in that bus shelter.
By: Hakeem Yesufu,
Sent: 02:37 AM Sat Oct.20.2007 - BN

#33    Buyer's Agent? Need a fee structure to support it.

"Buyer's Agent" is an oxymoron.

The incentives for an agent (and every business) is to minimize cost and maximize revenue, while following our business and ethical standards.

If the buyer's agent charges a percentage of the sale, then immediately the incentives are working against the buyer. That is one of the points of the article. The incentives are to quickly close the deal (minimize time cost) and with a house as expensive as our ethical standard would allow (maximize revenue). These are the incentives. No it doesn't mean all agents strictly follow the incentives without regard for the client. But with incentives stacked up to a win-lose situation, buyer beware.

Unless a "buyer's agent" charges based on time, there is no reason to rely on a buyer's agent. A time-based fee structure can neutralize the incentives against the buyer.

I would rather trust a wolf in a wolf skin than in a sheep skin.
By: Gerald Yu,
Sent: 04:22 AM Sat Oct.20.2007 - HK

#34    The Subprime Blame Game

First, I’m neither a real estate agent/broker nor a mortgage banker/broker. I’m a long-time journalist and the former real estate editor at Newsday on Long Island. I now and currently cover real estate issues as a freelance writer, editor and information provider. I have no particular dog in this fight. My aim is to fairly represent the views of everyone involved in my stories (not always easy), even if I don’t agree with them. That said, this is how I see things:

To suggest that real estate agents take on a more substantial role in advising home buyers about their loans is a slippery—if not downright icy—slope. It’s true that many buyers still do not understand that traditional agents have a fiduciary responsibility to serve the interests of the seller, not the buyer. Their aim is to sell the house and the higher the price, the higher the commission. So obviously, it’s in the interest of the seller’s agent that the buyer be approved for a mortgage, whether it’s a good mortgage or not. But even if you believe that consumers are better served by buyers' agents, that doesn’t mean that real estate agents should be more involved in counseling buyers about mortgages—unless they are also mortgage professionals or have bona fide credentials in financial planning and counseling.

What training do real estate agents have that qualifies them to give buyers financial advice? Do they have the credentials and certification to analyze the financial resources and needs of these clients? If they don’t, they should stay out of the mortgage process. There is already an ongoing debate among financial professionals and lawmakers in Congress as to who is qualified to call himself a “financial planner.” To throw real estate agents into the pool of those giving financial advice is to invite more turmoil, ethical breaches and potential litigation from consumers who claim they’ve been handed bad advice.

Some real estate brokers are mortgage brokers as well—or their firms have relationships with mortgage firms. Still, some consumer advocates aren’t so crazy about those relationships. They argue that even if there are no RESPA violations in question, it’s better for consumers to have an arm’s length relationship between their real estate representation and their mortgage professionals to make sure they have an independent assessment of mortgage advice and choices.

Real estate agents should stick to fulfilling the important fiduciary responsibilities they already have. They should be forthright in assessing the market trends when pricing homes, not pushing consumers into ever higher prices in clearly overpriced markets. That’s easier said than done, of course. When an agent feels that a home is overpriced—and five buyers come in with bids above the asking price, what’s an agent supposed to do? At the same time, agents shouldn’t be saying things like, “Well, you might as well jump in and buy, because the market always goes up.” That’s what one agent told me in 1987, and guess what? Housing prices on Long Island dropped 15% (not accounting for inflation) over the next three years when the defense and aerospace industries collapsed.

It’s true that the real estate industry doesn’t do much to discourage a run-up in home prices, even when it seems crazy—any more than stock brokers discourage clients from buying stocks in an overheated market. But as much as some people would like to blame real estate agents for the subprime mess, the major responsibility remains with the mortgage industry, Wall Street, government regulators and, yes, consumers.

If you talk to credible mortgage professionals, they will tell you that the run-up in exotic loans was crazy. The money was too easy. Subprime loans are already risky, and the new option-ARM versions, combined no-doc and other Alt-A loans were justified by rising housing prices that would supposedly allow homeowners to refinance their loans as they reset. Meanwhile, aggressive Wall Street specialists figured out how to disperse the risks of these loans by packaging them into mortgage-backed securities that attracted investors with their high yields—as long as the loans didn’t default.

