Biden admin going after realtors!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

It could search for you and cut out the dumbdumbs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is very needed. Other countries don’t have realtors that take 6%. I think there’s so many ways to reform this. In my mind, buyers should have to pay for it and it shouldn’t be allowed to roll into their mortgage. After all, you can’t roll moving costs into your mortgage.

Except they won't. So buyers will be unrepresented. This shit show is never going to happen so all of you agent haters can go pound sand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The path forward is not based on a percentage
commission it’s based on hours worked at a set fee with the possibility of success bonuses tied to speed and realization of best price. Oh yes, with a price cap of about $7500.

Because this model is realistic HOW, exactly? Never will happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:When I bought a house 10 years ago, I had a reality. I found it myself on redfin, showed up at the open house by myself, and had a second showing with a backup agent my realtor sent in his place. The paperwork my realtor completed was repeatedly incorrect - luckily my attorney husband was able to catch/fix it. My realtor was more than happy to show up at the closing, though. Got his check!

That's what you get when you work with a discount broker!

[Anonymous]

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

Your boy Trump started this you numbskull.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.

Do it however you want to do it. I use Redfin but still want an agent. Some people find other solutions that work for them. There is no monopoly here. You can make other choices.

The case isn't a monopolization case. It is basically price fixing. I am an antitrust lawyer who works on cases similar to this, and I think it is a strong case, though difficult in a lot of ways.

You’re quoting me. And that’s exactly the problem. There isn’t price-fixing.

For comparison, look at the recent au pair case. While au pairs could in theory always negotiate wages, agencies discouraged it, so there was an anti-competitive result.

In contrast, there truly is no price fixing at 6%. That’s common but hardly overwhelmingly common, with negotiation and competition.

So yes. This is why I passed on a very similar case. It’s just… not strong at all.

[Anonymous]

I don’t understand why there is this obsession with moving to an hourly structure. If your agent leverages their expertise and helps you beat multiple offers and get your dream house, that’s what you are paying for. Or the agent who has amazing staging contacts and a great eye, and makes your house stand out and get a higher offer. The hourly work might not amount to that many hours, but the expertise is important.

There are already dozens of limited service agents, rebate agents, FSBO sites etc for consumers to choose from. Yet the full service, full commission model has withstood the competition- why is that? It’s bc some people are unhappy with the services of discount agents, and they want a higher level of service-someone with a great reputation, contacts, expertise etc.

My most recent client had a family member who grilled me about reducing my fee bc another, much larger discount brokerage had quoted them a percentage less. I didn’t reduce my fee. But later, when I was sitting with the client and helping her fold a mountain of baby and toddler clothes to box up, and when I was holding her baby so she could clean out her shower, we liked to joke about how the guy across the street would never do that for her.

I’ve seen many agents make huge mistakes. I’ve seen people lose houses bc their agents didn’t finalize paperwork and another offer came in. I’ve won contracts bc “the other agent didn’t seem serious” or “the agent never followed up.”

I agree that commissions are often too high for the work involved, but in many many cases, I’m doing rebates and steep discounts, especially if someone is buying and selling with me. Also 3 percent is a distant memory anyway.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand why there is this obsession with moving to an hourly structure.

The obsession is consumer choice. If the consumer wants a fixed percent, it should be an option. If the consumer wants an hourly structure, it should be an option. Who/what opposes hourly structure? NAR. If you want to rebate, it is only an option if you are in a state where rebates are legal. Why is rebating illegal in certain states? The real estate industry is behind these laws.

Why does the real estate industry want anti-rebate laws? Like the minimum service laws they promote: to prevent price competition, to limit consumer choice:

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.”

https://www.antitrustinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/1.pdf

(Those remarkable quotes are from agents, speaking about their own industry, their own " ‘so-called’ profession" - broker's words)


The buyer/seller agency compensation arrangement is another feature of the industry that limits choice and makes no competitive sense.

