"REALTORS® Fight to Protect thier Monopoly on the Industry and Limit Options for Consumers"

It is the Realtors® themselves who do not want consumers to have effective alternatives in buying & selling real estate.  Open competition (capitalism) would jeopordise thier closely guarded 6% commission fee.  The practices of the NAR have been referred to by the Department of Justice as a conspiracy which unreasonably restrains trade.  It is the real estate industry itself that has for years supported laws that forbid Realtors®  to offer inducements or rebates to thier consumers.  A law that says "a business owner can not discount thier product or give their customer a reward", how can that be? 

To fully educate yourself on the effect of real estate commissions and the real estate industry to the individual consumer, we encourgage you to visit the web site fo the Department of Justice - Anti Trust Dividsion "Competition and Real Estate -   http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/real_estate/index.htm  

It was only in July 2005 that the KY Real Estate Commission (which is self governed by Realtors®), under pressure from the DOJ, reluctantly allowed thier licensees to offer Rebates and Inducements.  See orginal press release at http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/press_releases/2005/208360.htm                                  Click Link to read entire agreement betweent the KY Real Estate Commission and the Department of Justice   http://www.krec.ky.gov/pdf/agreement.pdf

Read the US Judges' ruling to DENY the NAR request to Dismiss the Dept of Justice Complain:    http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f219800/219889.htm   - thank Goodness, maybe for once justice will prevail.

Trial scheduled for July 2008.

Click Link to Read the Entire Complaint filed by the Department of Justice against the National Association of Realtors®  (NAR)http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f211000/211009.pdf

Press Release http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2005/October/05_at_520.html

To this day Brokers are still forbidden to pay anyone other than a licensed Realtor®  for a business referral.  KY Home Realty would like to offer compensation to anyone who refers a customer to us which results in a sale.  However the real estate laws prohibit this.  Why?  Our business is privately owned, what we do with our income should be our decision!  What are they afraid of - competition? 

The DOJ action was in response to a policy adopted by the NAR, which was a direct effort to squeeze out competition from Discount & Flat Fee Brokers.  The NAR adopted a policy known as VOW (virtual office websites).  The VOW Policy permits brokers to selectively or generally withhold their clients' listings from VOW operators by means of an "opt-out" right. In essence, the VOW Policy allows traditional brokers to block the customers of targeted competitors from using the Internet to review the same set of MLS listings that the traditional brokers provide to their customers.  Why would they do that?  Could it be a fear of competition?  Was their closely guarded 6% commission in jeopardy?  Thank goodness, this time the government acted on behalf of the consumer! 

A portion of the DOJ vs. NAR Complaint reads as follows:

3. Defendant's members include traditional brokers who are concerned about competition from Internet-savvy brokers. Before defendant adopted its policy, several of its members voiced opposition to brokers' delivery of listings to customers through their websites — sites that defendant referred to as "virtual office websites," or "VOWs." The head of the working group created by defendant to develop regulations for VOWs argued that defendant should act quickly in adopting regulations for the use of these websites because brokers operating VOWs were "scooping up market share just below the radar." The chairman of the board of RE/MAX, the nation's second-largest real estate franchisor, publicly expressed his concern that these Internet sites would inevitably place downward pressure on brokers' commission rates. One broker complained that because of the lower cost structure of brokers who provide listings to their customers over the Internet, "they are able to kick-back 1% of the sales price to the buyer." And Cendant, the nation's largest real estate franchisor and owner of the nation's largest real estate brokerage, asserted in a widely circulated white paper that it was "not feasible" for even the largest traditional brokers to compete with large Internet companies that operated or affiliated with brokers operating VOWs.

6. The working group that formulated the VOW Policy understood that the opt-out right was fundamentally anticompetitive and harmful to consumers. Two members of the working group wrote that the opt-out right would be "abused beyond belief" as traditional brokers selectively withhold listings from particular VOW-based competitors. The chairman of the working group admitted that the opt-out right was likely to be exercised by brokers notwithstanding the fact that "it may not be in the seller[']s best interest to opt out." But he took comfort in the fact that the rule did not require brokers to disclose to clients that their listings would be withheld from some prospective purchasers as a result of the brokers' opt-out decision, thus providing brokers "flexibility without conversation."