Agents Paid Hourly Rates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing here that people are paying buyers' agents hourly rates or flat fees. Can anyone recommend an agent that they used with these terms? Or what brokerages will do this? I haven't had any luck finding an agent who will work for an hourly rate. Thanks.

Just understand you will likely be expected to pay that hourly rate whether or not they close a house for you.

So if you spend 10 hours looking for houses and don’t find anything you like or if you lose a bid, you will owe $2,000 is the hourly rate is like $200 (which would be on the low side).

Why would I need someone to babysit me at home showings for $200/hr? The whole point of the flat fee is that they only do the necessary.

+1

If you really, really need a babysitter for each and every showing, then commission is probably the better option.

But you can't see a home without an agent outside of open houses. Or am I missing something?

Just have the listing agent show you the house at no charge. The seller is already paying them to sell their house. They have a fiduciary duty to the seller to show you the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I keep seeing here that people are paying buyers' agents hourly rates or flat fees. Can anyone recommend an agent that they used with these terms? Or what brokerages will do this? I haven't had any luck finding an agent who will work for an hourly rate. Thanks.

Just understand you will likely be expected to pay that hourly rate whether or not they close a house for you.

So if you spend 10 hours looking for houses and don’t find anything you like or if you lose a bid, you will owe $2,000 is the hourly rate is like $200 (which would be on the low side).

Why would I need someone to babysit me at home showings for $200/hr? The whole point of the flat fee is that they only do the necessary.

+1

If you really, really need a babysitter for each and every showing, then commission is probably the better option.

But you can't see a home without an agent outside of open houses. Or am I missing something?

You can represent yourself. If a seller’s agent refuses to show to me because I am not represented, that’s going to result in a bunch of complaints to the licensing board and AG from me.

What? Of course you can. The listing agent meets you at the house and shows it to you.

Is there a fact sheet or consumer guide somewhere that spells this out? We reached out to a listing agent but she wouldn't show us the house without an agent. This is so frustrating as a buyer.

get them to put that in writing then report to the AG and DOJ.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to avoid all the big brokerages like Compass, Long & Foster, WFP, etc. Agents there have to follow strict orders on their commissions.

Agent for one of these big brokerages. We have no "orders," much less strict ones. We are told to be straightforward and transparent, and to negotiate our own commissions and know our value. That's it. Conspiracy theories abound.

OK, maybe not "orders," but there is definitely an implicit agreement among agents at the big brokerages that they are not to go below 2.5% commission. Think of it this way -- brokers see every contract that their agents are on, so brokers know if agents are not getting at least 2.5%, and brokers can certainly fire/terminate/sever the relationship with any agent who isn't willing to stand firm on commissions.

OP really needs to look at small brokerages if they want someone who will negotiate on rates, because agents at the big brokerages somehow all know that they're not allowed to budge. It was this way before the settlement, and I'm not surprised it hasn't changed.

Oh so they’re still colluding to fix prices? 😂 You guys really are idiots.

Let's just say this: I hope DOJ subpoenas all the big brokerages and asks to see every sales contract. DOJ can then figure out for itself why, amongst the big brokerages, no agent ever goes below 2.5% (or maybe 2% for really, really expensive properties).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We bought using an hourly realtor (Spicer Realty). You can save a ton of money if you're buying a more expensive house (particularly in the $1mn plus range. Yes, you pay a lot to get taken to showings and stuff, but we still got a large rebate (enough to furnish 3 bedrooms of our house) since they don't take the full 3%.

Is this how it works? Say you buy a $1M house and the agent gets $30,000.
Do they take their $200 fee for writing the contact from that commission and you get the rest or do you have to pay them when they write the contract?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought using an hourly realtor (Spicer Realty). You can save a ton of money if you're buying a more expensive house (particularly in the $1mn plus range. Yes, you pay a lot to get taken to showings and stuff, but we still got a large rebate (enough to furnish 3 bedrooms of our house) since they don't take the full 3%.

Is this how it works? Say you buy a $1M house and the agent gets $30,000.
Do they take their $200 fee for writing the contact from that commission and you get the rest or do you have to pay them when they write the contract?