But they did default, and if people had been paying attention, it would have come as no surprise. Despite all the hype about the housing “boom,” it was clear that in many areas of the country, including Long Island, the market had been slowing. That is, even though prices were still going up, annual appreciation rates were declining—a sure sign that the market was peaking, especially given all the public discourse over housing affordability slipping away from middle-class home buyers.

Some people pointed out these things, but no one wanted to listen. People were making too much money and consumers were getting into houses, even if they couldn’t really afford them. Now, some proactive mortgage brokers are acknowledging that part of the problem is the fee structure of the industry—brokers get paid more by putting people into high-risk, high-interest loans. So never mind the commission incentives for real estate agents; they’re even worse in the mortgage industry, as far as serving the consumer.

Finally, I do think that consumers do bear some responsibility for this whole mess—although I don’t agree with a previous commentator that it’s the “greedy, social-climbing” homebuyers who are to blame. It’s a lot more complicated than that. I’ve done enough predatory lending stories to know that there are some unscrupulous mortgage brokers who are incredibly adept at luring people into bad loans, sometimes with outright lies. At the same time, there are lots of consumers who lie on loan applications or are foolishly unrealistic when it comes to assessing their financial resources. So everybody gets to share the blame, including the government regulators, who themselves have had an unrealistic, laissez-faire attitude in their oversight of the mortgage industry.

But making snarky comments about how greedy people deserve what they get does little to solve the problem. Some greedy people will get what they deserve; some people will end up truly victimized. In the end, my point is that while there are lots of things to fix in the real estate market, the solutions to the subprime mess fall squarely in the arena of the financial and mortgage markets.
By: Ronald Roel, Roel Resources, LLC
Sent: 04:05 PM Sat Oct.20.2007 - US

#35    Misinformation

This all might be a proverbial tempest in a teapot, as most people with any familiarity with the real estate business learn early on the difference between a real estate broker, an agent (who is an independent contractor at a real estate office) and a mortgage broker. Using the generic term “broker” in the article to arbitrarily refer to either or both real estate or mortgage broker is, one hopes, a simple mistake. Readers of real estate blogs - buyers, sellers, consumers among them - already know the how wrong the claims made in the article are (as do the commenters on your blog).

The word “disappointing” keeps coming up in comments referencing the Wharton article. It is disappointing in that it fails to meet expectations. The clear lack of knowledge and awareness about the real estate profession indicts the entire article.

Misdirected blame and clearly wrong arguments from prestigious institutions and leaders such as Wharton do great disservice to all involved - the Realtors, the buyers and sellers, the lenders and I would argue themselves and their students as well, as policy makers who may trust such business education leaders’ opinions - and then we all may suffer.

Seeking to level blame on some Realtors is one thing - there are unscrupulous individuals in every profession. Why not participate in an honest debate rather than sling blame? If you want to debate competition in real estate - look beyond the Realtors. Thinking that the entire real estate industry shuns Buyer Agency -- ”The (Realtor), 99% of the time, is the agent of the seller” -- is appalling. There is plenty of culpability to go around, but to argue that all 99% of Realtors were advocating on behalf of the Sellers is liable to give some apoplectic fits.

Greed is the primary culprit - greed that affects the decision making ability of people in every camp - buyers, sellers, Realtors, lenders, appraisers, inspectors, title insurance companies … no one industry was solely responsible for where we are now. The market is reacting. Laying blame is a waste of time. Examining lessons we can learn and moving forward is productive.

Blanket statements need foundation. You need to back them up. Although business school professors are believed to be predominantly conservative, professors of business voted 2-1 for Kerry. These professors were barely more conservative than liberal.

Further, this is the applicable code from the Commonwealth of Virginia regarding real estate licensees engaged by buyers, for what it’s worth. Read what follows “2. Promote the interests of the buyer by” and then this - a sample Exclusive Right to Represent Buyer’s Agreement can be found here.

The author and professors make one accurate argument - until the real estate industry, mortgage industry, HUD, etc. embrace divorced commissions, we have a long way to go. Divorced commissions means simply that the buyer pays the buyer’s agent and the seller pays the seller’s agent. Until this is fixed, the perception will exist amongst those who don’t know any better - whether by unfamiliarity or neglect (as would seem to be the case in the Wharton professors’ cases) - that true representation does not exist.

