Biden admin going after realtors!

[Anonymous]

Hope it addresses the ridiculous nyc brokers fee for renting apartment. Talk abt getting paid for doing nothing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Uh, so, if we bought a house recently where commission was 6% would be be part of the class?

I realize sellers pay commission, but the price is impacted by that commission.

You paid 6%? Bwahahahaha!! Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:GOOD. Realtors are over paid for doing almost nothing in this market. Most never even went to college and just studied and took the state test.

Only 8% of realtors never went to college.
https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/quick-real-estate-statistics

But only about half (31+12+6) graduated from college. From your own link:

Some college: 30%
Bachelor's degree: 31%
Graduate degree and above: 12%
Associate degree: 12%
Some graduate school: 6%
High-school graduate: 8%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is very needed. Other countries don’t have realtors that take 6%. I think there’s so many ways to reform this. In my mind, buyers should have to pay for it and it shouldn’t be allowed to roll into their mortgage. After all, you can’t roll moving costs into your mortgage.

Except they won't. So buyers will be unrepresented. This shit show is never going to happen so all of you agent haters can go pound sand.

You do know in many states like NY buyer and seller are required to have a lawyer. Real estate agents do not write up offers. NY calls that practicing law without a license. In NY realtors literally just get buyer. The lawyers do the work,

Spoken like a true idiot lawyer. The reason that top salespeople in all industries are among the highest-paid members of society is that "just getting buyers" is what makes the world go round. Filling out some nonsense paperwork that is the same in 99 cases out of 100 is in no way the "real work."

Except sellers no longer need you to "just get them buyers." I can go on Redfin to find the houses I want and make a short list. I don't need you to drive me around in your Mercedes for that. Your "just getting" me as a buyer means, basically, that you're going to send an associate to open the door, tell us things about the schools that we've already sourced online, and utter platitudes about the kitchen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only thing that will happen if you untie the two fees is that buyers will lose free representation, and sellers will keep 2-3 percent more profit.

Sellers could take a lower price because their net would be higher. A lot of deals fall apart because the buyer and seller can't agree to price. Changing the realtor fees to 2% would get them 2-3% closer than the current 4-5% commissions.

[Anonymous]

You paid 6%? Bwahahahaha!! Idiot.

What did you pay?

The standard 5%?

In Canada, Australia, UK they pay half that.

Idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.

Do it however you want to do it. I use Redfin but still want an agent. Some people find other solutions that work for them. There is no monopoly here. You can make other choices.

The case isn't a monopolization case. It is basically price fixing. I am an antitrust lawyer who works on cases similar to this, and I think it is a strong case, though difficult in a lot of ways.

You’re quoting me. And that’s exactly the problem. There isn’t price-fixing.

For comparison, look at the recent au pair case. While au pairs could in theory always negotiate wages, agencies discouraged it, so there was an anti-competitive result.

In contrast, there truly is no price fixing at 6%. That’s common but hardly overwhelmingly common, with negotiation and competition.

So yes. This is why I passed on a very similar case. It’s just… not strong at all.

I hope you're not an antitrust lawyer because you don't understand antitrust laws. The fact that the buyer can still negotiate doesn't mean there is no price fixing. In essentially every single price fixing case, there is negotiation. Big buyers purchasing from a cartel always negotiate better prices than small buyers purchasing from a cartel. The key though is that the starting point of the negotiations is artificially high because of the agreement. That's precisely the case here. I think the case looks pretty strong. At least one of the class cases has already made it through class certification with a nationwide, or at least multicity class (I haven't checked the details), which appears to be difficult here because of inherently regionalized nature of real estate. But I think the principle that the starting point is artificially inflated by the agreement among the realtors comes into play there too.

Anyway, I think it appears to be a fairly strong case. Unlike a lot of cartel cases, here the agreement is out in the open, not concealed. I assume the plaintiffs have hired experts who have shown price effects. Not sure what the strongest defenses are, frankly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I think a good test case is the new construction industry. Because it is an industry where many buyers are already unrepresented. And speaking firsthand, you should see some of the horrible stuff builders get away with with unrepresented buyers or buyers represented by agents who are not knowledgeable about new construction.

