New Commission -3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agree, but fortunately they will be in a white hot spotlight for some time to come, and everyone has a recording device in their pockets to capture the underhanded tactics. DOJ is still not done with them yet either. It really is over for the high commissions and for buyers agents.

Maybe if agents stopped paying dues, NAR would not have the resources to carry out the repeated schemes to screw people.

While not all agents are directly the problem, shouldn't agents be taken to task as an indirect matter - for funding an organization that extorts money for home buyers and sellers?

That's like acting Congress to vote on their own term-limits. Never going to happen.

Allow me to restate and clarify:

Shouldn't consumers - home buyers and sellers take agents to task; meaning, any an all agents who fund an organization (NAR) that extorts money for home buyers and sellers?

They did, and they won the lawsuit, and the cartel is now legally broken. Huzzah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's so great seeing the destruction of the illegal real estate commission scheme. Agents in the dmv have made hundreds of millions from sellers from the 5-6% scheme. You wonder when someone will file a class action against the top 200-300 realtors themselves in the dmv and their brokers, eg, Sotheby's, WFP, Long & Foster.

Agents themselves are accountable in the court of public opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, I bet some shady sellers' agents will try to avoid presenting un-represented buyers' offers"

Why would an agent NOT present an offer from an unrepresented buyer? What would be their motivation to do that?

NP it creates ethical considerations (yes, believe it or not, there are ethics, even regulations governing real estate agents). Dual agency, etc.

Moreover, it creates more work for THEM if they have to handle both the buyer and the seller. There will be even less incentive to do that now.

What ethical consideration are you talking about? The agent has an ethical obligation to present all offers. The listing agent does not have an obligation to to write an offer for an unrepresented buyer though. Depending upon the state, in some cases the agent cannot represent a buyer and can only do ministerial acts.

Do you really not understand how dual agency creates ethical issues? How one agent can't really represent both sides in a transaction?

https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/dual-agency

No shit. The initial post I made asked why a listing agent would not present an unrepreseted buyer's offer to the sellers. It had nothing to do with dual agency.

Realtor to realtor: "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Would likely prefer to sell to a buyer with an agent in order to (1) lessen the work for the sellers' agent in hand-holding the buyer and (2) keep money flowing to the buy-side agent ecosystem. Every agent who sells is also an agent who is buying for another client. To the extent you can promote the norm of buy-side agent fees, the better it is for all parties.

It's similar to agents who steer clients away from Redfin properties or Redfin buyers. You don't promote someone who wants to disrupt the model through lower fees.

LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

Oh, just like agents don't have a long and sordid history promote redlining, in spite of the law? True.
Oh, just like agents are not supposed to steer clients to homes with higher buyer agent fees? True.

Agents are "supposed to" do a lot of things. What we do know with certainty is that agents do what is best for their own p,ockets in spite of whatever laws or NAR ethics code is in place. Dual agency happens all the time, in spite of the well-known ethical issues.

We don't know how things are going to shake out, post-NAR settlement. But I can guarantee that agents will do what is best for their pocket book and their industry. Agents are not giving up half their commissions - buyers' agent fees - without a (likely underhanded) fight.

It's shocking how these agents / agent-apologists either don't know or don't care how badly their industry abuses their clients.

There is absolutely no data to show that agents do what is best for their "own pockets" despite the allegations. Give me one study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

You are factually and empirically wrong.

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BBLJ-ONLINE-Nadel-.pdf
https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2021/anticompetition-buying-selling-homes
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20160214
https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files3/a434d892077e6f98695d2855e1e3fc91.pdf

Just because a house with a lower buyer agent commission takes longer to sell does NOT mean that agents are steering their buyers from those properties. It is weak correlational data and not scientific. There are so many other explanantions for that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Looking to sell my house in Fairfax. It is $1M+ and spoke with a few agents. I have been quoted 3% total commission for buyer and seller agent by 4 different relators. I mean it's great but is this the trend anyone else is seeing as well?

1.75 % to 2 %, total.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, I bet some shady sellers' agents will try to avoid presenting un-represented buyers' offers"

Why would an agent NOT present an offer from an unrepresented buyer? What would be their motivation to do that?

NP it creates ethical considerations (yes, believe it or not, there are ethics, even regulations governing real estate agents). Dual agency, etc.

Moreover, it creates more work for THEM if they have to handle both the buyer and the seller. There will be even less incentive to do that now.

What ethical consideration are you talking about? The agent has an ethical obligation to present all offers. The listing agent does not have an obligation to to write an offer for an unrepresented buyer though. Depending upon the state, in some cases the agent cannot represent a buyer and can only do ministerial acts.

Do you really not understand how dual agency creates ethical issues? How one agent can't really represent both sides in a transaction?

https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/dual-agency

No shit. The initial post I made asked why a listing agent would not present an unrepreseted buyer's offer to the sellers. It had nothing to do with dual agency.