In theory (pre-settlement) what would happen is that the seller would pay less to the buyer’s agent than offered, then the difference (say 1% of the sales price) would go to reduce the price of the house or perhaps cover other buyer closing costs (to the extent permitted). When we bought without any agent (actually it ended up being dual agency) the seller agent took I think 4% commission. So the sellers got an extra 2%. We did not get any concessions (eg we paid the list price and all closing costs) but it was a very competitive market so it helped us get the house with no escalation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You need to avoid all the big brokerages like Compass, Long & Foster, WFP, etc. Agents there have to follow strict orders on their commissions.

Agent for one of these big brokerages. We have no "orders," much less strict ones. We are told to be straightforward and transparent, and to negotiate our own commissions and know our value. That's it. Conspiracy theories abound.

OK, maybe not "orders," but there is definitely an implicit agreement among agents at the big brokerages that they are not to go below 2.5% commission. Think of it this way -- brokers see every contract that their agents are on, so brokers know if agents are not getting at least 2.5%, and brokers can certainly fire/terminate/sever the relationship with any agent who isn't willing to stand firm on commissions.

OP really needs to look at small brokerages if they want someone who will negotiate on rates, because agents at the big brokerages somehow all know that they're not allowed to budge. It was this way before the settlement, and I'm not surprised it hasn't changed.

Oh so they’re still colluding to fix prices? 😂 You guys really are idiots.

DP. The DOJ presently considers the settlement insufficient to address price collision. This should concern anyone with an interest in the matter, and critical thinking skills.


DCUM Realtor Apologist: "Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the Court."

DCUM Realtor Apologist: "Oh so they’re still colluding to fix prices? 😂 You guys really are idiots. I reserve my time."

Court of Law:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

The settlement was a compromise to prevent price fixing through the mechanism of commission steering. Commission steering is when buyer agents boycott listings offering buyer commission lower than 2.5%. The idea behind the settlement was, by preventing the advertising of a commission on MLS, buyer agents would no longer be able to "shop" for higher commissions.

There are of course ways around this which is why the industry is still being sued.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

Yes it is supposed to increase transparency. I think the issue is the perception that seller and buyer agents are still colluding to set the 3% buyer agent fee, even if they aren’t doing it in the NAR form contract.

Your story of your sale matches ours as a buyer. We got the house in part because we did dual representation (let the seller’s agent rep us as buyers) … and also put down a lot of $$! Sellers knew we could close.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

The settlement was a compromise to prevent price fixing through the mechanism of commission steering. Commission steering is when buyer agents boycott listings offering buyer commission lower than 2.5%. The idea behind the settlement was, by preventing the advertising of a commission on MLS, buyer agents would no longer be able to "shop" for higher commissions.

There are of course ways around this which is why the industry is still being sued.

Didn’t the settlement also have to do with the standardized contract offering 3% to the buyer agent?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

The settlement was a compromise to prevent price fixing through the mechanism of commission steering. Commission steering is when buyer agents boycott listings offering buyer commission lower than 2.5%. The idea behind the settlement was, by preventing the advertising of a commission on MLS, buyer agents would no longer be able to "shop" for higher commissions.

There are of course ways around this which is why the industry is still being sued.

Didn’t the settlement also have to do with the standardized contract offering 3% to the buyer agent?

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by that.

Regarding the "standardized" 2.5%, Moehrl did address the overwhelming amount of transactions where the "negotiated" commissions were 2.5%. If the commissions are negotiable in a competitive free market, how then can it be the negotiated commission is almost always 2.5%? Plaintiffs alleged collusion to fix prices and presented evidence and expert testimony. The Jury agreed.

Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ steering theory as abstract economic theorizing, Plaintiffs offer real-world evidence supporting the presence of steering in residential real estate transactions. Most prominently, Elhauge analyzes data regarding commission rates in the Covered MLSs and observes that commissions clustered around standard rates in each Covered MLS. During the class period, at least 90% of home sales in 17 of the 20 Covered MLSs featured buyer-broker commissions clustered around three standard rates. And 94% of sales in all Covered MLSs compensated buyer-brokers at rates of between 2.4% and 3.0%, with 85.5% of commissions in the Covered MLSs paid at one of four rates within that range: 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.8%, and 3.0%. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

~ Judge Andrea Wood, Moehrl v NAR

What's remarkable is that those are the Judge's words. It reads like an advocate for the plaintiffs.

