New Commission -3%

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

What if there is more than one unrepresented buyer?

How would this make any difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

Yes- but what if that agent is favoring some buyers over others? What if they are too busy to show the house to everyone?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

Yes- but what if that agent is favoring some buyers over others? What if they are too busy to show the house to everyone?

Then they are opening themselves to massive liability and putting their license at risk if a seller ever finds out that better bids aren't being presented

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

Yes- but what if that agent is favoring some buyers over others? What if they are too busy to show the house to everyone?

Then they are opening themselves to massive liability and putting their license at risk if a seller ever finds out that better bids aren't being presented

+1 There are some realtor cartel apologists on this board trying to scare people with non-issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

Exactly. Totally normal in a competitive market. You can choose what level of service you want and it's priced accordingly. As it should be, but yeah will probably take a few years for everything to shake out as everyone involved figures out their niche and buyers get used to it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

Exactly. Totally normal in a competitive market. You can choose what level of service you want and it's priced accordingly. As it should be, but yeah will probably take a few years for everything to shake out as everyone involved figures out their niche and buyers get used to it.

I think the model will vary greatly based on how competitive the target area and home type is.

If I’m a buyer looking for a SFH in a competitive Arlington neighborhood, a full service buyers agent may be worth the investment, and my home search with them could take 9 months to find the right property.

If I’m buying a 10 year old condo in Clarendon (which are selling somewhat slowly and not highly competitive right now) and it’s my second time buying, I may be fine paying a lower flat fee to tour and submit an offer. The whole process may only take a month or two.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

Exactly. Totally normal in a competitive market. You can choose what level of service you want and it's priced accordingly. As it should be, but yeah will probably take a few years for everything to shake out as everyone involved figures out their niche and buyers get used to it.

I would be fine with that. We live in a desirable area that has always had very low inventory. Staging and professional photos are not necessary to get multiple offers if the house is priced competitively.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

Exactly. Totally normal in a competitive market. You can choose what level of service you want and it's priced accordingly. As it should be, but yeah will probably take a few years for everything to shake out as everyone involved figures out their niche and buyers get used to it.

I would be fine with that. We live in a desirable area that has always had very low inventory. Staging and professional photos are not necessary to get multiple offers if the house is priced competitively.

Exactly. It's like how there are super cheap index funds and ETFs available for investors who can manage themselves, and financial advisors who charge upwards of 1%/year in fees to manage everything. Different people have different needs and can pay for more service if they want/need it. If they know what they are doing and don't need as much service, they won't have to pay for it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

Yes- but what if that agent is favoring some buyers over others? What if they are too busy to show the house to everyone?

Then they are opening themselves to massive liability and putting their license at risk if a seller ever finds out that better bids aren't being presented

DOJ makes it incredibly easy to report anti-trust violations.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-center

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Of course, why not? It’s the same amount of work on their end.

In some countries like the UK, there is a menu of services to choose from. The 440k condo buyer may choose just listing and handle the rest themselves. The person selling a $2.5 million home may add showing and professional photos and staging.

Exactly. Totally normal in a competitive market. You can choose what level of service you want and it's priced accordingly. As it should be, but yeah will probably take a few years for everything to shake out as everyone involved figures out their niche and buyers get used to it.

I would be fine with that. We live in a desirable area that has always had very low inventory. Staging and professional photos are not necessary to get multiple offers if the house is priced competitively.

Not necessary to get offers but perhaps necessary to get the most you possibly can for your home.

[Anonymous]

Hahahaha

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woo hoo, about time!! I look for real estate listings myself and I contact listing agents myself. Why do I still need to pay someone $60,000 (3% of $1 million) for that service? I was going to do FSBO but if the commission goes down to 1% I might consider using an agent.

NAR will also no longer get exclusive access to MLS.

Just the fact that you wrote this explains how ignorant you are about the process. You will still be paying that 60k. Do you really think that sellers are going to cut their price 60 K for you? The only difference is now you will be paying that baked in commission without actually having an agent.

Also, you could have always paid one percent. The commissions are not fixed and have never been.

Well, there was enough funny business going on with commissions that there was a successful lawsuit over it that is forcing a big change in business practices — as well as a $400+ million settlement. You can’t deny the obvious.

Unfortunately, uninformed buyers don’t know what they don’t know and will forego representation for a perceived upfront savings. They will then deal with a listing agent that is required to be honest, but not fair working on behalf of their principal, the seller. After they realize they don’t get a good deal and didn’t do their due diligence, they will cry wolf and regulation will need to be added. It will be a mess and so short-sighted.

C’mon, both agents are paid by the seller under the outgoing system. Most “buyer’s” agents work for the deal, the best interests of the buyer are secondary at best. The buyer’s agent does not get paid for achieving the best outcome for the buyer; they get paid for making sure the deal closes.

This. We already stopped using buyer agents after getting sick of the corrupt, lying realtors and bought our last home without one. We're about to sell a home and expect whichever realtor we select to show the house and help write offers for any interested buyers without a realtor. This is really basic service for a seller's agent who has the fiduciary duty to do everything they can to sell the home. It's not "extra work" - it's their job.

Exactly, it's the job of srellers agent to show the house and if they can't do tjhat then what are they doing? Job is to sell and as part of selling job is to show anyone who wants to see the house. If you can't do that then you shouldn't take the job of selling a house.

There's a saying that the job of agents is to sell themselves, not to sell houses. They are typically more concerned with drumming up new business, rather than doing what's best for their clients. Unfortunately, their clients are not smart enough to know better -- e.g., if your house sells in one weekend in a bidding war, how do you know that the agent did a good job versus leaving money on the table? Remember, studies have shown that agents price their own houses higher and take longer to reduce the price, than when they sell other people's houses.

OK so sellers agents don't look out for sellers, but it's not like buyers agents look out for buyers. We need a one agent system where the sellers selects and pays their agent and the agent shows the home to buyers.

Yes- but what if that agent is favoring some buyers over others? What if they are too busy to show the house to everyone?

Then they are opening themselves to massive liability and putting their license at risk if a seller ever finds out that better bids aren't being presented

DOJ makes it incredibly easy to report anti-trust violations.

https://www.justice.gov/atr/complaint-center

This is helpful, thanks. The seller's agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. If they're "too busy to show the house to everyone" or "favor some buyers over others" then they're in violation of the law and should be reported.

P.S. They would be in violation of the law now if they they did these things today.