Tuesday, April 5, 2005
How Qualified are Realtors, Really?
The truth is shocking. This post (http://therealtygram.typepad.com/realtygram_blogger/2005/03/statistics_reve.html) by Frances Thorsen at The RealtyGram Blogger spotlights some research showing that of 20 professions studied, real estate agents require the LEAST amount of training, with a mere 48 hours education before being licensed to represent unsuspecting buyers and sellers. For comparison, the next lowest profession was esthetician or beautician, who required almost 12 times as much training: 600 hours. (read the entire original article here: http://www.amrealtyla.com/media/2004_nov_yahoonews/)
Is it just me who thinks that’s a little…wrong?
The number of hours required does vary slightly from state to state (it’s 67 hours in North Carolina, for instance), but the ratio stays pretty much the same wherever you go. Why is it that the person who fixes your hair requires exponentially more training than the person who represents you in buying/selling the most expensive purchase you’ll likely ever make?
The answer is easy: it’s not that hard to safely buy or sell real estate.
I do believe that any profession where you’re representing someone else (ie. real estate, stock broker, lawyer, etc.) should require far more stringent qualifications than realtors currently must meet, just BECAUSE you are representing another person - and that should require a large degree of proven professionalism/discretion. Actually, the majority of an agent’s training (and the paperwork you have to sign if you use an agent) is to protect themselves from lawsuit - not you.
It should speak very loudly and clearly that the largest complaint among consumers is a lack of professionalism among agents, not that an agent botched their transaction so bad they ended up in a lawsuit. The root complaint is that consumers want to feel good when they pay their agent $7000+ to sell their home - like they actually got something for the money, and didn’t get ripped off. However, it’s increasingly difficult for agents to provide a perceived benefit that justifies today’s commision rates.
Michael Poythress
The FSBO Blog
May 29th, 2006 at 8:13 am
RE: “REALTOR QUALIFICATIONS”
I am quite offended by the advertising the the NAR is blasting all over the airways insinuating that “Realtor is the most important word in real estate”. This campaign is totally inaccurate, and misleading. The inferrence is that unless an agent is a member of NAR… They are inferior, and lack ethics and professionalism. The only thing they can point to in these ads is the “Strict Code of Ethics”… which is meaningless.
There are no qualifications, background check, or educational requirements beyond the Department of Real Estate license requirements. Yes, they do offer educational programs, but very few “realtors” take advantage of them. If an agent is found guilty if a violation, it is the Department of real estate which handles it… to the best of my knowledge any broker, or agent can still be a “realtor” with violations!
The most rank novice, with a high school education, or GED, and no experience can become a “realtor” by just paying more money to join NAR. The public is being duped into thinking that this is a guarantee of professionalism. It is also a slam at top level real estate professionals who choose to be independent of the NAR.
I personally feel these ads should be stopped, and a disclosure should be given to any prospective client describing the facts of “realtor” quailfications. I would like to see a an organization of Independent Real Estate Professionals, who’s members must have exceptional credentials, and experience.
Our company has been in this business since 1918. My Grandfather, father and I have all been “realtors”… Unless NAR can prove to me that this designation is truly a benefit to the public, and not just a money maker for them, they can have thier little gold pin, and bumper sticker back! So far my requests have gone unanswered!
Sincerely,
Chester F. Salisbury II
CEO HomeFinders National Real Estate Network