Tag Archives: real estate education

Handing out a business card

How To Tips for Business Card Etiquette

“It’s nice to meet you! May I give you my business card?”

Knowing the proper way to treat and hand out your business card says a lot about you, the respect you have for yourself, and the person you are giving it to. Always be courteous and ask permission before giving out your business card, and only give it to someone who asks for it or after you ask permission to give it.

How to offer a business card

  • Always have cards on hand. Card exchanges and business socializing often take place at unlikely times and places.
  • Be courteous when offering your card and attempt to limit distribution to qualified leads. Handing out 200 cards to everyone at a trade show will not be as productive as taking the time to find 10 qualified leads at the same seminar.
  • Always give your card to someone who asks for it — and be sure to ask for theirs in return.
  • Hand out pristine cards. Your card should adequately represent who you are and the pride you take in your profession. Throw away old, torn, or worn-out cards.
  • Use a business card case that properly represents your professionalism. Keeping your cards in your billfold or floating around in your purse makes for a disorganized impression. It also gives the message that you don’t really take the business card exchange ritual seriously.
  • If appropriate, take the time to write a quick note on the card to help the recipient remember you, what you talked about, and why your card was given.
  • Don’t hand out more than one card per contact unless more is asked for. If the person you are giving the card to does not have a card of their own, offer two of your cards and ask them to write their contact information on the backside of one and then return the card to you.
  • In meetings, don’t slide your card across the conference table. Instead, stand up and hand your card to each individual as introductions are made.
  • If you offer one person a card in a group, offer your card to everyone in the group.

How to accept a business card

  • Always accept an offered business card.
  • If you give a card, ask for a card.
  • Say Thank You! as soon the card touches your hand.
  • Look at the card for a few seconds as if digesting the information and then compliment the card, font, or logo, if appropriate.
  • Put the card in your business card case. Don’t disrespect the card or giver by putting it in your back pocket or other places that say you don’t really care it was given.
  • Follow up within one or two days from receiving a business card. Let the giver know you appreciated meeting them, your conversation, or information exchange.
  • It’s okay to request a business card, but if the person you are requesting it from maintains a higher position than you, wait for them to offer a card. For example, you wouldn’t ask the CEO of major companies or politicians, such as your state senator or the President of the United States, for a personal business card.f

How to design a business card

  • Avoid having too much information on your business card; don’t clutter it up with too many trade or professional designations that won’t mean anything to the public.*
  • Use professional paper and printing.
  • Use a graphic designer or online business card templates to help you design your card.
  • Include your essential contact details, including your name, company name, email address, and telephone number.
  • Avoid trade designation initials that might confuse your prospects. ABR, SFR, GRI mean nothing to a potential real estate client.*
  • Make sure your colors, font, and other information are easily readable by business card scanners or when converted to other types of electronic format.

* Design separate cards for giving out to your associates. These cards should include your trade or professional designations or designation initials.

Your business card will maximize your chances of successfully making qualified contacts. Remember, your card should represent you as a professional and convey how you think about yourself and conduct business. Don’t skimp and keep it professional.

###

OnlineEd is a provider of pre-licensing, post-licensing, and continuing education for real estate and mortgage brokers. For more information about OnlineEd, please visit www.OnlineEd.com.

Oregon Real Estate Agency Requires Principal Broker Advanced Practices Course

Principal brokers with a license expiration date after July 1, 2019, renewing a for the first time must take the 27-hour Principal Broker Advanced Practices course.

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

(November 2, 2018)

(PORTLAND, Ore.) OnlineEd – Principal brokers with a license expiration date after July 1, 2019, who will be renewing their active license for the first time, will have to take the 27-hour Principal Broker Advanced Practices course. If the first principal broker license renewal was in inactive status and the principal broker wants to reactivate it for the first time on or after July 1, 2019, they will have to take the 27-hour Principal Broker Advanced Practices course. The 3-hour Law and Rule Required Course (LARRC) is also required to renew or reactivate the license. Except for LARRC, if the principal broker already completed regular continuing education, it will not count if for renewing active for the first time, or if reactivating after an inactive first renewal, on or after July 1, 2019.

Exclusively for OnlineEd customers who completed their regular continuing education with OnlineEd during their first Principal Broker license renewal cycle who cannot use that education for their renewal, they may qualify with OnlineEd to have their previous purchase credited against the $229 price of the OnlineEd 27-hour Principal Broker Advanced Practices course.

