Does This Yun Make You Look Fat?
NAR Headquarters
photo credit: dannyfowler
As a member of NAR, the bottom line is that it is a marriage. Some days we agree on everything and run along like a happy couple, other days, I look at the dress and think, yes, it does make you look fat- suddenly it blurts out of my brain through my mouth before I can take it back- today is one of those days…
I am reading a blog post in the Wall Street Journal and as I read down towards the comments I grow more and more alarmed at what the damage to the association may really be. As it goes, I try really hard to see the both sides of every coin but in this instance, it is getting harder and harder to believe NAR has a chance of regaining much credibility unless they make major change in the ranks at NAR, right now.
Sand is Slipping Through The Hourglass
It may be time for NAR to take a look at the source of the controversy in which it lost its position as “fact” in the real estate arena and once and for all acknowledge it and cut the losses.
As We All See It
Yes, NAR, Mr. Yun makes you look fat. Mr. Yun is fantastic at measuring statistics, but as a voice, he no longer has one. It may be time to move Mr. Yun to a new post within the same division and allow someone with a fresh voice to lead the conversation. It is now time to step up, clear the slate and regain control of the conversation before it’s too late.
Sigh…
I do not make these types of suggestions lightly. With all due respect to NAR, all you need to do is take a read of the comments in this Wall Street Journal post to realize that what consumers are reading is fast becoming “fact,” regardless of the truth.
My Suggestions:
- Cut Yun from the public eye (Publicly remove him)
- Replace Yun with a person of credibility with likable qualities
- Regroup your public relations forces and enter into the media mainstream
- Retool your online team to engage blogs, websites, and other forums where consumers congregate
- Create and Social Media Marketing Team of outsiders to guide you
What is “Social Media” and why am I right?
Social Media Expanded Definition: Social Media is the democratization of information, transforming people from content readers into content publishers. It is the shift from a broadcast mechanism to a many-to-many model, rooted in conversations between authors, people, and peers.
Social media uses the “wisdom of crowds” to connect information in a collaborative manner. Social media can take many different forms, including Internet forums, message boards, weblogs, wikis, podcasts, pictures and video. Technologies such as blogs, picture-sharing, vlogs, wall-postings, email, instant messaging, music-sharing, group creation and voice over IP, to name a few…
I’m right because what is on television is no longer perceived as truth, what is found online is, and if you are not out in popular sources of media, only a fraction of consumers are hearing your message. If you need further proof, simply read the comments to this blog post and search around in other popular consumer media centers and you’ll quickly understand what we’re seeing.
Chris Lengquist
January 29, 2008 at 5:17 pm
Benn, love ya’ bud. But don’t agree with ripping the NAR on this point. (Though I do love to rip the NAR) Reading the article and through the comments shows a complete lack of understanding as to how housing can and should be used as an investment.
But first, your personal home is just that. It’s a home. Not an investment.
Second, buying investment real estate on speculation and not sound fundamentals will only lead to trouble, if only eventually.
And lastly, I loved the comment by the professor that said, and I quote, “That’s insane. If one of my students made that calculation, I would fail them.”
Why? Because they also did not take into account depreciation? Or cash flow before taxes. Or was it because they forgot to calculate principal reduction? I’m confused.
Yes, there are closing costs. Maintenance. Agent fees. Leasing expenses. So figure those in. I’ll bet you find it exceeds the stock market. In fact, I’m confident of it.
Want to see my wife’s 401K?
Now the fact that the NAR has completely glossed over the downturn in much of the country is part of the problem. Just like it was part of the problem when they wouldn’t recognize the fact that appreciation was happening at unsustainable rates for a few years.
Benn Rosales
January 29, 2008 at 5:34 pm
Chris, and it wouldn’t be lovely if someone named Chris logged into that blog and millions of others and said “hi, this is Chris from N.A.R. and stated just exactly what you did and engaged the conversation. You’ve only made my point, Mr. Man!
Chris Lengquist
January 29, 2008 at 5:46 pm
LOL.
David
March 7, 2008 at 11:09 am
Great Post: check out: https://lawrenceyunwatch.blogspot.com
Sunny Jim
March 19, 2008 at 12:23 pm
The NAR engages in the despicable practice of jiggering their sales numbers to deceive buyers. This is not true only of their overall phony forecasts, but in delisting/relisting actual homes for sale to rig the “original” price and days on market.
Because this is an important and newsworthy practice, I will cite a single and newsworthy example: the home of the NAR president. In 2006, the WaPo ran a story how the home of the NAR president was not selling. The paper-money blog picked this up and did some online price investigation. From the WaPo story and a simple Google search, let’s look at the business practice of delisting/reslisting using the newsworthy example of the NAR president:
Purchase price (2001): $1.3 million.
Assessed value (2005): $2.6 million.
Original asking price (2006): $1.95 million.
Reduced asking price (2006): $1.45 million.
Really reduced, current price (2008): $1.2 million.
Yet Redfin says that the “original” price is $1,285,000 when the true original price is $1.95 million from two years ago, as stated in the 2006 WaPo article. And in spite of sitting unsold for over two years, Redfin lists this as active for only 159 days.
So realtors can and do jigger the “original” price and the days on market precisely through this delisting/relisting mechanism.
Buyer beware. And thank goodness for the web — let’s all look forward to the near future when Google and others make the MLSP obsolete and reduce transaction fees from 6 percent to less than 1 percent.
Bob
March 20, 2008 at 10:54 am
Benn, I have been calling for Yun’s removal for sometime. Thanks for speaking up. It starts with credibility and as long as Yun has a voice, NAR has none.
Sunny Jim, some MLS systems no longer allow for cancelling and then immediately relisting a property to manipulate market time.
Hunter Jackson
July 2, 2008 at 8:59 am
I agree completely. Cut Yun from the public eye. He is the one everyone quotes and laughs. I am very interested to see how the Nar lawsuit judgment will start to affect everyone…
John
February 4, 2009 at 3:37 am
The National Association of Realtors is a group of shameless liars. The cat is already out of the bag and isn’t going back in.