New Commission -3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Economics as a disciple is pretty poor at accounting for emotion.

Price is a more powerful influence than the emotions a consumer feels for an agent "sponsoring events and donating her time". The numbers we're talking here are tens of thousands of dollars.

Are you even serious?

Realtors are masterful at creating trust and compliance from home buyers/sellers.

In a competitive market, real estate service providers would be more masterful at creating value for consumers, not getting them to "comply" based on the "trust" they've created through "donating time".

You comments speak to how dysfunctional the industry is.

change will take a LONG time.

That change may take a long time is evidence of how badly the market has been manipulated.

Don't even bother engaging. This guy has drank so much kool-aid he's busting through walls at this point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the Chat GPT summary of the settlement.

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has agreed to implement several changes as part of a settlement agreement. These changes include:

1. **Compensation Requirements**: NAR will eliminate the requirement that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers. It will also prohibit the disclosure of listing broker compensation or total broker compensation on the MLS.

2. **Participation Conditions**: NAR will eliminate any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a REALTOR® MLS on offering or accepting offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

3. **Non-MLS Mechanisms**: NAR agrees not to create or support any non-MLS mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

4. **Written Agreement Requirement**: NAR will require that all REALTOR® MLS Participants working with a buyer enter into a written agreement specifying the compensation they will receive.

5. **Representation of Brokerage Services**: NAR will prohibit REALTORS® from representing to a client that their brokerage services are free unless they will receive no financial compensation.

6. **Disclosure to Sellers**: NAR will require disclosure to sellers and obtain their approval for any payment to another broker acting for buyers.

7. **Negotiability of Commissions**: NAR will require disclosure to prospective sellers and buyers that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

8. **Filtering of Listings**: NAR will require that REALTORS® must not filter out or restrict MLS listings based on the compensation offered to the buyer broker.

9. **Educational Materials**: NAR will develop materials consistent with these practice changes.

These practice changes are to be implemented as soon as practicable, no later than the date of class notice, and are intended to last for 7 years after the class notice date.

This is not quite accurate. The settlement allows for offers of compensation to continue off of the MLS. This means that while such offers cannot be communicated via MLS platforms, they can still be part of negotiations and consultations conducted OFF the MLS.

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/law-and-ethics/the-truth-about-the-nar-settlement-agreement

Not much will change, agents will just need to get creative.

You gloss over the fact that this settlement will prohibit a requirement that sellers offer compensation to the buyers agent. In a sellers market, there will be no need to make this offer, even off MLS. You say "agents will just need to be creative" - do you really mean, they will just need to apply a heavy pressure campaign to sellers in order to get them to offer compensation off-MLS? If so, this would be regarded an illegal collusive tactic that will land you back in court, or at the very least, make you famous on Youtube when someone records you trying it. Good luck. I, for one, will never pay buyers agent commissions in a sellers market again.

+1

Listing agent: My fee will be xx percent to list your house. How much are you willing to compensate a buyer's agent
Seller: Nothing
Listing agent: ok, so did you want to take 2-3 percent off the list price? (Both laugh hard)
Seller: hahaha no.
Listing agent: Ok, so we will be working with an unrepresented buyer, or the buyer will have to pay a fee to their agent, in addition to the unprecedented prices, high rates, and escalations they are already dealing with. Or I'll try to rep both of you but it's not ideal bc of the natural conflict of interests.
Seller: Yes

This is a win for buyers how exactly?

Oh realtor, you think you are so clever don't you? In the soon to be old system, the seller would pay the buyer's agent so in fact there is already a conflict of interest. The buyer's agent is acting on behalf of the seller, not the buyer. You will know how the new system will benefit buyers? The seller will be willing to consider a lower offer price. This is how it would benefit buyers (I benefited this way when we bought in DC). And even if the buyer pays the full price, it is the seller that gets to keep the profit not the agent!! Sellers should keep the fruits of their labor not some stupid agent coming for the ride.

+1 We're about to sell a home and have three price scenarios that we would accept:
1) The market value if we list it and the buyer has their own realtor.
2) The market value minus the buyer's agent comp if the buyer doesn't have their own realtor and our agent would only take their cut their close the deal. We could pass on savings to the buyer to close the deal without affecting our bottom line).
3) Market value minus 2.5% if someone wants to buy it before we list it.

Of course we'll take as much as we can get, but there's more room to negotiate if we're only paying one agent. Realtors are trying to create this fear of conflict of interest, when in fact realtors never did act in the best interest of buyers. Buyers aren't losing anything unless they're foolish enough to sign an agreement with a buyers agent guaranteeing them a certain percentage of commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the Chat GPT summary of the settlement.

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has agreed to implement several changes as part of a settlement agreement. These changes include:

1. **Compensation Requirements**: NAR will eliminate the requirement that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers. It will also prohibit the disclosure of listing broker compensation or total broker compensation on the MLS.

2. **Participation Conditions**: NAR will eliminate any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a REALTOR® MLS on offering or accepting offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

3. **Non-MLS Mechanisms**: NAR agrees not to create or support any non-MLS mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

4. **Written Agreement Requirement**: NAR will require that all REALTOR® MLS Participants working with a buyer enter into a written agreement specifying the compensation they will receive.

