should anyone be surprised? NAR is a joke.

I am always happy to pay my CAR dues because I reap the benefits, however, paying for NAR dues has been a pet peeve of mine for years but our hands are tied and we are forced to belong to both state and national. Just cannot have one without the other.

I'm with you dreaming. Can't stand NAR and that little turd that is the king of it.

Greasy little turd!! And I suspect they're running up the bar tar and charging it all to us, too.

"bar tab" even

How much are they (we?) paying for their steak dinners cuz it doesn't look like they're ordering salads.

CAR, and my local board, have been worth every penny so far.

I'm still wondering what my NAR dues are actually accomplishing, aside from paying for our ever-optimistic industry cheerleaders in Washington.

Maybe if they were cute, young, bouncy cheerleaders...but last I checked, they most assuredly were not.

All Realtors dues going up $40 for mandatory Realtor Party contribute...

I am under the impression that this is a proposed thing - not set in stone yet. Voice your opinion:

http://www.realtoractioncenter.com/realtor-party/rppsi.html

NAR's lobbying efforts is what has kept the public largely ignorant of our industry's involvement in the housing crisis and turned the spotlight of blame onto Lenders.

I think they earn their keep....
:cool:

I think this sends a message that NAR is out of touch with the Realtor in the trenches. To propose an increase in dues for any reason in this market is ill advised. In my market, the companies growing agents are the ones that have chosen not to be Realtor companies. When agents join non Realtor companies, agents that have been Realtors for years, that tells you that NAR has a problem with national, state and local dues of over $300 and the value and benefits received for those dues. They ignore this and propose an increase? I am a Realtor but I think it is the beginning of the end for NAR. At the end of the day, the dues spent on promoting the benefits of using a Realtor have been ineffective. "Realtor" is like "Kleanex". I think NAR will see more localized associations competing for agent membership. After all, real estate is local.

Bringing this topic back due to the news out yesterday. I'm actually surprised no one has posted this already:

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45659547

I don't know how much of it is actual cooking of the books, but I do know that if an agent is a member of multiple MLSs and enters a property in each of them to get additional exposure, then those properties were counted as a sale more than once. Nothing fishy about it, that's just the way it happens...
That being said, I'm not a fan of NAR at all and wouldn't be a member at all if my MLS didn't require it, and they should've realized that there would at least be some inflation of the numbers due the the phenomenon I just described. In any event, I believe this will be whipped into the mountain the media wants so as to punish the real estate industry and will be the excuse for more regulation, and eventually, drive more people out of this business.
Oh, and I'm not saying this isn't a big deal, just that it's not a surprise to me and really shouldn't be to anyone else, either.
Comments?

Oh, absolutely it screws the numbers. My MLS and another joined forces a year or so ago - still individual but sharing listings. The listings show up as duplicates, one under my MLS's number and the other under the 2nd MLS's number. Looks really crazy when you pull two listings up for the same property.

Despite this fact, there are agents who just don't enter information correctly to begin with. Financing type is a big foul-up in my MLS.

I only believe half of what I read and some of what I hear.

Home sales figures from 2007-10 to be lowered
December 12, 2011 12:42 PM
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON — National U.S. home sales figures will be lowered dating back to 2007 after the private trade group that collects the figures says the numbers were too high.
The National Association of Realtors says it will release the downward revisions for previously occupied homes on Dec. 21.
Among the reasons for the inflated figures: changes in the way the Census Bureau data collects data, population shifts and some sales being counted twice. Last year's total sales figure of 4.91 million was the worst in 13 years.
CoreLogic, a private real-estate data firm in Santa Ana, California, first raised doubts about the annual numbers earlier this year.
The changing numbers could impact how economists view data from the trade group. It could also affect companies who use the figures for hiring and expansion plans.


Read more: http://www.gazette.com/articles/sales-130058-washington-figures.html#ixzz1gWxPjPGR

So what does this say about NAR's own economist(s)? I read the "monthly reports" in the magazine, and for at least the past 3 years I've just shook my head in disbelief. His reports seem more like cheerleading than actual economic analysis.