In a new construction transaction in the DC area, if a buyer brings an agent to the transaction, the builder pays the commission for the Agent. Many times the agent is even able to offer a rebate to the buyer. Meanwhile, the builders around here, do not generally offer concessions to this buyers were not represented by agents.

I’m sure builders would absolutely love to do away with the model where the seller pays the buyers agent. So basically, the only buyers, who will bring real estate agents to the table are those buyers who can afford to bring real estate agents to the table. And unfortunately, those are the people who probably least need a real estate agent.

Do you really think that a builder is going to cut their sale price by two or 3%? They will not. They will price at the absolute highest at the market can bear. So, same sales price for them, higher profit because they are not paying agents. And buyer sees no benefit and has no representation unless they are willing to pay for it as they go.

I think the problem is the overall analysis assumes that it is due to agent fees that home sales prices are inflated. But really, all the commission does is take money out of the sellers net profits. There is not a one for one correlation between agent fees and Home prices. You can see it in the industry today. For sale by owners always insist on the comparable price. Are you really going to list your home as a for sale by owner and price at 3% less because you don’t have an agent? No, you’re obviously not. You’re going to list it at the highest comparable price and probably still insist that you are not going to pay the buyers agent.

This whole thing would be great for sellers, not good for homebuyers though

What is meant by “overall analysis”, “this whole thing”? The pending NAR lawsuits and anti-trust action by the DOJ/FTC, I assume. Your post does not specify exactly.

[E]specially homebuyers who are first timers, and do not know much about the process and don’t have cash on hand to hire an agent.

Your overall concern seems to be the outcome that anti-trust litigation – prohibiting realtor fee “tying”, “steering” regulation, etc.. - will have on builders of homes and some buyers of new construction, buyers who require agents but cannot afford their services.

But if the current real estate practices violate anti-trust law, is the remedy to ignore regulations designed to promote competition and drive down consumer prices because the prosperity of the building industry depends on them being ignored? ( No if you are pro-consumer and pro-rule-of-law; Yes if you are pro-building industry )

The subset of buyers who require buying agents but cannot afford them will choose more affordable living alternatives. That mat not be ideal for the building industry, but that is a them problem; I’m confident the US construction industry would adjust to equilibrium and substitution effects.


Many countries do not have the real estate arrangements presently under scrutiny in the United States. As I understand, they build homes. They buy and sell homes, often at roughly half the commission cost. Those who cannot afford to purchase a home have the option to lease.

I don't think the outcome of the litigation is necessarily that buyer's agents will no longer be paid from seller's agents. It could be that the structure of the arrangement stays the same but the percentages are lower. My guess is that realtors will come up with more ways to compete if they aren't allowed to prevent competition as they've been doing.

[Anonymous]

This is how realtors compete: know what you are doing, work very hard, get a good reputation, and make people realize your value.

I'd say 90% of the agents with whom I deal are more worried about getting to a spin class or taking a nap than actually working.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is how realtors compete: know what you are doing, work very hard, get a good reputation, and make people realize your value.

I'd say 90% of the agents with whom I deal are more worried about getting to a spin class or taking a nap than actually working.

They should compete on price, too. Maybe you'll take a less experienced realtor in exchange for a different pay structure. And maybe that competition would cause a lot of more experienced ones to lower their rates or figure out other ways of getting paid to compete.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how realtors compete: know what you are doing, work very hard, get a good reputation, and make people realize your value.

I'd say 90% of the agents with whom I deal are more worried about getting to a spin class or taking a nap than actually working.

They should compete on price, too. Maybe you'll take a less experienced realtor in exchange for a different pay structure. And maybe that competition would cause a lot of more experienced ones to lower their rates or figure out other ways of getting paid to compete.

They already do this. You think that Redfin agent has the experience and network of the high grossing agents? Also many new agents cut fees to get business and many experienced agents do as well.

As an agent we have to take training on anticompetitive practices. I never say “the typical commission is”. I say “my fee is…” and many times I’m asked lower it, and sometimes I do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how realtors compete: know what you are doing, work very hard, get a good reputation, and make people realize your value.

I'd say 90% of the agents with whom I deal are more worried about getting to a spin class or taking a nap than actually working.

