Biden admin going after realtors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone needs to pay for their own realtor upfront, it will make it harder for buyers to afford to buy. But I agree that agent fees are too high. I doubt this will change the cost that much on average, it might shift it around or sellers will start giving credits or closing costs. The whole model will be difficult to change.

Not sure about that premise. Nowadays with redfin and zillow it's not clear whether everyone still needs their own realtor.

+1

Retain a real estate attorney for contracts.
Hire an inspector for inspections.

Pay a real estate agent 25k+ if you have questions about which side to the basement to put that child-sized teepee for staging, or if you need someone to post "Thoughts on this house..." / "Why is this sitting..." threads on DCUM > Real Estate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realtor lobby is very strong, consumers need to unite.

There’s really nothing to unite against.

This angst about how agents are paid doesn’t see the forest for the trees in terms of costs associated with real estate transactions. They’re marginal, not material.

Agree, consumers should be going after title agencies as well.

Allied Title is involved in a big settlement in DC because of agents who had ownership interests in the title company and implied buyers had to use the title company. More coming....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do it however you want to do it.

That is the goal. And NAR opposes this. Start by looking into “fee-for-service” brokerages, “minimum service requirements” laws, and who/what advocates for MSR laws (spoiler: NAR).

"Why can't I just pay a realtor a flat fee for MLS access, and nothing else (fee-for-service)?"

In several states, this is illegal or has been illegal. Why? NAR, that's why. How do MSR laws benefit the public? They don't. They benefit NAR.

There is no monopoly here.

NAR has for the last 100 years been repeatedly and successfully sued for anti-trust, anti-consumer practices. And the litigation continues.

You can make other choices.

The schemes NAR uses to restrict your choices are nuanced; the nuanced schemes are product of tip-toeing around prior DOJ/FTC findings of anti-trust practices.

So what? The social waste of the real estate industry price-fixing and anti-competition practices has been estimated to be between $1.1 and $8.2 billion (see Chang-Tai Hsieh & Enrico Moretti). That is consumer money that could be put to better use, rather than supporting a social parasite.

Not all agents are bad, too many are. Not all used car salespeople are bad, too many are.

NAR is objectively bad. A parasite.

I believe NAR spends more on lobbying than any other entity in America. They need $ to protect what their bad arguments can’t.

Look at AIPAC public numbers and then add 100% for gifts in kind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Realtor lobby is very strong, consumers need to unite.

There’s really nothing to unite against.

This angst about how agents are paid doesn’t see the forest for the trees in terms of costs associated with real estate transactions. They’re marginal, not material.

$60k on a $1m house is not "marginal"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If everyone needs to pay for their own realtor upfront, it will make it harder for buyers to afford to buy. But I agree that agent fees are too high. I doubt this will change the cost that much on average, it might shift it around or sellers will start giving credits or closing costs. The whole model will be difficult to change.

Not sure about that premise. Nowadays with redfin and zillow it's not clear whether everyone still needs their own realtor.

+1

Retain a real estate attorney for contracts.
Hire an inspector for inspections.

Pay a real estate agent 25k+ if you have questions about which side to the basement to put that child-sized teepee for staging, or if you need someone to post "Thoughts on this house..." / "Why is this sitting..." threads on DCUM > Real Estate.

This. And, I grudgingly suppose, pay a stager a few thousand if you bought the koolaid that every house must be staged because you're incapable of hiring painters and decluttering yourself. IMO agents have realized their declining value added for some time now, and that's why they're pushing staging as something they can bring.

[Anonymous]

The problem is that with the artificially high commissions, there's huge competition for clients. So lots of realtors spend lots of time hunting for clients. Those who get them make lots of money, but those who don't effectively lose the lottery. If the fees were truly competitive, there would be fewer people wasting their time going for the golden ring, but the remaining realtors would make a fair living.

[Anonymous]

Realtor commissions are the biggest scam. I've bought or sold 4 houses and try to minimize their fees. No value add at all to the process. It is ridiculous. One day I think AI will replace realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: One day I think AI will replace realtors.

Artificial intelligence isn't going to replace a trade that does not require intelligence.

[Anonymous]

Possibly the only intelligent thing the Biden admin has done! Realtors are utterly parasitic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:IMO agents have realized their declining value added for some time now, and that's why they're pushing staging as something they can bring.

Market analysts suggest exactly this, comparing the price fixed real estate industry to the regulation-period airline industry. On “non-price competition” services e.g. staging:

“Because becoming an agent is easy, an increasing number of people enter the industry in search of these higher profits. But with more and more agents competing to close transactions, the average number of transactions per agent will decline. Further, if commission rates are relatively inflexible, such that agents do not seek to attract customers by offering lower rates, agents will compete along other dimensions [services e.g. staging] to gain clients.”