Realtor to realtor: "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Would likely prefer to sell to a buyer with an agent in order to (1) lessen the work for the sellers' agent in hand-holding the buyer and (2) keep money flowing to the buy-side agent ecosystem. Every agent who sells is also an agent who is buying for another client. To the extent you can promote the norm of buy-side agent fees, the better it is for all parties.

It's similar to agents who steer clients away from Redfin properties or Redfin buyers. You don't promote someone who wants to disrupt the model through lower fees.

LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

Oh, just like agents don't have a long and sordid history promote redlining, in spite of the law? True.
Oh, just like agents are not supposed to steer clients to homes with higher buyer agent fees? True.

Agents are "supposed to" do a lot of things. What we do know with certainty is that agents do what is best for their own p,ockets in spite of whatever laws or NAR ethics code is in place. Dual agency happens all the time, in spite of the well-known ethical issues.

We don't know how things are going to shake out, post-NAR settlement. But I can guarantee that agents will do what is best for their pocket book and their industry. Agents are not giving up half their commissions - buyers' agent fees - without a (likely underhanded) fight.

It's shocking how these agents / agent-apologists either don't know or don't care how badly their industry abuses their clients.

There is absolutely no data to show that agents do what is best for their "own pockets" despite the allegations. Give me one study.

You quoted me. I claimed that the industry agents defend "abuses their clients". There is evidence and lawsuits to support this.

But since you want to focus on agents themselves working against the interests of consumers to their own benefit, here is "one study":

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1.pdf
"Competition in the Real Estate Brokerage Industry: A Report by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice"

For context, price competition brings down prices for consumers, and - it necessarily follows - "money in pockets" for agents. Therefore, agents opposing price competition are doing whats best for there "own pockets". The statements from these agents leave no doubt:

During the course of the investigation, DOJ found evidence that brokers wanted to restrict rebates because they understood that rebates are a form of price competition. As noted in the Complaint, in response to a survey asking brokers whether the Kentucky Real Estate Commission should retain the rebate ban, one broker predicted “[I]f we give rebates and inducements, it would get out of control and all clients would be wanting something. The present law keeps it under control.”247 Another broker predicted: “This [lifting the rebate ban] would turn into a bidding war, lessen our profits and cheapen our ‘so-called’ profession.” Another broker observed: “If inducements were allowed, they could lead to competitive behavior, which would make us look unprofessional in the eyes of the public.”

I repeat: It's shocking how you - an agent apologist - either don't know or don't care how badly the industry abuses clients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

You are factually and empirically wrong.

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/BBLJ-ONLINE-Nadel-.pdf
https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2021/anticompetition-buying-selling-homes
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/app.20160214
https://dl.icdst.org/pdfs/files3/a434d892077e6f98695d2855e1e3fc91.pdf

Just because a house with a lower buyer agent commission takes longer to sell does NOT mean that agents are steering their buyers from those properties. It is weak correlational data and not scientific. There are so many other explanantions for that.

Provide the research, studies or data to support your comment. If you can dismiss studies with assertions (with a persuasive, capitalized NOT), your assertions can be dismissed in the same fashion.


Here's a Canadian sting operation with the same market conditions, confirming the studies provided.

"To test if Joanne's house was indeed being snubbed by agents avoiding the low commission, producers from Marketplace posed as homebuyers looking to purchase a home just like hers and in the same neighbourhood.
...
Marketplace's test found that two out of the three agents steered the potential buyers away from Joanne's home."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/marketplace-real-estate-agents-1.6209706

[Anonymous]

The ship be sinkin'!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The ship be sinkin'!!

The ship ain't sinkin'! Mark my words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, I bet some shady sellers' agents will try to avoid presenting un-represented buyers' offers"

Why would an agent NOT present an offer from an unrepresented buyer? What would be their motivation to do that?

NP it creates ethical considerations (yes, believe it or not, there are ethics, even regulations governing real estate agents). Dual agency, etc.

Moreover, it creates more work for THEM if they have to handle both the buyer and the seller. There will be even less incentive to do that now.

What ethical consideration are you talking about? The agent has an ethical obligation to present all offers. The listing agent does not have an obligation to to write an offer for an unrepresented buyer though. Depending upon the state, in some cases the agent cannot represent a buyer and can only do ministerial acts.

Do you really not understand how dual agency creates ethical issues? How one agent can't really represent both sides in a transaction?

https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/dual-agency

No shit. The initial post I made asked why a listing agent would not present an unrepreseted buyer's offer to the sellers. It had nothing to do with dual agency.