Law and Rule Required Course (LARRC) is another 3-hour course that is required for all license renewals. Together, Principal Broker Advanced Practices and Law and Rule Required Course will complete the required 30-hours of education needed to renew a principal broker license. Law and Rule Required Course is free at OnlineEd to all Oregon real estate licensees, whether property manager, broker or principal broker.

The Oregon Real Estate Agency has eight required course categories for Principal Broker Advanced Practices. These topics are:

Module 1: Brokerage Practices, covering business registration and planning
Module 2: Supervising and Managing Real Estate Licensees
Module 3: Affirmative Duties of Agent and Agency Relationships
Module 4: Advertising Rules
Module 5: Property Management
Module 6: Clients’ Trust Accounts
Module 7: Records and Record Maintenance
Module 8: Professional Real Estate Activity

The OnlineEd course divides each topic into smaller learning segments that cover specific facts, information, and details. Each module is populated with learning assessments to help learners comprehend presented information and a 60-question final exam at the end of the course. As with any Oregon continuing education course, Principal Broker Advanced Practices is required to be time-monitored. Once the learner completes all course elements and has spent the minimum necessary time logged into the course, the course final exam is made available. The final exam is not timed, requires a minimum passing score of 75%, and can be taken as many times as necessary to achieve a passing score. After successfully completing the final exam for this 27-hour course, a course completion certificate is generated. This certificate should be printed and kept by licensees in their education files as proof of meeting the OREA-required first-time renewal education course. You are not required to send this certificate to the Agency but must have it available for the Agency for three years after it is used for license renewal.

To sign up for the OnlineEd Principal Broker Advanced Practices course, please visit the OnlineEd web site.

 

###

OnlineEd blog postings are the opinion of the author and not intended as legal or other professional advice. Be sure to consult the appropriate party when professional advice is needed.

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Presenting Multiple Offers – Part 3 of 3 (video)

Presenting Multiple Offers, Part 3 of  3 parts

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

(January 11, 2018)

(PORTLAND-OR) Presenting multiple offers can get complicated and have unexpected results. Watch my three-part video, Presenting Multiple Offers.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

Video New Year Message from OnlineEd

Happy New message from OnlineEd

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

(January 2, 2018)

(PORTLAND, OR) – Here’s to yesterday’s achievements and tomorrow’s brighter future. Happy New Year from all of us at OnlineEd®!

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by the Numbers

CFPB Actions Result in $11.7 Billion in Relief to 27 Million Consumers

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

canstockphoto24908732consumer protection(July 15, 2016) – July 21, 2016, will mark five years since the CFPB opened its doors. After the 2008 financial crisis, Congress created the CFPB as the only federal agency with the sole mission of protecting consumers in the financial marketplace.

To date, the CFPB has provided almost $12 billion in relief to over 27 million consumers. Here’s how their numbers stack up:

  • $11.7 billion: Approximate amount of relief to consumers from CFPB supervisory and enforcement work, including:
    $3.6 billion in monetary compensation to consumers as a result of enforcement activity
    $7.7 billion in principal reductions, cancelled debts, and other consumer relief as a result of
    enforcement activity
    $347 million in consumer relief as a result of supervisory activity
  • 27 million: Consumers who will receive relief as a result of CFPB supervisory and enforcement work
  • $440 million: Money ordered to be paid in civil penalties as a result of CFPB enforcement work
  • 930,700: Complaints CFPB has handled as of July 1, 2016
  • 12 million: Unique visitors to Ask CFPB
  • 1.9 million: Mortgages consumers closed on after receiving the CFPB’s Know Before You Owe
    disclosures
  • 135: Banks and credit unions under the CFPB’s supervisory authority as of March 2016
  • 12 million: Consumers who take out payday loans each year; the CFPB has proposed rules to put an end to payday debt traps
  • 70 million: Consumers who have debts in collection on their credit record; the CFPB is developing proposed rules to protect consumers from harmful collection practices
  • 3,400 Colleges voluntarily adopting the CFPB and Dept. of Ed Financial Aid Shopping Sheet
  • 138: Visits to military installations by the Office of Servicemember Affairs since 2011
  • 61: Times senior CFPB officials have testified before Congress
  • 36: Cities where CFPB has held public town halls or field hearings

