Part2: Affiliated Businesses : Long & Foster's "Partners." Are They Kickbacks?

Last night I wrote a blog post that sparked a ton of debate.

Part of my message was lost in my winded approach. So here I would like to dissect one issue.

The Post reported: "[HUD] spokesman Brian Sullivan said business relationships between brokerages and lenders are common, but cross the line into being illegal 'if the agents or office managers receive kickbacks or fees for doing nothing more than referring services.' "

And compare that to Mr. Foster's quote (which I will assume is correct, unless told otherwise):

"Foster said he wrote the memo to make agents understand that each time they use Prosperity, they're helping Long & Foster, which in turn enables the company to provide better resources and more advertising for agents."

Is the "provide better resources and more advertising for agents." a kickback?

I think most would agree that if it said "for those agents" it would be a slamdunk. But as it stands now, is recommending to agents to recommend Prosperity for the benefit the agent, ok?

We already debated that it CAN/MIGHT benefit the consumer with great service, but is it ok to say it benefits the agent, when kickbacks are illegal?

- Written by Frank Borges LL0SA- Broker FranklyRealty.com