It does not take much creativity to imagine a different system. By untying the buyer’s and seller’s compensation offers, the fee structure for realty services would mimic virtually every other market for professional services in the United States. Consumers could choose the level of service that fits their needs. Buyer’s agents would be paid by the buyers and seller’s agents would be paid by the sellers. The likelihood of selling a home would not depend on what the seller pays the buyer’s agent

https://www.cato.org/regulation/summer-2021/anticompetition-buying-selling-homes#conclusion

Again the obsession is choice. The real estate industry is against choice, always has been.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The path forward is not based on a percentage
commission it’s based on hours worked at a set fee with the possibility of success bonuses tied to speed and realization of best price. Oh yes, with a price cap of about $7500.

Because this model is realistic HOW, exactly? Never will happen.

I guess one can hope politics can’t beat economics forever. The parasitic agents have perfected taking advantage of people.

[Anonymous]

The agents are part of the reason for inflated prices because they get higher commission. Sellers agents and real estate agents have all the motive to inflate or exaggerate demand /competition

[Anonymous]

Bad news for home buyers. They don’t play the fee and home sellers aren’t going to adjust prices down 5-6 percent to account for this. They are going to want what the comps say they can get.

Homebuyers will be stuck limiting the homes they want to see, rushing the showing, and having a terrible experience so that they don’t rack up the hourly fee. I have spent 12+ hours over a weekend with a new client. You really want to pay me $1200 for this out of your own pocket? (Yes my hourly fee is $100).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bad news for home buyers. They don’t play the fee and home sellers aren’t going to adjust prices down 5-6 percent to account for this. They are going to want what the comps say they can get.

Homebuyers will be stuck limiting the homes they want to see, rushing the showing, and having a terrible experience so that they don’t rack up the hourly fee. I have spent 12+ hours over a weekend with a new client. You really want to pay me $1200 for this out of your own pocket? (Yes my hourly fee is $100).

I think I can handle it without you. But, since my hourly fee is 1000-1200, if I do need you, I would sign up as per my definition of my needs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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....

That’s been illegal for years. Buyers pick their own title company and it’s supposed to be disclosed when any party has a monetary interest in picking one or the other. Scam outfits do try to do it anyway, however.

I think there are only three title insurance companies in the country, and that’s probably few enough for them to function like a monopoly without much effort, but that’s not what went on in this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.

Isn't that what redfin and fsbo are for? No one is forcing you to pay 6% to a realtor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.

Isn't that what redfin and fsbo are for? No one is forcing you to pay 6% to a realtor.

This statement isn’t entirely accurate.

Under the “Buyer Broker Commission Rule” sellers are forced to pay buyer brokers commission; therefore, the only way for a buyer to avoid paying buyer broker commission is a rebate, and this is only an option where NAR has not made rebates illegal. Why would NAR push for anti-rebating laws, and require a “Buyer Broker Commission Rule” that necessitates rebating? To force consumers to pay agents they may not need nor want, obviously.

In a recent development, brokers are allowed to list commission as $0, a change predicated on pressure from consumer advocacy groups, and a response to Burnett v. NAR. (https://www.housingwire.com/articles/nar-to-allow-listing-brokers-to-offer-0-commission/)

This rule change will do nothing to deter Steering; theoretically it would only aggravate it. The solution is the untying of seller/buyer broker fees. In no other industry of competing interests is one party’s representation compensated by the adversarial interest. Imagine your soon-to-be-ex paying your divorce attorney; that would not even be allowed, not without highly specific circumstances. In the allice-in-wonderland-ian theme park of the real estate industry, it’s a perfectly normal arrangement worth spending millions to force consumer participation.

So yes in many cases, too many, consumers are forced to pay a 2.5% commission for a service they don’t need (find house on Zillow, retain an attorney for contractual matters).

In other cases, especially given developing changes in response to Burnett v. NAR, the matter remains more nuanced.