5. **Representation of Brokerage Services**: NAR will prohibit REALTORS® from representing to a client that their brokerage services are free unless they will receive no financial compensation.

6. **Disclosure to Sellers**: NAR will require disclosure to sellers and obtain their approval for any payment to another broker acting for buyers.

7. **Negotiability of Commissions**: NAR will require disclosure to prospective sellers and buyers that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

8. **Filtering of Listings**: NAR will require that REALTORS® must not filter out or restrict MLS listings based on the compensation offered to the buyer broker.

9. **Educational Materials**: NAR will develop materials consistent with these practice changes.

These practice changes are to be implemented as soon as practicable, no later than the date of class notice, and are intended to last for 7 years after the class notice date.

This is not quite accurate. The settlement allows for offers of compensation to continue off of the MLS. This means that while such offers cannot be communicated via MLS platforms, they can still be part of negotiations and consultations conducted OFF the MLS.

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/law-and-ethics/the-truth-about-the-nar-settlement-agreement

Not much will change, agents will just need to get creative.

You gloss over the fact that this settlement will prohibit a requirement that sellers offer compensation to the buyers agent. In a sellers market, there will be no need to make this offer, even off MLS. You say "agents will just need to be creative" - do you really mean, they will just need to apply a heavy pressure campaign to sellers in order to get them to offer compensation off-MLS? If so, this would be regarded an illegal collusive tactic that will land you back in court, or at the very least, make you famous on Youtube when someone records you trying it. Good luck. I, for one, will never pay buyers agent commissions in a sellers market again.

+1

Listing agent: My fee will be xx percent to list your house. How much are you willing to compensate a buyer's agent
Seller: Nothing
Listing agent: ok, so did you want to take 2-3 percent off the list price? (Both laugh hard)
Seller: hahaha no.
Listing agent: Ok, so we will be working with an unrepresented buyer, or the buyer will have to pay a fee to their agent, in addition to the unprecedented prices, high rates, and escalations they are already dealing with. Or I'll try to rep both of you but it's not ideal bc of the natural conflict of interests.
Seller: Yes

This is a win for buyers how exactly?

Oh realtor, you think you are so clever don't you? In the soon to be old system, the seller would pay the buyer's agent so in fact there is already a conflict of interest. The buyer's agent is acting on behalf of the seller, not the buyer. You will know how the new system will benefit buyers? The seller will be willing to consider a lower offer price. This is how it would benefit buyers (I benefited this way when we bought in DC). And even if the buyer pays the full price, it is the seller that gets to keep the profit not the agent!! Sellers should keep the fruits of their labor not some stupid agent coming for the ride.

+1 We're about to sell a home and have three price scenarios that we would accept:
1) The market value if we list it and the buyer has their own realtor.
2) The market value minus the buyer's agent comp if the buyer doesn't have their own realtor and our agent would only take their cut their close the deal. We could pass on savings to the buyer to close the deal without affecting our bottom line).
3) Market value minus 2.5% if someone wants to buy it before we list it.

Of course we'll take as much as we can get, but there's more room to negotiate if we're only paying one agent. Realtors are trying to create this fear of conflict of interest, when in fact realtors never did act in the best interest of buyers. Buyers aren't losing anything unless they're foolish enough to sign an agreement with a buyers agent guaranteeing them a certain percentage of commission.

I’m well positioned to chime in on this one bc I’m doing scenario 2 right now. I am repping a seller at 3 percent and I gave 1.5 back to the buyer and we took it off the sales price. So I’m representing them for free. Anyway, these buyers would be so much better off with a separate buyers agent.

There are so many conflicts of interests when representing both sides of the transaction. It is no surprise to me that a lot of brokers do not even allow it. Instead of advocating for both sides, I’m basically a messenger. I’ll say “well the seller wants this, what do you want to do? You could try to ask her for this and see what she says.”

In a separate transaction, I am representing a buyer in a regular situation. We found the property off market and i’m aware of both the low range and the high range of what the seller wants. There was a $30,000 spread between them bc there is a “coming soon” about to list on the high end. My client wanted to go in full at the high end, but I encouraged her to go in at the low end. And they accepted. So right off the top I saved her $30,000 and in addition I’m giving her a massive rebate towards closing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here is the Chat GPT summary of the settlement.

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has agreed to implement several changes as part of a settlement agreement. These changes include:

1. **Compensation Requirements**: NAR will eliminate the requirement that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers. It will also prohibit the disclosure of listing broker compensation or total broker compensation on the MLS.

2. **Participation Conditions**: NAR will eliminate any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a REALTOR® MLS on offering or accepting offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

3. **Non-MLS Mechanisms**: NAR agrees not to create or support any non-MLS mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

4. **Written Agreement Requirement**: NAR will require that all REALTOR® MLS Participants working with a buyer enter into a written agreement specifying the compensation they will receive.

5. **Representation of Brokerage Services**: NAR will prohibit REALTORS® from representing to a client that their brokerage services are free unless they will receive no financial compensation.