I come not to condemn the professors (I have read the Mortgage Professor site for years), but to enlighten them to the wonderful world known as the 21st century and Buyer Brokerage. While the seller may pay my commission now, the loyalty and trust I am earning is the buyers’.

Here’s a proposal - First, apologize and clarify. Second, invite a guest speaker to write a guest post on your blog and to explain to your classes what real estate agency and buyer/seller representation are. Explain how much the profession has changed in the past 20 years.


The above is cross-posted from my blog -
http://www.realcentralva.com/2007/10/19/whither-false-blame/

By: Jim Duncan, Realtor/Blogger
Sent: 09:36 AM Sun Oct.21.2007 - -

#36    Subprime mortgages

Hey people, wake up and smell the roses! Realtors are no better than used-car salesmen. They all reside together at the bottom of the barrel. They slink about driving up real estate prices so they can collect the only thing that is important to them. Their outrageous commission! They haven't changed since the days of the robber barons. They have only become slicker at it.
By: PETER LENNARD, CAPITALEDGE WW MERCANTILE
Sent: 06:20 PM Sun Oct.21.2007 - CA

#37    Homebuyer Test Needed?

I am mortgage consultant and anyone buying a home should have to take classes and pass a home buyer test on the basics of purchasing and owning a home - the classes should include the role and responsibilites of all parties.

I have worked with too many buyers who do not have a clue - and I agree that Realtors do not help when it comes to financing. Too often they push buyers toward their company owned mortgage companies or builder owned mortgage companies. Too many real estate agents and builders have a vested interest in mortgage companies and for years have been taking advantage of buyers - not just subprime!

I know of real estate agents who have threatened buyers with the ramifications of not going with their mortgage company or not going through with the transaction because they may not qualify for conventional financing.
By: M Madison, HMC
Sent: 06:54 PM Sun Oct.21.2007 - US

#38    Subprime Blame Game

Subprime lending was a double edged weapon used by lenders and financial institutions. Investors and borrowers were caught napping without foreseeing the risks involved. In an economy, which is growing very rapidly and stocks are market driven, such failures tend to happen in the absence of strong statuary norms and financial regulators. Another factor for this failure is the political system, which enables the arrival of people into business without any credentials.

Borrowers got houses which they never thought of and investors expected higher returns. Among themselves, lenders/facilitators (agents) generated money by way of commissions and benefits drawn out of surging stock prices without any financial liability attached for other participants.

To check such failures, the political system and financial regulators have to work closely so as to control the damage that such shocks can cause to the economic system.
By: Manu Kanwal, IDSIL, Manager
Sent: 06:50 AM Mon Oct.22.2007 - IN

#39    percentage of income spent on housing

I'm not a realtor or a broker - just an ordinary frugal person who has been through the relocation/house purchasing process quite a few times. Each time we move, we have been "encouraged" to spend more on a house than we were comfortable with because we were not spending the maximum recommended percentage of our income on housing (we never succumbed!). Now that energy costs in our area have been deregulated, our electric bill has gone up 59%, our water bill has increased drastically, and we are inching closer to spending that recommended percentage of our income on housing. Here's my question: Who is it that calculates this mystical percentage, and do they remember to factor in rising energy costs when advising the consumer? You can't live in that $800,000 house with no utilities, and the bigger the house, the more energy you consume.
By: Eva Lyons,
Sent: 09:30 AM Mon Oct.22.2007 - US

#40    Who's to blame?

In Delaware, a lawyer must represent a buyer. The lawyer is not on commission and in theory owes loyalty only to the client. The assumption is that the lawyer is looking out for the client by making sure the client understands the terms of the mortgage. So why all the foreclosures and predatory loans?
Realtors work on commission and in Delaware depend on brokers/lenders to the point that some realtors have no idea of the actual budget of a family -- just what the bank will give them.
By: Evelyn Baldwin, Economic Advancement Department YWCA Delaware
Sent: 10:43 AM Mon Oct.22.2007 - US

#41    Sweeping Generalizations: Not True and Unfair

To the person who said:

"Hey people, wake up and smell the roses! Realtors are no better than used-car salesmen. They all reside together at the bottom of the barrel. They slink about driving up real estate prices so they can collect the only thing that is important to them. Their outrageous commission! They haven't changed since the days of the robber barons. They have only become slicker at it."