Moving forward, lawsuits bringing this in as evidence can site a Judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

The settlement was a compromise to prevent price fixing through the mechanism of commission steering. Commission steering is when buyer agents boycott listings offering buyer commission lower than 2.5%. The idea behind the settlement was, by preventing the advertising of a commission on MLS, buyer agents would no longer be able to "shop" for higher commissions.

There are of course ways around this which is why the industry is still being sued.

Didn’t the settlement also have to do with the standardized contract offering 3% to the buyer agent?

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by that.

Regarding the "standardized" 2.5%, Moehrl did address the overwhelming amount of transactions where the "negotiated" commissions were 2.5%. If the commissions are negotiable in a competitive free market, how then can it be the negotiated commission is almost always 2.5%? Plaintiffs alleged collusion to fix prices and presented evidence and expert testimony. The Jury agreed.

Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ steering theory as abstract economic theorizing, Plaintiffs offer real-world evidence supporting the presence of steering in residential real estate transactions. Most prominently, Elhauge analyzes data regarding commission rates in the Covered MLSs and observes that commissions clustered around standard rates in each Covered MLS. During the class period, at least 90% of home sales in 17 of the 20 Covered MLSs featured buyer-broker commissions clustered around three standard rates. And 94% of sales in all Covered MLSs compensated buyer-brokers at rates of between 2.4% and 3.0%, with 85.5% of commissions in the Covered MLSs paid at one of four rates within that range: 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.8%, and 3.0%. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

~ Judge Andrea Wood, Moehrl v NAR

What's remarkable is that those are the Judge's words. It reads like an advocate for the plaintiffs.

Moving forward, lawsuits bringing this in as evidence can site a Judge.

It might be better to cite a judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a buyer is there a way to see the commission offered at all, or is it something that we’d have to write into our offer? Our agent, whom we like and trust, sent us a buyers agreement proposing 3% plus a $795 fee. That seems unusually high- we value her time and expertise but 30K for a straightforward transaction seems like a lot, especially when she will get close to that on the sale of our house too.

Wow, that's obscenely high. You're incredibly naïve to trust her or any realtor.

The whole point of the settlement is to end price fixing. This means the sellers don't offer a commission to the buyer's agent. You propose a seller's concession payment. The seller can reject, negotiate, or accept your offer. It would be extremely difficult to find a seller willing to pay 3% towards your agent. Most will pay 0 - 1.5% with a few willing to pay 2%. This means that you have to pay for the rest out of your own pocket if you use a buyer's agent.

I thought the point of the settlement was to increase transparency? So basically your realtor is saying she wants 3% and how that is divided between you and the seller is for you to decide. So figure out how much you are willing to pay her and negotiate, recognizing that you will be in the hook if the seller doesn’t want to pay anything. If she doesn’t agree, look elsewhere. Like anything else, you should shop around to find a realtor you are comfortable with in terms of price and service level. I don’t understand posters repeatedly commenting to go unrepresented and hire a lawyer; that may be a strategy but I can’t see it always working at least initially until the market settles.

If a seller knows their home will sell, you can agree to pay your selling realtor less, offer no buyer compensation, and not require your realtor to show because anyone who really wants the house will pay someone an hourly rate to do so. To some degree showing up unrepresented is a signal both in terms of your willingness to pay and ability to get the deal done smoothly. We sold a house that received multiple (double digit) offers last year in Arlington; we chose our buyer based not just on price but their circumstance/history (prior home owner v first time) etc bc we needed the deal to for sure close so we could get in our new house. It activated their escalation clause, but didn’t end up being the most money wise. Generally, as it shakes out though it should start to differentiate the realtors who are worth paying for (and how much) from those who are really useless.

The settlement was a compromise to prevent price fixing through the mechanism of commission steering. Commission steering is when buyer agents boycott listings offering buyer commission lower than 2.5%. The idea behind the settlement was, by preventing the advertising of a commission on MLS, buyer agents would no longer be able to "shop" for higher commissions.

There are of course ways around this which is why the industry is still being sued.

Didn’t the settlement also have to do with the standardized contract offering 3% to the buyer agent?

I'm not sure I understand what is meant by that.

Regarding the "standardized" 2.5%, Moehrl did address the overwhelming amount of transactions where the "negotiated" commissions were 2.5%. If the commissions are negotiable in a competitive free market, how then can it be the negotiated commission is almost always 2.5%? Plaintiffs alleged collusion to fix prices and presented evidence and expert testimony. The Jury agreed.