6. **Disclosure to Sellers**: NAR will require disclosure to sellers and obtain their approval for any payment to another broker acting for buyers.

7. **Negotiability of Commissions**: NAR will require disclosure to prospective sellers and buyers that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

8. **Filtering of Listings**: NAR will require that REALTORS® must not filter out or restrict MLS listings based on the compensation offered to the buyer broker.

9. **Educational Materials**: NAR will develop materials consistent with these practice changes.

These practice changes are to be implemented as soon as practicable, no later than the date of class notice, and are intended to last for 7 years after the class notice date.

This is not quite accurate. The settlement allows for offers of compensation to continue off of the MLS. This means that while such offers cannot be communicated via MLS platforms, they can still be part of negotiations and consultations conducted OFF the MLS.

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/law-and-ethics/the-truth-about-the-nar-settlement-agreement

Not much will change, agents will just need to get creative.

You gloss over the fact that this settlement will prohibit a requirement that sellers offer compensation to the buyers agent. In a sellers market, there will be no need to make this offer, even off MLS. You say "agents will just need to be creative" - do you really mean, they will just need to apply a heavy pressure campaign to sellers in order to get them to offer compensation off-MLS? If so, this would be regarded an illegal collusive tactic that will land you back in court, or at the very least, make you famous on Youtube when someone records you trying it. Good luck. I, for one, will never pay buyers agent commissions in a sellers market again.

+1

Listing agent: My fee will be xx percent to list your house. How much are you willing to compensate a buyer's agent
Seller: Nothing
Listing agent: ok, so did you want to take 2-3 percent off the list price? (Both laugh hard)
Seller: hahaha no.
Listing agent: Ok, so we will be working with an unrepresented buyer, or the buyer will have to pay a fee to their agent, in addition to the unprecedented prices, high rates, and escalations they are already dealing with. Or I'll try to rep both of you but it's not ideal bc of the natural conflict of interests.
Seller: Yes

This is a win for buyers how exactly?

Oh realtor, you think you are so clever don't you? In the soon to be old system, the seller would pay the buyer's agent so in fact there is already a conflict of interest. The buyer's agent is acting on behalf of the seller, not the buyer. You will know how the new system will benefit buyers? The seller will be willing to consider a lower offer price. This is how it would benefit buyers (I benefited this way when we bought in DC). And even if the buyer pays the full price, it is the seller that gets to keep the profit not the agent!! Sellers should keep the fruits of their labor not some stupid agent coming for the ride.

+1 We're about to sell a home and have three price scenarios that we would accept:
1) The market value if we list it and the buyer has their own realtor.
2) The market value minus the buyer's agent comp if the buyer doesn't have their own realtor and our agent would only take their cut their close the deal. We could pass on savings to the buyer to close the deal without affecting our bottom line).
3) Market value minus 2.5% if someone wants to buy it before we list it.

Of course we'll take as much as we can get, but there's more room to negotiate if we're only paying one agent. Realtors are trying to create this fear of conflict of interest, when in fact realtors never did act in the best interest of buyers. Buyers aren't losing anything unless they're foolish enough to sign an agreement with a buyers agent guaranteeing them a certain percentage of commission.

I’m well positioned to chime in on this one bc I’m doing scenario 2 right now. I am repping a seller at 3 percent and I gave 1.5 back to the buyer and we took it off the sales price. So I’m representing them for free. Anyway, these buyers would be so much better off with a separate buyers agent.

There are so many conflicts of interests when representing both sides of the transaction. It is no surprise to me that a lot of brokers do not even allow it. Instead of advocating for both sides, I’m basically a messenger. I’ll say “well the seller wants this, what do you want to do? You could try to ask her for this and see what she says.”

In a separate transaction, I am representing a buyer in a regular situation. We found the property off market and i’m aware of both the low range and the high range of what the seller wants. There was a $30,000 spread between them bc there is a “coming soon” about to list on the high end. My client wanted to go in full at the high end, but I encouraged her to go in at the low end. And they accepted. So right off the top I saved her $30,000 and in addition I’m giving her a massive rebate towards closing.

You're not representing the buyer for free. The seller is paying you to sell their home, so this is part of the job. 99.99999% of realtors look out for themselves, not their client despite what they claim.

[Anonymous]

You are incorrect, but that’s OK. I’m just trying to share my perspective. I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I’m a part-time Real Estate Agent. I just do it because I really enjoy it. And I give huge rebates to my clients all the time both on the buy and sell side. I just wanted to share my perspective doing a dual transaction that just because the buyer MIGHT be shaving a little off the sales price it doesn’t mean that they are saving money in the short run or the long run. I continue to think that buyers are the ones who are getting burned by this. However, the buyers on this form don’t really seem to care so whatever. Just offering my perspective.

[Anonymous]

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/05/realestate/doj-realtors-nar-inquiry.html

Another DOJ investigation

[Anonymous]

Link without needing a subscription.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/realtors-association-must-face-us-justice-dept-probe-us-appeals-court-says-2024-04-05/