Indeed:

“It’s not surprising to me that we observe non-price competition [services e.g. staging] if, in fact, there isn’t a lot of price competition [in real estate markets] ... Competing over variables other than price . . . that’s exactly what we observed in the airline industry before Fred Kahn, Steve Breyer, Ted Kennedy deregulated airlines, got rid of the Civil Aeronautics Board. For those of you old enough to remember, we had things like the sandwich wars on some airplanes to get people to come on.”

Thomas J. Miceli, The Welfare Effects of Non-Price Competition Among Real Estate Brokers

[Anonymous]

You have to watch your back with RE agents, because you can't trust these people to look out for their clients' best interests. They're looking out for their own damn paycheck, and that's it. Since the buyers are doing all the work anyway, they don't deserve more than a nominal fee, for the paperwork, and that's about it. Even my selling agent barely did anything. I did all the work, including being present for appointment-only viewings. The worthless agent listed the house and then waited for her fat paycheck.

Sheesh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Heck, yeah. Long overdue. It’s an absurd amount of money.

It is. We no longer use agents. There is no reason. The internet provides all of the info and comps. You can figure out a fair offer price. Hire a real estate lawyer to review the offer and closing papers. Done. We sold our last property without an agent and bought without an agent. There is no reason for them to exist anymore. Please realize the bar is extremely low to become and agent and is often filled with bored women trying to figure out what to do with their lives post-divorce. Yes, before you bash, I have 40 years of experience at this and was once a real estate agent and have practiced real estate law. I do all my own deals

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Do it however you want to do it.

That is the goal. And NAR opposes this. Start by looking into “fee-for-service” brokerages, “minimum service requirements” laws, and who/what advocates for MSR laws (spoiler: NAR).

"Why can't I just pay a realtor a flat fee for MLS access, and nothing else (fee-for-service)?"

In several states, this is illegal or has been illegal. Why? NAR, that's why. How do MSR laws benefit the public? They don't. They benefit NAR.

There is no monopoly here.

NAR has for the last 100 years been repeatedly and successfully sued for anti-trust, anti-consumer practices. And the litigation continues.

You can make other choices.

The schemes NAR uses to restrict your choices are nuanced; the nuanced schemes are product of tip-toeing around prior DOJ/FTC findings of anti-trust practices.

So what? The social waste of the real estate industry price-fixing and anti-competition practices has been estimated to be between $1.1 and $8.2 billion (see Chang-Tai Hsieh & Enrico Moretti). That is consumer money that could be put to better use, rather than supporting a social parasite.

Not all agents are bad, too many are. Not all used car salespeople are bad, too many are.

NAR is objectively bad. A parasite.

I believe NAR spends more on lobbying than any other entity in America. They need $ to protect what their bad arguments can’t.

Look at AIPAC public numbers and then add 100% for gifts in kind.

Aipac hasn’t been anywhere for years. Realtors spent $81 million in 2022.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:link? clown

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-16/us-realtors-lucrative-fee-system-faces-mounting-antitrust-risk?embedded-checkout=true

I assume this is what OP is referring to.

Here are some excerpts from the bloomberg article :

"Commission rates, which often get baked into a home’s listing price, are an attractive target for the Biden administration as low housing supply and spiraling mortgage costs combine to create the least affordable housing market in four decades. On a $407,100 house — the median existing-home sales price — a 5.5% commission comes to about $22,390.
...
In some parts of the world, total commissions for each sale are significantly lower – around 2% in countries like Australia and the UK.
…
Completely untying buyer and seller agent fees could eventually lower commissions by as much as $30 billion annually, according to a study by the Consumer Federation of America, a watchdog group. If aspiring homeowners had to pay agents directly, they would likely shop around before hiring one — increasing competition — or pay an hourly or flat-fee service to handle paperwork at closing.
…
NAR has said the buyer commission offer doesn’t have to be the traditional 2.5% – the group recently said it could even be $0. But that higher rate persists in most transactions as sellers fear that listing with lower payouts for buyers’ agents would cause them to steer clients away — a concern borne out by recent research.
…
These changes could also put the future of the National Association of Realtors in doubt. The group [NAR] collects $150 in annual dues from more than 1.5 million agents. It’s a moment of reckoning for the group that last year surpassed the US Chamber of Congress to be the biggest spender on lobbying in the US, laying out more than $80 million in 2022."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: One day I think AI will replace realtors.

Artificial intelligence isn't going to replace a trade that does not require intelligence.

Bravo