Realtor to realtor: "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Would likely prefer to sell to a buyer with an agent in order to (1) lessen the work for the sellers' agent in hand-holding the buyer and (2) keep money flowing to the buy-side agent ecosystem. Every agent who sells is also an agent who is buying for another client. To the extent you can promote the norm of buy-side agent fees, the better it is for all parties.

It's similar to agents who steer clients away from Redfin properties or Redfin buyers. You don't promote someone who wants to disrupt the model through lower fees.

LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

Oh, just like agents don't have a long and sordid history promote redlining, in spite of the law? True.
Oh, just like agents are not supposed to steer clients to homes with higher buyer agent fees? True.

Agents are "supposed to" do a lot of things. What we do know with certainty is that agents do what is best for their own p,ockets in spite of whatever laws or NAR ethics code is in place. Dual agency happens all the time, in spite of the well-known ethical issues.

We don't know how things are going to shake out, post-NAR settlement. But I can guarantee that agents will do what is best for their pocket book and their industry. Agents are not giving up half their commissions - buyers' agent fees - without a (likely underhanded) fight.

It's shocking how these agents / agent-apologists either don't know or don't care how badly their industry abuses their clients.

There is absolutely no data to show that agents do what is best for their "own pockets" despite the allegations. Give me one study.

pp probably read Freakonomics and confuses it with insight.

[Anonymous]

This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The ship be sinkin'!!

The ship ain't sinkin'! Mark my words.

This you?

"My guess it’s [the Burnett lawsuit] gonna fail. The industry is very careful to make sure it doesn’t appear to collude.

Manage your expectations."

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/15/1162658.page#26010490

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.

Boomer sellers don't have to pay the buyers' agent when they unload their properties. Millennials will need to pony up more money to close.

Boomers just keep winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
"Now, I bet some shady sellers' agents will try to avoid presenting un-represented buyers' offers"

Why would an agent NOT present an offer from an unrepresented buyer? What would be their motivation to do that?

NP it creates ethical considerations (yes, believe it or not, there are ethics, even regulations governing real estate agents). Dual agency, etc.

Moreover, it creates more work for THEM if they have to handle both the buyer and the seller. There will be even less incentive to do that now.

What ethical consideration are you talking about? The agent has an ethical obligation to present all offers. The listing agent does not have an obligation to to write an offer for an unrepresented buyer though. Depending upon the state, in some cases the agent cannot represent a buyer and can only do ministerial acts.

Do you really not understand how dual agency creates ethical issues? How one agent can't really represent both sides in a transaction?

https://www.rockethomes.com/blog/home-buying/dual-agency

No shit. The initial post I made asked why a listing agent would not present an unrepreseted buyer's offer to the sellers. It had nothing to do with dual agency.

Realtor to realtor: "Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours."
Would likely prefer to sell to a buyer with an agent in order to (1) lessen the work for the sellers' agent in hand-holding the buyer and (2) keep money flowing to the buy-side agent ecosystem. Every agent who sells is also an agent who is buying for another client. To the extent you can promote the norm of buy-side agent fees, the better it is for all parties.

It's similar to agents who steer clients away from Redfin properties or Redfin buyers. You don't promote someone who wants to disrupt the model through lower fees.

LOL. You are totally clueless. The listing agent has to present all offers to the sellers and your hypotheses are nothing more than uneducated speculation. Agents steer clients away from Redfin properties? False. Listing agents having to hand hold unrepresented buyers, false. Every listing agent is also a buyer's agent, false. Promoting the norm of buy-side agent fees, wrong. Nice try dude but you have no idea what you are talking about as is true of 90% of people on this site. Kind of like the post where no one could figure out what a cash buyer is. SMDH.

Oh, just like agents don't have a long and sordid history promote redlining, in spite of the law? True.
Oh, just like agents are not supposed to steer clients to homes with higher buyer agent fees? True.

Agents are "supposed to" do a lot of things. What we do know with certainty is that agents do what is best for their own p,ockets in spite of whatever laws or NAR ethics code is in place. Dual agency happens all the time, in spite of the well-known ethical issues.

We don't know how things are going to shake out, post-NAR settlement. But I can guarantee that agents will do what is best for their pocket book and their industry. Agents are not giving up half their commissions - buyers' agent fees - without a (likely underhanded) fight.

It's shocking how these agents / agent-apologists either don't know or don't care how badly their industry abuses their clients.

There is absolutely no data to show that agents do what is best for their "own pockets" despite the allegations. Give me one study.

pp probably read Freakonomics and confuses it with insight.

PP here.

No. I read the Federal Trade Commission report I cited in my response.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Looking to sell my house in Fairfax. It is $1M+ and spoke with a few agents. I have been quoted 3% total commission for buyer and seller agent by 4 different relators. I mean it's great but is this the trend anyone else is seeing as well?

1.75 % to 2 %, total.

I can’t believe this is standard. I just looked through MLS listing and most buyers agent commission is that or more.