Biden admin going after realtors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nice. No more 6% for those clowns.

I agree. this should have been done a long time ago. Most people find their own house. It's all online. their service is not worth 6%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

They do what they are paid to do. If you pay them to sell a house, they sell a house. If you pay them to get a high price, they will get a high price. You can give your agent a price premium commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

They do what they are paid to do. If you pay them to sell a house, they sell a house. If you pay them to get a high price, they will get a high price. You can give your agent a price premium commission.

Nice try. You’re not paying an agent to sell your house. Any fool can do that themselves in this market. You’re paying an agent for their self-marketed “expertise” and, as PP mentioned, they’re incentivized to lie to you.

[Anonymous]

I wish we could do away with buyers agents. They always make me feel rushed when viewing houses. I'd rather go through a background check/vetting process to view homes. Then arrange myself viewings with the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

Adam Smith is to Freakonomics as Thomaa Jefferson is to Donald Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

Adam Smith is to Freakonomics as Thomaa Jefferson is to Donald Trump.

I don't know what that means.

[Anonymous]

I haven’t read all of the pages here but anyone know if VA will join the NAR lawsuits?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

Adam Smith is to Freakonomics as Thomaa Jefferson is to Donald Trump.

DP. Not really, and you not liking what they say about your profession, real estate, doesn’t make it so

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

Adam Smith is to Freakonomics as Thomaa Jefferson is to Donald Trump.

I don't know what that means.

DP. Thomas Jefferson and Donald Trump are both racists and rapists so not sure what the point is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Even sellers agents really don't represent the sellers. If you ever read freakonomics, you'd see that they represent themselves, because there is an incredible incentive for them to get you to accept the first offer, because whats the difference to them if you get 1.1M or 1M, 30K vs 33K, their difference is 3K, your difference is 67K. When realtors sell their own homes they hold out longer for higher offers.

Ohhhh laudy... that's a dirty word on this forum.

Adam Smith is to Freakonomics as Thomaa Jefferson is to Donald Trump.

I don't know what that means.

DP. Thomas Jefferson and Donald Trump are both racists and rapists so not sure what the point is.

I’d definitely feel “raped” if I paid 6% to these clowns.

Buy and hold, baby. Never sell.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I bought a house 10 years ago, I had a reality. I found it myself on redfin, showed up at the open house by myself, and had a second showing with a backup agent my realtor sent in his place. The paperwork my realtor completed was repeatedly incorrect - luckily my attorney husband was able to catch/fix it. My realtor was more than happy to show up at the closing, though. Got his check!

yea, similar experience.

I found the house, and sent the link to my realtor. During negotiations, she didn't bother to call me and tell me what the counter was, and if we wanted to bump up our offer. I had to call her six hours later to ask her what was going on with the negotiations. So, I told her to bump it up, and then they accepted.

I did all the leg work on that house. The realtor for the second house we bought earned her paycheck, though.

We had another house we were trying to sell, and the guy was a complete waste. We had zero interest in 2 years. Finally got a new guy, and we started seeing some requests.

DH didn't want to find a new agent to sell the house because the same guy helped him buy the house. I was like.. "no, we need to find a new realtor". Don't stick with people who aren't doing the work for you.

Same happened to me. I’m addition I learned my realtor worked with the sellers realtor to up the price beyond what the home was valued at. I had a bottom line price and it turned out both realtors were colluding. I exited the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:When I bought a house 10 years ago, I had a reality. I found it myself on redfin, showed up at the open house by myself, and had a second showing with a backup agent my realtor sent in his place. The paperwork my realtor completed was repeatedly incorrect - luckily my attorney husband was able to catch/fix it. My realtor was more than happy to show up at the closing, though. Got his check!

yea, similar experience.

I found the house, and sent the link to my realtor. During negotiations, she didn't bother to call me and tell me what the counter was, and if we wanted to bump up our offer. I had to call her six hours later to ask her what was going on with the negotiations. So, I told her to bump it up, and then they accepted.

I did all the leg work on that house. The realtor for the second house we bought earned her paycheck, though.

We had another house we were trying to sell, and the guy was a complete waste. We had zero interest in 2 years. Finally got a new guy, and we started seeing some requests.

DH didn't want to find a new agent to sell the house because the same guy helped him buy the house. I was like.. "no, we need to find a new realtor". Don't stick with people who aren't doing the work for you.

Same happened to me. I’m addition I learned my realtor worked with the sellers realtor to up the price beyond what the home was valued at. I had a bottom line price and it turned out both realtors were colluding. I exited the market.

Recalling the "reputation" arguments:

Like any other profession, a real estate agent's long term prosperity is tied to their professional reputation. Therefore, doing a good job for their clients is an important part of what the agent needs to do. Therefore, an agent will want to take the factors you outlined above into account on their client's behalf. Are there bad agents/bad apples out there? Of course.
previous poster

The above is why reputation alone is insufficient, and transparent price competition matters. Schemes like the buyer broker commission protect bad agents/bad apples; they have no reputation incentive. The good agents/ good apples are incentivized by reputation, but are further incentivized by unconstrained price competition.

Thus eliminating NAR schemes like the buyer broker commission is a win-win for consumers.

For bad agents, this is a lose-lose. For good agents, time will tell. If the fair market outcome is a loss for some good agents, find a new income source.