They should compete on price, too. Maybe you'll take a less experienced realtor in exchange for a different pay structure. And maybe that competition would cause a lot of more experienced ones to lower their rates or figure out other ways of getting paid to compete.

They already do this. You think that Redfin agent has the experience and network of the high grossing agents? Also many new agents cut fees to get business and many experienced agents do as well.

As an agent we have to take training on anticompetitive practices. I never say “the typical commission is”. I say “my fee is…” and many times I’m asked lower it, and sometimes I do.

How about not spending $80 million per on lobbying for about 10 years (5 cycles). It will save you dues and really open things up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is how realtors compete: know what you are doing, work very hard, get a good reputation, and make people realize your value.

I'd say 90% of the agents with whom I deal are more worried about getting to a spin class or taking a nap than actually working.

They should compete on price, too. Maybe you'll take a less experienced realtor in exchange for a different pay structure. And maybe that competition would cause a lot of more experienced ones to lower their rates or figure out other ways of getting paid to compete.

They already do this. You think that Redfin agent has the experience and network of the high grossing agents? Also many new agents cut fees to get business and many experienced agents do as well.

As an agent we have to take training on anticompetitive practices. I never say “the typical commission is”. I say “my fee is…” and many times I’m asked lower it, and sometimes I do.

The issue (from an antitrust perspective) is an agreement among realtors who should be competing to a standard commission that is the starting point of any negotiations. Whether non-NAR agents operate differently, and whether NAR agents bargain occasionally, is not really a defense. My guess is that when you say "my fee", you are giving the 6% figure that is standard, and that any negotiations lower proceed from there. That's the issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.

Do it however you want to do it. I use Redfin but still want an agent. Some people find other solutions that work for them. There is no monopoly here. You can make other choices.

The case isn't a monopolization case. It is basically price fixing. I am an antitrust lawyer who works on cases similar to this, and I think it is a strong case, though difficult in a lot of ways.

You’re quoting me. And that’s exactly the problem. There isn’t price-fixing.

For comparison, look at the recent au pair case. While au pairs could in theory always negotiate wages, agencies discouraged it, so there was an anti-competitive result.

In contrast, there truly is no price fixing at 6%. That’s common but hardly overwhelmingly common, with negotiation and competition.

So yes. This is why I passed on a very similar case. It’s just… not strong at all.

I hope you're not an antitrust lawyer because you don't understand antitrust laws. The fact that the buyer can still negotiate doesn't mean there is no price fixing. In essentially every single price fixing case, there is negotiation. Big buyers purchasing from a cartel always negotiate better prices than small buyers purchasing from a cartel. The key though is that the starting point of the negotiations is artificially high because of the agreement. That's precisely the case here. I think the case looks pretty strong. At least one of the class cases has already made it through class certification with a nationwide, or at least multicity class (I haven't checked the details), which appears to be difficult here because of inherently regionalized nature of real estate. But I think the principle that the starting point is artificially inflated by the agreement among the realtors comes into play there too.

Anyway, I think it appears to be a fairly strong case. Unlike a lot of cartel cases, here the agreement is out in the open, not concealed. I assume the plaintiffs have hired experts who have shown price effects. Not sure what the strongest defenses are, frankly.

+1

The defense we're given is a canard.

Buyer broker commission rule defenders argue - here and elsewhere - the practice is needed to subsidize buyers that need and cannot afford agents. Well, the practice subsidies ALL buyers, not just the purported subset. If we want to subsidize buyers who need and cannot afford agents, fine, let's subsidize them. Let's subsidize them - and only them - in a economically sensical way that conforms to anti-trust law. That is not their intent, so that is not what they discuss.

It's a bad faith canard to argue the seller commission is necessary to subsidize low income buyers. It is a subsidy for buyer agents.

Accordingly, are also told this will also be bad for buyer agents, "this" meaning enforcing anti-trust law. Find a new job. It's not our problem you earn a living from an artificial position owing its existence to a cartel. Find a real job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:GOOD. Realtors are over paid for doing almost nothing in this market. Most never even went to college and just studied and took the state test.

As if "going to college" even means anything. Truthfully unless you're going to be a doctor, lawyer, or engineer - ya don't need to go to college. You need common sense and critical thinking skills to get through life. That piece of paper means nothing. NOTHING!