Even though the stock might have been available after the IPO for the same price, only God would know that before hand. Therefore, the ability to buy at the IPO price, only offered to select NAR leaders, is absolutely a conflict. Could these leaders negotiate anything with the vendor, when the vendor is enriching them so well. Make note! Why not the same restriction on selling the stock that the members got if not for the purpose of selling quickly for a profit?
If this was a company, say, XYZ Mfg., and the purchasing agent favored a vendor, and the vendor just happen to help/allow the purchase agent to have a $300,000 dollar gain, in a few days, and you, as the owner of the company, did not get this special treatment, you would be an idiot, not to be concerned that maybe, probably, this purchase agent mainly represents their own best interest. I cannot think of any employee/employer relationship that would allow this.
Same scenario if it was the local Mayor, and the voters just found out, the contractor who was picked by, and helped by the mayor, just got a chance to pick up choice property, and sold it for a big profit, a few days later. The mayor just happen to be lucky, right?
How would our clients feel, if they found out the vendors we recommended to them, were kicking back huge amounts of money to us and this was not disclosed before hand. No conflict? Read the bylaws.
The fact that our association's stock also gained makes no difference. Would it not have gained the same anyway? Did these special rewards cause the gain? Of course not. And it should be the employer who rewards the employee, not the vendor. Accepting these rewards, in my opinion, show lack of ethics by these persons.
If it is all innocent, then, like someone else suggested, donate ALL the profit to charity, and not their own charity, real charities, or, turn it over to NAR, after all, they did it for us, right, and make sure the guidelines prevent this opportunity for hankie pankie from happening again, ever.
|
