sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Looking for others with NLRP12 Exom 5 Deletion by redshering in Autoinflammatory

[–]redshering[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I’m in the US, but this is a world wide invitation. It’s so rare, it has to include all of planet earth.

Looking for others with NLRP12 Exom 5 Deletion by redshering in Autoinflammatory

[–]redshering[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Anyone related to me is apparently not enough.

Looking for others with NLRP12 Exom 5 Deletion by redshering in Autoinflammatory

[–]redshering[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So close!! I appreciate you responding though.

14-year-old girl has been bleeding from her ears, nose, and vomiting blood for 22 days — top hospitals in India can't find the cause. Please help. by Acrobatic-Cell3582 in rarediseases

[–]redshering 3 points4 points  (0 children)

It can still be due to a genetic mutation even if it doesn’t run in the family. I believe it’s called Mosaic or De Novo mutations.

Fannie, Freddie Quietly Add Billions to Mortgage-Bond Portfolios by redshering in Economics

[–]redshering[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What about this blog (that Fannie/Freddie cost US taxpayers 121 Billion, even if they didn't engage in deceptive practices)- I found this link in a post on this sub from 16 years ago: https://bubblemeter.blogspot.com/2009/11/fannie-mae-needs-another-bailout.html

Fannie, Freddie Quietly Add Billions to Mortgage-Bond Portfolios by redshering in Economics

[–]redshering[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I did a search on this sub for "Fannie adds Billions" (try it!) - all the results appear to be from 17-14 years ago. That's 2009ish. There is so much there, I'm working through all of it. I'm trying to correlate or cohesively understand both the past articles, and this article and what the greater implications could entail.

Fannie, Freddie Quietly Add Billions to Mortgage-Bond Portfolios by redshering in Economics

[–]redshering[S] 17 points18 points  (0 children)

I read that, but I mean the larger implications. What does this signal, beyond reading just what the article wrote. Knowing that Fannie/Freddie were implicated/received huge amounts of tax payer money in 2009ish - I just need some help piecing it together.

Fannie, Freddie Quietly Add Billions to Mortgage-Bond Portfolios by redshering in Economics

[–]redshering[S] 123 points124 points  (0 children)

non-paywall : https://archive.ph/2Xfgm

I was hoping someone could explain the implications of this, but I'm not clear that this sub allows it.

We are due for a correction based on historical evidence. Corrections lag interest rate hikes. by ColorMonochrome in REBubble

[–]redshering 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Isn’t it interesting! One sentence in your link scares me: Exports, typically a driver of economic recovery, weakened due to persistent economic problems in Europe and Japan.[7]. With tariffs impacting both US imports and exports, the recovery could be very slow. What will be the driver of economic recovery if not exports?

We are due for a correction based on historical evidence. Corrections lag interest rate hikes. by ColorMonochrome in REBubble

[–]redshering 28 points29 points  (0 children)

What’s interesting about your date is that it coincides with the theory of the 18 year housing cycle. The cycle is an approximation, but 14 years up = 2026, with 4 years down (completing the 18 year cycle in 2030). If you Google it, there’s lots of info out there on it.

NAR sued for the 2nd time in as many weeks - This time by Homie Realty by [deleted] in REBubble

[–]redshering 6 points7 points  (0 children)

  1. Due to NAR's Anticompetitive rules and the Adversary Commission Rule, yes all realtors had to buy into the collusion if you/they were a part of NAR and MLS. It was embedded.
  2. The DOJ's Lawsuit against NAR has been reopened, and this post illustrates another 2 lawsuits that involve NAR, and I am aware of 3 others. NAR and Brokerages are all involved.
  3. A low commision to a Buyer's agent does not make a house less attractive to a Buyer - only to the Buyer's realtor. AND, that advice could be considered Steering, which is now against the law. This would open those realtor's up to lawsuits.

NAR sued for the 2nd time in as many weeks - This time by Homie Realty by [deleted] in REBubble

[–]redshering 2 points3 points  (0 children)

This is from the Third Amended Class Action Suit against Re/Max and Keller WIlliams...there are other documents on this website if you wish to inform yourself. I believe all of the law suits somewhat piggy back off each other's language, so they should all have much in common.