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

OnlineEd® is a registered Trademark

When and How to Use an Escalation Clause

Find out about this tool used by real estate agents to eliminate competing bids by automatically raising an offered price

By Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd Blog

escalator(March 17, 2016) – The escalation or escalator clause is a clause in a real estate sale agreement that, under certain circumstances, allows for an increase in the price offered to a seller from a buyer. An escalation clause is a tool used by real estate agents in an attempt to eliminate competing bids by automatically raising an offered price when a competing offer comes in before the agreed-upon end of the escalation period. The clause is triggered only by the existence of another offer. It automatically increases the offered price without the seller having to make a counter-offer or the buyer having to make a new offer.

For example, Buyer Rhonda wants to offer $379,000 for a listing. Rhonda’s broker knows that there are already multiple offers under consideration by the seller and suggests that Rhonda adds an escalator clause to the offer. Rhonda agrees, and her broker writes a provision to automatically increase Rhonda’s offered price in $1,000 increments over any higher offer, up to a maximum price of $384,000. For Rhonda, this means if the seller receives an offer for $380,000, then her offer automatically escalates to $381,000; if the seller gets an offer for $383,000, then her offer automatically escalates to the maximum $384,000. However, if there is an offer for $385,000, the offer does not escalate, and the seller could accept the higher offer or issue a counter-offer to Rhonda to ask her to pay more than the maximum stated in her escalation clause.

In theory, this clause is simple and straightforward for both the buyer and seller, and the clause can be as basic as “Purchase price to be $1,000 more than any other offer submitted to Seller before December 12.”  In practice, however, it takes some thought and attention to detail to write it correctly, avoid confusion, and to make sure the buyer and seller agree on an actual price. And things can sure get messy when there are multiple offers with escalation clauses or when the seller counter-offers with an escalation clause.

As a strategy, the escalation clause can work against either or both the buyer and seller. For the seller, the clause can prevent buyers from outbidding each other, which may cause the seller to give up a higher price than could be achieved by negotiating multiple offers against each other.  Also, when subsequent offerors are aware that an offer with an escalation clause is already in front of the seller, they may refuse to offer, leaving the seller with just the one original offer.

For the buyer, since the buyer has indicated the willingness to pay more than the initial offered price if another offer does exist, and if no other offer does exist, then the seller can assume the buyer will pay more and will probably counter-offer at the fully escalated price. When no other offer does exist, the buyer has severely weakened their negotiation position by disclosing up front to the seller just how much they are willing to pay.

When representing a buyer, consider including a provision that the seller has to provide proof of the offer that triggered the escalation clause, and that the offer has to be from a bona fide buyer. Never take it on face value for your client that just because a seller’s broker says there is a higher offer, that it does exist. However, this verification of a subsequent buyer’s bona fides can prove problematic. For example, what should happen if the seller receives another higher offer from a third buyer while verifying the legitimacy of the one that triggered the first escalation, or if the buyer and seller disagree on the legitimacy of the triggering offer? Do your research before writing an escalation clause. Be sure to take some time to investigate the listing to determine factors that make it likely to have other offers. Also, just come out and ask the listing broker if there are other offers (they aren’t supposed to lie), or if all offers will be held until a specified date for presentation to the seller.

When representing a seller, consider asking the buyer to waive the appraised valuation clause in the sale agreement and pay cash for the difference between the appraised value and purchase price when the escalated purchase price exceeds the lender’s appraised value. If a buyer is genuinely willing to pay more than the listed price, make sure they are not able to back out because an appraisal came in at a lower value.

A proper clause will also address whether any offer triggering the escalation clause is based on gross or net offering price.  For example, an offer of $5,000 more to the seller when the seller is paying $5,000 in buyer closing costs is the same net price for an offer of $5,000 less and not paying any buyer costs.

Before accepting an offer with an escalation clause, find out if the buyer is the best-qualified buyer for the property, and be sure to also ask how many other properties the buyer has offered on. It’s also a good practice to have a conversation with the buyer’s agent to make sure you both understand the meaning and intent of the clause as it is written.  Finally, verify that the buyer is qualified and prepared to buy the property at the fully escalated price.

