New Commission -3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the spring/early summer housing market will seize up now that sellers will know they can save money by waiting until July.

The industry practices will have to change, but the settlement, if approved, won’t necessarily get rid of commission sharing. The buyer agent promised commission just cannot be promised through the MLS platform anymore. It can and likely will take place off-platform in some new shape or form.

Per the local MLS:
“ What’s changing (late this year, if the settlement is approved):

While MLS subscribers will continue to be able to offer to share their compensation with a buyer’s broker, no longer would that be allowed in the MLS (effective July 2024). Instead, those offers of compensation could still be made, albeit only through separate negotiation, as needed (like commercial brokers do today).
And a new option will be added: A seller's agent will be able to enter into the MLS whether and what their seller client is willing to offer as a concession in the price, such as “$x towards a new roof and x% towards closing costs.”
MLS subscribers WILL NOT be allowed to put a specific amount of buyer-broker compensation in the concession field. More to come on this point in the coming weeks.”

Yeah, but why would I as a seller want to offer anything to the buyers agent, especially in a tight-supply market like we have now? Are you saying sellers agents would refuse to work with anyone who does not commit to making an "off-MLS" deal to provide compensation to buyers agents? Seems like that would violate the settlement agreement, and will land NAR and all sellers agents who engage in the practice back in court. It's still collusion to create a floor on compensation. Since buyers agents must also as of July sign written agreements with their buyers that spells out compensation up front, anything that makes the seller responsible is going to get brokerages and agents sued again.

Buyers' agents have always had to sign a contract with their clients regarding how they will be compensated. This is not new.

LOL, right… it buyers don’t focus on it because seller has been paying. So, now buyers are going to scrutinize that fee or commission and many will refuse to agree. And they will find a buyers agent who will charge less, because it will be illegal for buyers agents to collude to hold minimum fees or commissions as a standard.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

This is not a problem actually. Why would anyone be concerned about what is best for sellers in this economy? The situation now where all buyers in packs compete for the same homes doesn't benefit buyers.

Yeah I like how the cartel supporters are throwing out these complicated hypothetical outcomes, in order to support the status quo. As if the minor transition costs outweigh literal price fixing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

This is not a problem actually. Why would anyone be concerned about what is best for sellers in this economy? The situation now where all buyers in packs compete for the same homes doesn't benefit buyers.

Yeah I like how the cartel supporters are throwing out these complicated hypothetical outcomes, in order to support the status quo. As if the minor transition costs outweigh literal price fixing

lol. We shall see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

4% is pretty standard even now.

[Anonymous]

I paid a one time fee for my real estate attorney when I bought my home. IMO he (and his firm) did more work than my realtor and my realtor made A LOT more money. I thought the attorney was cheap after the realtor fees and closing costs. I found the homes, went to open houses and showings, etc. At least she was at the closing!

I have friends who had buyer agents get them into pocket listings and one friend had an agent get them into a house that was not even a pocket listen yet. Both those friends ended up purchasing the exclusive homes, so it worked for them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

4% is pretty standard even now.

Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

Sellers should price honestly and shouldn't be afraid of things like inspection contingencies. If sellers start engaging in more honest behavior because the field of buyers is smaller, that's a good thing. It's crazy that you think someone writing 8 offers and spending $5k on preinspections with nothing to show for it is a sign that agents are doing a good job.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

4% is pretty standard even now.

Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.

Or offer 2% to the sellers agent and 0% to the buyers agent. At current prices, that’s a lot of money already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

4% is pretty standard even now.

Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.

It's not fear of the agent, it's fear of not living according to societal norms. I tip 20% because society expects me to, even though I hate the tipping system and am unafraid of the waiter.

I don't like it, but I'm too chicken to be an iconoclast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

4% is pretty standard even now.

Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.

It's not fear of the agent, it's fear of not living according to societal norms. I tip 20% because society expects me to, even though I hate the tipping system and am unafraid of the waiter.

I don't like it, but I'm too chicken to be an iconoclast.

In this case, the societal norm is one that has been adjudicated to be an illegal price fixing scheme. So feel free to feel no fear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

Sellers should price honestly and shouldn't be afraid of things like inspection contingencies. If sellers start engaging in more honest behavior because the field of buyers is smaller, that's a good thing. It's crazy that you think someone writing 8 offers and spending $5k on preinspections with nothing to show for it is a sign that agents are doing a good job.

It's not a sign that the agent is doing a bad job necessarily. It's a sign of the market. If you had any idea what is going on in the current market, you would never write such a ridiculous comment.

[Anonymous]

I think it will incentivize buyers - especially those who are self-driven and/or have purchased before - to not even bother with a buyers' agent. It's not hard to write an offer and submit the required documentation to the seller's agent. It will just be another contingency to waive to make your offer more appealing - "Buyers' Agent Fee: $0"

There will be an online software package for your jurisdiction to write your own offer for $25 a pop. It will have all the contingencies listed and you can fill them out yourself - price, escalation, inspection, financing, buyers' agent fee, home sale, condo doc review, closing period, rentback, drapes & sconces & mature plants included in the sale, etc.

Now, I bet some shady sellers' agents will try to avoid presenting un-represented buyers' offers. There will be another round of lawsuits. The collusion between buyers' and sellers' agents will become much more informal and localized. No way in hell are agents giving up half their income base.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

Sellers should price honestly and shouldn't be afraid of things like inspection contingencies. If sellers start engaging in more honest behavior because the field of buyers is smaller, that's a good thing. It's crazy that you think someone writing 8 offers and spending $5k on preinspections with nothing to show for it is a sign that agents are doing a good job.

It's not a sign that the agent is doing a bad job necessarily. It's a sign of the market. If you had any idea what is going on in the current market, you would never write such a ridiculous comment.

You missed my point. It's a sign that sellers' agents are awful because they encourage underpricing, and they know that there are ample buyers' agents who will get their clients to play along. Even in a hot market, I don't believe this will happen to the same extent after commission-fixing stops.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

Sellers should price honestly and shouldn't be afraid of things like inspection contingencies. If sellers start engaging in more honest behavior because the field of buyers is smaller, that's a good thing. It's crazy that you think someone writing 8 offers and spending $5k on preinspections with nothing to show for it is a sign that agents are doing a good job.

It's not a sign that the agent is doing a bad job necessarily. It's a sign of the market. If you had any idea what is going on in the current market, you would never write such a ridiculous comment.

You missed my point. It's a sign that sellers' agents are awful because they encourage underpricing, and they know that there are ample buyers' agents who will get their clients to play along. Even in a hot market, I don't believe this will happen to the same extent after commission-fixing stops.

Your generalizations are just pure speculation. Some sellers' agents underprice and some do not. I just priced a home where it should be priced, not under, and it still received multiple offers and escalated almost 20 percent over ask with no contingencies. Excellent offers are losing right now, not because of the agents, but bc of the state of the housing market. Your point is illogical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How much money do realtors stand to lose now? I seem to know a few realtors in this area who have been making good money for years and it seems their income will be drastically cut

My Facebook friend is a real estate agent in McLean and she has got to be making some plans to adjust their lifestyle. Sold or represented the buyer in over 50 McLean homes in the past 2 years with her team, so some serious cash.

I hope all these real estate agents have been saving. I feel bad for them and hope they can get some retraining.