What you said is untrue, and it's highly unfair of you to throw "all realtors" in the same category. That was just plain ignorance on your part.
By: Suzette West, http://exclusivebuyeragentseattle.blogspot.com/
Sent: 01:11 AM Tue Oct.23.2007 - US

#42    Sweeping Generalizations: Not True and Unfair

To the person who said:

"Hey people, wake up and smell the roses! Realtors are no better than used-car salesmen. They all reside together at the bottom of the barrel. They slink about driving up real estate prices so they can collect the only thing that is important to them. Their outrageous commission! They haven't changed since the days of the robber barons. They have only become slicker at it."

What you said is untrue, and it's highly unfair of you to throw "all Realtors" in the same category. That was just plain ignorance on your part.
By: Suzette West, http://exclusivebuyeragentseattle.blogspot.com/
Sent: 01:12 AM Tue Oct.23.2007 - US

#43    SCAPEGOATING PERSONIFIED...

Now I have heard everything! Blaming real estate agents is surely the end result of a search by mortgage bankers for easy-mark scapegoats.

All the bankers, et al, who created and pushed subprime mortgages should stand up and admit to the part they played in selling these deceitful contrivances. Some of them may even deserve prison time for fraudulent behavior -- not merely for insufficient disclosure but for "offering" the contrivance in the first place. Every one of them knew or should have known how deeply deceptive and potentially-financially-ruinous the subprime mortgage concepts and documents were. Banks have a fiduciary responsibility to clients and now they must be held accountable.

Their current attempt to have real estate agents held personally liable is evidence that the bankers themselves know someone must be held personally liable.
By: Elissa Ornato, -
Sent: 05:59 PM Tue Oct.23.2007 - -

#44    Apparently Real Estate AGENTS forgot their role

Last I checked the role of an AGENT was to protect the interests of his or her client.
By: John Denning,
Sent: 06:22 PM Sun Oct.28.2007 - US

#45    Subprime Lending Game

This is the first article that I have read that puts some of the blame for the subprime demise where it belongs. I was a loan officer for over fourteen years in different capacities - Retail, new construction, and even wholesale.
rIt is interesting that these agents try to hide behind their licenses and deny any responsibility for this mess. As a loan officer, realtors - even buyers agents, put the pressure on the loan officers to increase the pre-approval amounts. If the client is approved for $300,000, then the realtor surely will pressure you to get them approved for $400,000. I have had them just write the contract for the higher amount - the lender would have to figure it out.
Also, every realtor has more than one lender so they can "shop" the deal... How many times have realtors "pulled" the deal to go to another Lender if mortgage company "A" can't get the buyer approved for the higher amount. That happens ALL the time... So the loan officer is forced to find ways to get the client approved for a higher amount if they want to keep the deal. This was especially the case in the past few years with so many broker shops springing up.
If there is any group that was so richly compensated during this subprime mess, it was the realtors who wrote these contracts! Also, the realtors further aggravated the situation by writing offers for higher than asking price!

Regarding counseling the buyer, I can count on one hand the number of Realtors who actually cared if the buyer was taking on an ARM or Neg-AM ARM or whatever... Most of them just want to know the buyer is approved and how soon can you close, oh and by the way if you can't close tomorrow, then Company XYZ sure can!

To say that Realtors did not contribute at all to this mess is absolutely ridiculous and hypocritical on their part. For most of them, they got into the market to make some quick money at the expense of the buyers. Lenders deserve their fair share of blame as well. But the lenders will be ones that will have to work things out with the buyers or take the financial losses of foreclosures. The Realtors are walking away with their money...and no concern for the buyers. Have any of the Realtor Associations stepped up to offer assistance or contributions to buyers. NO! but they will be happy to sell that home for buyers now that they can't make their payments. I am sure many Realtors will disagree - but they have had their party for the past few years, while everyone else is dealing with the consequences.

What will the Realtors do now? Count their money and wait for the next big "boom."


By: Cherie Burton ,
Sent: 03:09 AM Mon Dec.03.2007 - -
Comments are only open for the first 30 days after publishing.

Back to Top