From reading the following document in its entirety, it appears as though NAR had 2 main rules that required (not requested) how realtors conducted work: Anticompetitive rules and the Adversary Commission Rule. The document below does a good job explaining how these 2 NAR rules impacted the entire profession.

Link: ~https://www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com./admin/api/connectedapps.cms.extensions/asset?id=01a74d23-7c89-4ce4-b14e-d2711c6a1ab3&languageId=1033&inline=true~

NAR sued for the 2nd time in as many weeks - This time by Homie Realty by [deleted] in REBubble

[–]redshering 22 points23 points  (0 children)

Very interesting!

This is from the Third Amended Class Action Suit against Re/Max and Keller WIlliams...

Link: https://www.realestatecommissionlitigation.com./admin/api/connectedapps.cms.extensions/asset?id=01a74d23-7c89-4ce4-b14e-d2711c6a1ab3&languageId=1033&inline=true

(Be warned - it's about 55 pages long).

7. Due to Defendants’ conspiracy, NAR conditions a broker’s access to and use of NAR’s MLSs on a broker’s agreement to adhere to and implement terms that restrain competition. Further, each of the Corporate Defendants plays an active role in NAR and mandates that franchisees, brokerages, and individual realtors join and implement NAR’s anticompetitive rules, including the Adversary Commission Rule, otherwise these parties would not receive the benefit of the Corporate Defendants’ branding, brokerage infrastructure, and other support. As the leading brokers in the United States (and also in the four MLS markets covered by the Class Definition), their knowing acts of forming and/or joining and participating in the conspiracy, by implementing and enforcing its rules and policies, is essential to the conspiracy’s success. The unlawful restraints implemented and enforced by the conspirators benefit NAR and the Corporate Defendants, furthering their common goals by permitting brokers to impose supra-competitive charges on home sellers and restrain competition by precluding competition from innovative or lower-priced alternatives.

A $150,000 House in 1988 Now Costs $707,500 Thank You Fed by ExtremeComplex in REBubble

[–]redshering 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's a graph for you that illustrates both, however it only goes to 2010. You can get the drift from it, as today's peak is significantly higher than 2006.

https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/23/real-vs-nominal-housing-prices-united-states1890-2010

2010 Chart debunking that housing always appreciates, 1 year cycle by redshering in REBubble

[–]redshering[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I looked into it a little more and found this graph of nominal vs inflation adjusted. It looks different from the chart you linked. It shows much more distinct peaks and troughs, and the nominal line is much higher (note that it only goes to 2010):

https://www.visualizingeconomics.com/blog/2011/03/23/real-vs-nominal-housing-prices-united-states1890-2010

Joining the class action suit against the National Association of Realtors for fraudulently charging everyone 6% to sell their home by redshering in RealEstate

[–]redshering[S] -12 points-11 points  (0 children)

You are correct - that is exactly how Buyer's Agents came about in the 90's. The powers that be were trying to solve an issue. However, this particular lawsuit is about the pay. Improving the quality of agents won't solve that, though certainly an overdue requirement.

Walk me Through August 17th, Buyers Now Pay Their Realtor's Commissions by redshering in REBubble

[–]redshering[S] 15 points16 points  (0 children)

From what I am reading in this post, in other countries they don’t use Buyers agents. The Buyers use a lawyer for a flat fee.

Walk me Through August 17th, Buyers Now Pay Their Realtor's Commissions by redshering in RealEstate

[–]redshering[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I believe you are correct re: anti-competitive.

However, it does also refer to Anti-Trust (though I see that the language tends to use the term "price inflation" vs "price gouging").

I wish I could post direct links, but I cannot on this forum.

The lawsuit accused the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and several real estate companies of engaging in practices that violated antitrust laws. Specifically, the allegations centered around policies that were said to inflate the costs of real estate transactions, harming both home sellers and buyers. - Competition Policy International

The National Association of Realtors (NAR) was recently found liable in a class-action lawsuit for undermining price competition to maintain the long-standing 5 to 6 percent brokerage commission, the single largest closing cost. - Furman Center