Posted by nithi.vivatrat on August 25, 2009
Bloomberg reports that the Federal Reserve, losing a federal lawsuit yesterday, must identify the financial firms that received special emergency loans. You may remember that the Fed refused to disclose any details of these loan programs, arguing that the knowledge that a specific firm received emergency loan would undermine its competitiveness or even spark a run on that bank — so of course, it would be safer to keep that knowledge solely in the Fed’s wise hands. The details withheld by the Fed included the names of the firms, the loan amounts, and the assets put up for collateral.
Fortunately, Manhattan Chief U.S. District Judge Loretta Preska rejected this speculation: “Conjecture, without evidence of imminent harm, simply fails to meet the Board’s burden” of proof.
I agree. As taxpayers, we became — like it or not — lenders to and investors in these firms. We should have the right to see what’s in our portfolio. I for one look forward to seeing these details come out — Judge Preska gave the Fed five days to comply.
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on May 11, 2009
My apologies for my hiatus — lots of activity at SmithAdams keeping me busy, but I hope to get back on the blogging horse starting now.
I hope everyone had a wonderful Mother’s Day weekend. You might have missed Kenneth Harney’s Post article titled “Challenging Brokers’ Add-On Fees.” In it, Mr. Harney explains how U.S. District Judge Virginia Emerson Hopkins ruled against RealtySouth for charging clients an “administrative brokerage commission” (or an “ABC” fee). The court found no evidence that the consumer received any additional service for the fee beyond that which was already covered by the regular commission, violating a federal real estate settlement statutory ban against “unearned” fees.
This is good news for those of us advocating greater transparency and choice for consumers in real estate. Extra fees should not be surreptitiously slipped into an already complicated process. At SmithAdams, we believe that consumers should have total control over what services they choose and pay for. This ruling reinforces that competition, consumer choice, and the laws of supply and demand should determine pricing — not unilateral action by the provider of the service. Hooray!
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on April 13, 2009
When I talk to prospective homebuyers about SmithAdams, I spend much of the time, not surprisingly, explaining how our fee structure works. I thought it would be useful to recap a typical recent conversation:
“How do we get started?”
To get started, SmithAdams presents you with an engagement letter similar to that of an attorney. This letter describes the terms of our relationship, the scope of work, and the fees associated with our services. Our invoicing process is described in detail in this letter as well. Unlike the typical buyer representation agreement, there are no stipulations about exclusivity. By mutually agreeing to the terms of the project as described in the letter, you and SmithAdams are on the same page as to how we will work together.
WAIT! There is more to read… read on »
Posted by nithi.vivatrat on March 3, 2009
I have transparency on the brain.
There were two articles in the New York Times today that got it stuck in my head. The first was an editorial about the back room machinations that surround the repeated AIG bailouts (we’re at a total of $160 billion in committed funds to this company, which could fail regardless). The second was an article discussing the potential conflicts caused by the pervasive and deep association of medical school educators with drug companies.
In either case, transparency is the first step to figuring out what to do next. In the absense of that, we’re just wandering around blindfolded.
On that note, I thought that StimulusWatch.org, a new site to track where the stimulus money is going, looks pretty cool.
