NAR's mid-year meeting and exposition will be held in Washington this week, a good time to reflect on what thousands of attendees won't see.

Certainly there won't be an exhibit hall filled from end to end with newly-minted web entrepreneurs, revolutionary software firms or potential IPO candidates. Instead, the new emphasis will be the old emphasis: How to make a dollar in a changing market at the lowest possible cost and with the fewest entanglements and complexities.

Welcome to Real Estate 101, a real-life experience where results count and everyone philosophically hails from Missouri, the "show me" state.

Think back a dozen months to the last mid-year meeting and you had a different world. Generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) were, well, generally accepted. The merger of AOL and Time Warner was a big deal, one viewed favorably by an assortment of Wall Street analysts and financial seers. And real estate looked good: 2001 was a record year for both new and existing home sales.

But what's next? Look ahead a few years and what core issue must emerge?

The essential fuel which makes strong real estate markets possible -- the combination of low mortgage rates and reasonable credit access -- is hardly guaranteed, a lack of certainty which raises a key question: What steps can organized real estate take to assure that cheap mortgage dollars will be available in the future?

One effort must surely be directed toward IRA and Keogh funds. More than $4 trillion in assets were held in private pension plans at the end of 1999, according to the according to Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration. The Senate Finance Committee says that as of mid-2000 there were 42.5 million U.S. households with IRA accounts.

It's great that people are saving for the future, but why is it that retirement money -- trillions of dollars -- can be readily used to buy lots of Enron shares but not the home where you live? Is not a home an investment? Is reducing mortgage debt more risky then Wall Street's advice to buy the latest IPO? Why is cutting homeownership costs and increasing personal cashflow each month a bad thing?

In an economy dependent on consumer spending, would not increased personal cashflow ultimately benefit virtually all businesses? Even government would be ahead: Reduced loan costs would also mean smaller mortgage interest write-offs and thus larger tax revenues.

If retirement dollars were available for personal real estate, the result would be reduced housing costs which would make retirement more feasible, lower interest rates for everyone because more mortgage dollars would be accessible, a larger pool of buyers made possible by access to enhanced mortgage financing, more unit sales, and additional transaction "sides" -- the latter item a truth which should greatly interest realty professionals.

Organized real estate is now at the strongest point it has enjoyed in years. Sales are soaring, home prices are generally rising, interest rates are low, and alternative forms of investment such as stocks and bonds are increasingly burdened with poor performance and public doubt.

Surely the public favors greater access to its own dollars and reduced housing costs. Now is the time for organized real estate to ask why retirement funds cannot be used for shelter -- and to assure a future with low mortgage rates and steady home sales.

For more articles by Peter G. Miller, please press here.

Published: May 14, 2002

Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright laws.

Peter G. Miller, also known as OurBroker®, is the author of six real estate books -- including The Common-Sense Mortgage -- and is the original creator and host of America Online's Real Estate Center. Peter's weekly columns appear in more than 100 newspapers nationwide, he is also published in a variety of other media outlets and he is a frequent speaker at national events and conventions. Peter welcomes your questions, comments, and news releases via e-mail at .