Not every seller or seller’s broker will want to use this clause.  For some, it will be best to keep things simple by using the standard offer and counter-offer negotiations to end up at a set price. Many sellers feel more confident with the offer/counter-offer process to make sure that the buyer won’t have remorse and walk away or try to renegotiate during the home inspection period if their offer ends up at the fully escalated price. To fix the price, it might be better for the seller to counter-offer the escalating offer at the onset with the fully escalated price so that everyone knows and agrees on the final price.

Sample Clause

Here’s a sample clause, not written by a lawyer, and certainly not suitable for every circumstance. The clause is included to give an idea of the many things to consider when it is being drafted. Publication of this clause does not constitute a recommendation or endorsement, and you are cautioned to check with legal counsel or your office manager before using this or any escalation clause.

“Purchase price to be $1,000 above any other bona fide offer, net of any Seller concessions, up to a maximum of $5,000 above any bona fide offer. Buyer and Seller agree this is the binding purchase contract for the property, that the presence of this clause that may adjust the purchase price does not constitute an agreement to enter into another agreement at a final determined price at a later date, that this clause does not defeat the existence of a contract, and that the final price is to be determined according to the terms of this purchase contract.  In the event of any offer triggering this clause, the Seller will provide the Buyer with a copy of the entire triggering offer, which shall be subject to Buyer’s written approval thereof, which shall not be unreasonably withheld, within three business days from delivery.  During this three-day approval process, Seller may accept subsequent offers before Buyer approves of the triggering offer. Still, it is agreed that any such subsequent offer will not trigger further price acceleration unless Buyer refuses to approve the original triggering offer.”

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers visit www.OnlineEd.com.

 All information contained in this posting is deemed correct as of the date of publication, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained from third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

Home Prices Up By 6.8% Year over Year, Says Corelogic® Report

(c) Can Stock Photo(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) – CoreLogic® has released its April 2015 CoreLogic Home Price Index (HPI®). The nationwide index shows that home prices, including distressed sales, increased by 6.8 percent in April 2015 compared with April 2014. This represents 38 months of consecutive year-over-year increases in home prices.

Excluding distressed sales, home prices increased by 6.8 percent in April 2015 compared with April 2014 and increased by 2.3 percent month over month compared with March 2015. Excluding distressed sales, only South Dakota (-0.3 percent) and Louisiana (-0.2 percent) showed year-over-year depreciation in April.

 “For the first four months of 2015, home sales were up 9 percent compared to the same period a year ago,” said Frank Nothaft, chief economist for CoreLogic. “One byproduct of the increased sales activity is rising house prices, and, as a result, month-over-month home prices are up almost 3 percent for April 2015 and up more than 6 percent from a year ago.”

“Old fashion supply and demand, fueled by historically low mortgage rates and improving consumer finances and confidence, continue to push home prices up,” said Anand Nallathambi, president and CEO of CoreLogic. “We expect continued price appreciation throughout 2015 and into next year. Over the longer term, household formation, up by more than one million over the past year alone, will drive down vacancy rates and create tighter housing markets in many metropolitan areas. This should provide the necessary underpinning for rising prices for the foreseeable future.”

 ###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

  This article was published on June 2, 2015. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

CFPB Files Against Provident Funding Associates for Discriminatory Mortgage Pricing

discrimination definition(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a joint complaint against Provident Funding Associates for charging higher broker fees on mortgage loans to African-American and Hispanic borrowers. The agencies also filed a proposed order that, if entered by the court, would require Provident to pay $9 million in damages to harmed African-American and Hispanic borrowers.

“Consumers should never be charged higher fees because of their race or national origin,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “We will continue to root out illegal and discriminatory lending practices in the marketplace. I look forward to working closely with our partners at the Department of Justice to ensure consumers are treated fairly.”

“The Civil Rights Division is committed to ensuring that all types of lending institutions, including wholesale mortgage lenders, comply with the fair lending laws,” said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “We look forward to further collaboration with the Bureau in protecting consumers from illegal and discriminatory lending practices.”

“The settlement demonstrates this U.S. Attorney’s office will devote the resources necessary to root out and address unfair lending practices that affect citizens of this district,” said U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag. “The law is clear: access to mortgage loans may not be made more difficult because of an applicant’s race or national origin. We are glad that Provident has agreed to put an end to this practice without engaging in protracted litigation.”

