http://www.diamondvues.com/2005/11/a_first_debeers.html

With so many governmental entities looking at the behavior of large companies in violation of the Sherman Anti-trust act, it was with AMAZEMENT that I read the above article.

So many people believe that diamonds are somehow rare or limited.  In a huge size, this is certainly the case, with the 4 "c"s (cut, color, clarity, carat weight) impacting value exponentially.  But in the typically purchased sizes (.50 to 1.5ct) diamonds are a dime-ond a dozen.  Have been since mining began.  They were when I sold wedding sets in 1982; when my father proposed to my mother with a Tiffany 1ct flawless stone (which, without the blue box, could have been purchased for half in an identical grade elsewhere); when my tough as nails (but looks like a princess) sister actually "broke" hers. LIMITLESS SUPPLY, guaranteed well into the future.

BUUUUUSTED!  DeBeers is a diamond cartel that controls pricing to vendors, who impose the same pricing to retailers, who impose the highest price to consumers.

Just think how many consumers have been completely ripped off over the years, myself included, because one behemoth literally CONTROLLED THE PRICING.  No competition.

Now, I'll be watching prices.  And also very glad that the Sherman Anti Trust act exists.  Even though it took so long to act upon something that has been going on likely since the first big strike hit, and diamonds kept appearing in worldwide mines with plentiful supply.  But, they are entrancing.

In the context of real estate, the rules that we are bound to via the SAT is a very good thing.  If a company or entity were to define the dollar amount acceptable for consumers to pay in real estate, eliminating competition, people buying and selling houses would be as trapped as I am when I gaze at my common, overpriced stone.

I went to a NAR sponsored class, regarding buyer agency yesterday.  Without so much as a twitch, the instructor advised the class that buyer brokers should RAISE commissions.  From the stated "x" that he always charges as a buyer broker.  It's likely that his own agents buy into this.  All I can hope is that no one bought into any suggestion of a specific amount to charge, based on an opinion.

We can dislike one another for our costs (or lack thereof) or we can view it as good not for simply group of people called the consumer, but for ourselves, as well.  It isn't about overpaying or underpaying.

It's about recognizing that the blue box, even if diamonds hit the skids, made for an experience that was important, in choice, to that particular person.  And for Realtors, it's about remaining free (as opposed to playing one sided chess in a jail cell.)

Buyers and sellers of real estate are entitled to any position that makes sense for their comfort zone, and as professionals, we should see the value through their eyes.  Even if it means wondering "how a consumer would hire THAT agent, the one that charges more", or "why a consumer would go with a company that can't be good, because they don't charge ENOUGH to be good."

Even as I worked in retail with diamonds and saw with clarity how my father had likely grossly overpaid for her diamond, it is not information that it felt right to "share".  Just as, when I bought a diamond (could have been from the same mine- who knows, there are so many) that was without a blue box, she would NEVER have suggested that it would have been better if I'd gotten it from Tiffany and co.

Because, if either of us had shared our "opinion", we would have been wrong to the one for whom it mattered, and financially impacted.

**go with colored gemstones, but check the locations for mining- if there are too many, find a stone that's limited in source/output.

I've been reading several good posts that include suggestions that sellers not "OVERPRICE YOUR HOUSE". 

I think that we're putting it wrong.  We're presenting an incorrect bit of flotsam.

The message to sellers, in a market quite out of our control, is that an entire buying contingent disappeared (first timers) when banks tightened lending to a stranglehold.  Out of neccessity.  The trickle-up effect.

Suddenly, those sellers that can move UP are holding unsold properties.  And so on up to the "regular person" threshold.  The luxury market can afford to remain less volatile.

We needed one of two things:

the essential first-timers to add a third, and sometimes double, their respective and combined salaries in order to manage the burden of a $3,000. mortgage in their twenties, in a VERY short span of time

OR

our young, enthusiastic and credit qualified (at reasonable down payments and ratios) buying within their means.  Which means salaries commensurate with housing.  BYE, BYE, BIRDIE.

Loans were facilitated for some of the first timers.  Now, some are impacting areas with an inability to pay.

So, sellers do NOT want to hear about taking responsibility for "overpricing" their houses.  Would YOU?

"About them" is that an unexplained force is sucking the dollar bills from under the porch, and as their real estate salesperson, they need to hear the REASON before the perceived "blame".  While many sellers are well aware, it seems to make more sense to discuss more than comps.

Opinion, thinking out loud. 

I read this today in the Wall Street Real Estate Journal, regarding BUILDERS AND REFUNDS AND BUYERS AND ATTORNEYS.

With so many homebuilders giving away the farm, it's interesting to see how fiercely they are hanging onto that which is a "bird in hand (with resultant golden eggs)."

The gist of the article appears to be a somewhat balanced view of the homebuilder situation, with the presence of lawyers that will somehow attempt to locate loopholes for buyers remorse that are absurd in any market but this one.

Having worked with many homebuilders, some of note, some out of business, it makes me wonder why on earth the buyers of these homes are paying additional money for the retrieval of their earnest money with clearly unreasonable objections to the purchase. 

Knowing builder contracts with a fair amount of competence, they've covered themselves from consumer expectations that exceed the "minimum standards".  However, litigation will cost them- recovery from a homebuyer of legal fees (beyond the retention of the 10-20% deposit is...desperate, unusual, and financially positive for the builder. 

Except that in a market that was escalating, policies regarding  REFUNDS OF EARNEST MONEY were often not adhered to by some in the homebuilding contingent.  Consistency, I would think, would be key in this type of litigation.

It's a tough call, this one- with whom to EMPATHIZE fully.  The investors and buyers, who dumped their life savings (or, at least some of it) into a gamble, and have now changed their minds, or the builder, who dumped money into a gamble of excess inventory, and has now changed their policy...

To those builders that have demonstrated a commitment and consistency to a specific performance policy, or one in which liquidated damages equal the deposit given, you deserve every penny of earnest money handed over at the time of contract.  To those investors and buyers who offered every penny to this builder who has maintained a consistent policy, RIDE IT OUT.

To those attorneys running large ads per the above referenced article, shame on you.