Toggle navigation
Toggle navigation
Home
DCUM Forums
Nanny Forums
Events
About DCUM
Advertising
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics
FAQs and Guidelines
Privacy Policy
Your current identity is: Anonymous
Login
Preview
Subject:
Forum Index
»
Real Estate
Reply to "Biden admin going after realtors! "
Subject:
Emoticons
More smilies
Text Color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Violet
White
Black
Font:
Very Small
Small
Normal
Big
Giant
Close Marks
[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Why do we resign just and accept that it can't be changed. It needs to change.[/quote] Isn't that what redfin and fsbo are for? No one is forcing you to pay 6% to a realtor.[/quote] 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. [/quote]
Options
Disable HTML in this message
Disable BB Code in this message
Disable smilies in this message
Review message
Search
Recent Topics
Hottest Topics