New Commission -3%

[Anonymous]

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

Np. I was in my 20s when I bought my first house and didn’t need any handholding. I think you all are overestimating how hard it is to buy a house.

Fwiw my real estate lawyers (who cost a whopping $1500!) were the ones who really helped me the most. And the title company.

[Anonymous]

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

Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?

1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.

- former agent

6 % is a lot but an agent living near $1,000,000 homes isn’t surviving on $100,000 a year. I’m not sure where that is a living wage anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.

It is not hard but you need to have access to contracts. Also, agents work to make a deal go through. Sellers and buyers have too much ego involved.

I’m not an agent. I’m a former seller who had a buyer who didn’t lift a finger and nickel and dimed me despite getting the 3% credited to him. I did a ton of work and when I didn’t give the buyer 6 % they bailed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It is not hard but you need to have access to contracts.

"access to contracts"? Is this a typo?

Why would a seller/buyer - with or without an attorney on retainer - need a real estate agent to access a contract? Your statement makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote: Also, agents work to make a deal go through.

Home buyers and sellers work to make a deal go through. They hire professionals to assist them, if feel they need assistance.

Anonymous wrote: Sellers and buyers have too much ego involved.

"Ego involved" meaning what? Sellers and buyers have a self-interest in getting the most financial benefit from a financial transaction? Your statement makes no sense.

Anonymous wrote: I’m not an agent. I’m a former seller who had a buyer who didn’t lift a finger and nickel and dimed me despite getting the 3% credited to him. I did a ton of work and when I didn’t give the buyer 6 % they bailed.

Your above comments don't make any sense, and your "former seller" story is too vague to provide a meaningful response.

[Anonymous]

Buyer’s agents are completely irrelevant. Anyone can look on Zillow to find the available homes, anyone can fill out the blanks in the standard pdf contract.

[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?

Where do these agents work who are quoting 3%? Our agent just quoted us 5%.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, so play that out ...

2% is 1% each.

For an agent, that might be equal to 0.44% after a 50/50 split and the 6% haircut the brokers take off the top (agents typically only get 94% of their split).

So you sell your house for $1 million. The agent now pockets $4,400 from that. Out of which they have to pay for any marketing, staging (unless you pay separately for that), and pay taxes and their own license fees etc. So maybe their net is $2,500.

But that's a million dollar house. Now do it on a $500,000 house. Now it's $1,250.

I'll let you tell me if that's a fair amount or not. I guess it depends on how many hours they spend on the sale.

I know that brokers take in a portion of commissions, as you note. What service are they providing in exchange for this revenue? Could this be another place in this process that is ripe for disruption? Maybe it isn't, I don't know -- I'm just curious.

A broker offering to take less might attract the top agents on the sell side. Wasn't Compass offering incentives to try to lure good agents a few years back?

The whole brokerage structure is ridiculous. Maybe this settlement will rattle that too and create a new industry of licensed, independent agents who work for themselves and won’t have to split their earnings with any other entity.

[Anonymous]

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

Why? They can either pay for the service they are receiving from a full service realtor or use a lower fee service and put more of their own work into the process of looking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

OK, so play that out ...

2% is 1% each.

For an agent, that might be equal to 0.44% after a 50/50 split and the 6% haircut the brokers take off the top (agents typically only get 94% of their split).

So you sell your house for $1 million. The agent now pockets $4,400 from that. Out of which they have to pay for any marketing, staging (unless you pay separately for that), and pay taxes and their own license fees etc. So maybe their net is $2,500.

But that's a million dollar house. Now do it on a $500,000 house. Now it's $1,250.

I'll let you tell me if that's a fair amount or not. I guess it depends on how many hours they spend on the sale.

I know that brokers take in a portion of commissions, as you note. What service are they providing in exchange for this revenue? Could this be another place in this process that is ripe for disruption? Maybe it isn't, I don't know -- I'm just curious.

A broker offering to take less might attract the top agents on the sell side. Wasn't Compass offering incentives to try to lure good agents a few years back?

The whole brokerage structure is ridiculous. Maybe this settlement will rattle that too and create a new industry of licensed, independent agents who work for themselves and won’t have to split their earnings with any other entity.

Listen to The Daily from yesterday. I didn’t realize what a complete racket NAR was until I heard that episode. They own the lockbox company. They own a controlling interest in Docusign. The whole real estate system is about to have a reckoning and I think brokers will also be affected. Everything is about to change, we just don’t know how it will change. I do know that there will be far fewer realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?

1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.

- former agent

6% is a lot but an agent living near $1,000,000 homes isn’t surviving on $100,000 a year. I’m not sure where that is a living wage anymore.

This seems to suggest agents will not be able to "survive" living near $1,000,000 homes.

The flaw here is assuming agents are entitled to live near $1,000,000 homes. This of course is false.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?

1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.

- former agent

6% is a lot but an agent living near $1,000,000 homes isn’t surviving on $100,000 a year. I’m not sure where that is a living wage anymore.

This seems to suggest agents will not be able to "survive" living near $1,000,000 homes.

The flaw here is assuming agents are entitled to live near $1,000,000 homes. This of course is false.

Why should I pay for agents to live near $1 million homes? I myself am struggling to pay my bills. I pay agents for a service they provide. Do they provide $10,000 worth of service for 1 month's work? I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.

I don't think you understand. First-time homebuyers have to scrape to come up with cash for down payment. Now they'll be expected to pay their buyers agents directly?

If you think this is going to cut buyer agents out of these transactions entirely, I think you're likely mistaken. Otherwise, it'll become like people trying to buy cars at dealerships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.

I don't think you understand. First-time homebuyers have to scrape to come up with cash for down payment. Now they'll be expected to pay their buyers agents directly?

If you think this is going to cut buyer agents out of these transactions entirely, I think you're likely mistaken. Otherwise, it'll become like people trying to buy cars at dealerships.

So much gloom and doom. These people scraping together down payments will have to deal with so many joys of homeownership -- plumbing issues, roof leaks, HVAC not working, appliances breaking, etc. If they can't figure out which services they need and how to pay for them, they shouldn't be buying. Renting is a very good option right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.

I don't think you understand. First-time homebuyers have to scrape to come up with cash for down payment. Now they'll be expected to pay their buyers agents directly?

If you think this is going to cut buyer agents out of these transactions entirely, I think you're likely mistaken. Otherwise, it'll become like people trying to buy cars at dealerships.

How much is the buyer's agent really worth? If it's less than the current commission, I'm sure new homebuyers won't be complaining.