Moreover, contrary to Defendants’ characterization of Plaintiffs’ steering theory as abstract economic theorizing, Plaintiffs offer real-world evidence supporting the presence of steering in residential real estate transactions. Most prominently, Elhauge analyzes data regarding commission rates in the Covered MLSs and observes that commissions clustered around standard rates in each Covered MLS. During the class period, at least 90% of home sales in 17 of the 20 Covered MLSs featured buyer-broker commissions clustered around three standard rates. And 94% of sales in all Covered MLSs compensated buyer-brokers at rates of between 2.4% and 3.0%, with 85.5% of commissions in the Covered MLSs paid at one of four rates within that range: 2.4%, 2.5%, 2.8%, and 3.0%. [Citations omitted; emphasis added.]

~ Judge Andrea Wood, Moehrl v NAR

What's remarkable is that those are the Judge's words. It reads like an advocate for the plaintiffs.

Moving forward, lawsuits bringing this in as evidence can site a Judge.

It might be better to cite a judge.

That was a typo.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought using an hourly realtor (Spicer Realty). You can save a ton of money if you're buying a more expensive house (particularly in the $1mn plus range. Yes, you pay a lot to get taken to showings and stuff, but we still got a large rebate (enough to furnish 3 bedrooms of our house) since they don't take the full 3%.

Is this how it works? Say you buy a $1M house and the agent gets $30,000.
Do they take their $200 fee for writing the contact from that commission and you get the rest or do you have to pay them when they write the contract?

In theory (pre-settlement) what would happen is that the seller would pay less to the buyer’s agent than offered, then the difference (say 1% of the sales price) would go to reduce the price of the house or perhaps cover other buyer closing costs (to the extent permitted). When we bought without any agent (actually it ended up being dual agency) the seller agent took I think 4% commission. So the sellers got an extra 2%. We did not get any concessions (eg we paid the list price and all closing costs) but it was a very competitive market so it helped us get the house with no escalation.

Sorry to be dense but if the seller isn’t offering to pay the buyer agent, would we only have to buy the hourly agent $200 or so to write the contract? We wouldn’t be obligated to pay more? TY

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought using an hourly realtor (Spicer Realty). You can save a ton of money if you're buying a more expensive house (particularly in the $1mn plus range. Yes, you pay a lot to get taken to showings and stuff, but we still got a large rebate (enough to furnish 3 bedrooms of our house) since they don't take the full 3%.

Is this how it works? Say you buy a $1M house and the agent gets $30,000.
Do they take their $200 fee for writing the contact from that commission and you get the rest or do you have to pay them when they write the contract?

In theory (pre-settlement) what would happen is that the seller would pay less to the buyer’s agent than offered, then the difference (say 1% of the sales price) would go to reduce the price of the house or perhaps cover other buyer closing costs (to the extent permitted). When we bought without any agent (actually it ended up being dual agency) the seller agent took I think 4% commission. So the sellers got an extra 2%. We did not get any concessions (eg we paid the list price and all closing costs) but it was a very competitive market so it helped us get the house with no escalation.

Sorry to be dense but if the seller isn’t offering to pay the buyer agent, would we only have to buy the hourly agent $200 or so to write the contract? We wouldn’t be obligated to pay more? TY

Correct. Now what is *supposed* to happen is that the buyer contracts directly with the buyer’s agent for what the agent will be paid. So if you agree to hourly or a flat fee, that’s it. What’s a little more complicated is that you still CAN ask the seller to give you a “concession” to pay your agent - and some sellers may offer this up front. So the contract you have with your buyers agent could take this into account. Something like: “Buyers agent will receive a flat fee of a maximum of $8000 which may be paid directly by buyer or as a concession from the seller.” Basically you want the buyer agent comp to be concrete up front. Then if you can get the seller to pay part of it, cool. Or if the seller is offering 3% but your agent only gets 1% (per your contract) then that extra 2% becomes a bargaining chip for you.

There are a lot of different ways this could be handled through different types of contracts and negotiations- I’m not sure if there is any one standard! What IS true is that the buyers agent should not feel entitled to whatever the seller is offering. They are not negotiating for their own pay. You are negotiating an overall deal which includes paying the amount YOU have agreed directly to pay your agent.