Provident is headquartered in California and originates mortgage loans through its nationwide network of brokers. Between 2006 and 2011, Provident made over 450,000 mortgage loans through its brokers. During this time period, Provident’s practice was to set a risk-based interest rate and then allow brokers to charge a higher rate to consumers. Provident would then pay the brokers some of the increased interest revenue from the higher rates – these payments are also known as yield-spread-premiums. Provident’s mortgage brokers also had discretion to charge borrowers higher fees, unrelated to an applicant’s creditworthiness or the terms of the loan. The fees paid to Provident’s brokers were thus made up of these two components: payments by Provident from increased interest revenue and through the direct fees paid by the borrower.

The Equal Credit Opportunity Act prohibits creditors from discriminating against applicants in credit transactions on the basis of characteristics such as race and national origin. In the complaint, the CFPB and DOJ allege that Provident violated the Equal Credit Opportunity Act by charging African-American and Hispanic borrowers more in total broker fees than white borrowers based on their race and national origin and not based on their credit risk. The DOJ also alleges that Provident violated the Fair Housing Act, which also prohibits discrimination in residential mortgage lending.

The agencies allege that Provident’s discretionary broker compensation policies caused the differences in total broker fees, and that Provident unlawfully discriminated against African-American and Hispanic borrowers in mortgage pricing. Approximately 14,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers paid higher total broker fees because of this discrimination.

On December 6, 2012, the CFPB and the DOJ signed an agreement that has facilitated strong coordination between the two agencies on fair lending enforcement, including the pursuit of joint investigations such as this one.

 ###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate brokers, principal brokers, property managers, and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

This article was published on May 29, 2015. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

HUD Awards $38 Million To Fight Housing Discrimination

stop discrimination (Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) – Funded through HUD’s Fair Housing Initiatives Program (FHIP), the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has awarded $38.3 million to over 100 fair housing organizations and other non-profit agencies to address housing discrimination.

“Ending housing discrimination is at the core of HUD’s mission and it takes dedicated people on the ground to address it,” said HUD Secretary Julián Castro. “These funds support community-based organizations that do great work every day on the front lines in the fight for fairness and equality in our nation’s housing market.”

HUD’s Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Gustavo Velasquez added, “The Fair Housing Initiatives Program provides the only federal grant support to private fair housing enforcement and education. Dispersed throughout the country, these grants enable our partner agencies to stand beside us in the fight against housing discrimination, and we couldn’t do it without them.”

 ###

For more information about OnlineEd and its Fair Housing and other education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

This article was published on October 16, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.

Court Upholds $5 Million Judgment for Violating Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule

(Jeff Sorg, OnlineEd) –  The US Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, has issued a decision upholding a district court ruling that several defendants in the US and Canada deceived consumers through a telemarketing scheme designed to sell phony mortgage assistance and debt relief programs. The district court’s order bars the defendants from working in the debt relief or mortgage assistance industries and enters judgment of $5,706,135 to be used for refunds to injured consumers.

In 2012, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) filed a complaint against E.M.A Nationwide and other defendants, alleging that since at least 2010 they cold-called thousands of US consumers pitching programs that were to help them pay, reduce, or restructure their mortgage and other debts.

The FTC charged the defendants with violating the Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (MARS) Rule, which prohibits mortgage foreclosure rescue and loan modification services from collecting fees until homeowners have a written offer from their lender or servicer that they deem acceptable.

“The courts decision announced today is a major win for consumers nationwide,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “It affirms that marketers can’t get away with using misleading sales pitches and then burying ‘disclaimers’ in lengthy documents given to consumers later.”

To summarize it’s ruling, the appellate court wrote, “A court need not look past the first contact with a consumer to determine the net impression from that contact, and a court may consider individual advertisements or messages to determine that net impression . . . . Defendants cannot make considerable material misrepresentations to consumers and then bury corrections and disclaimers in subsequent communications . . . Therefore, the district court did not err in granting summary judgement.”

The FTC works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information the help spot, stop, and avoid them.

###

For more information about OnlineEd and their education for real estate and mortgage brokers, visit www.OnlineEd.com.

This article was published on August 18, 2014. All information contained in this posting is deemed correct and current as of this date, but is not guaranteed by the author and may have been obtained by third-party sources. Due to the fluid nature of the subject matter, regulations, requirements and laws, prices and all other information may or may not be correct in the future and should be verified if cited, shared or otherwise republished.