Anonymous wrote:I'm not sure how this will play out but I think that many of you are not realizing the unintended consequences for sellers with this ruling. The market is so tight that many buyers are writing and losing many offers. Multiple offers are obviously good for sellers bc besides having buyers escalate way over asking, buyers also need to waive contingencies, offer free rent backs etc to win. What is going to happen is that buyers are going to write less. So I have new clients who I just started working with who had lost 8 houses before firing their agent to come work with me. They preinspected 8 times for a cost over $5k. If they had to pay a buyer's agent on top of that, I can guarantee you that they wouldn't have written on all of those homes. So less offers, less buyers pushing other offers to their cap, less competition-bad for sellers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the spring/early summer housing market will seize up now that sellers will know they can save money by waiting until July.

The industry practices will have to change, but the settlement, if approved, won’t necessarily get rid of commission sharing. The buyer agent promised commission just cannot be promised through the MLS platform anymore. It can and likely will take place off-platform in some new shape or form.

Per the local MLS:
“ What’s changing (late this year, if the settlement is approved):

While MLS subscribers will continue to be able to offer to share their compensation with a buyer’s broker, no longer would that be allowed in the MLS (effective July 2024). Instead, those offers of compensation could still be made, albeit only through separate negotiation, as needed (like commercial brokers do today).
And a new option will be added: A seller's agent will be able to enter into the MLS whether and what their seller client is willing to offer as a concession in the price, such as “$x towards a new roof and x% towards closing costs.”
MLS subscribers WILL NOT be allowed to put a specific amount of buyer-broker compensation in the concession field. More to come on this point in the coming weeks.”

Yeah, but why would I as a seller want to offer anything to the buyers agent, especially in a tight-supply market like we have now? Are you saying sellers agents would refuse to work with anyone who does not commit to making an "off-MLS" deal to provide compensation to buyers agents? Seems like that would violate the settlement agreement, and will land NAR and all sellers agents who engage in the practice back in court. It's still collusion to create a floor on compensation. Since buyers agents must also as of July sign written agreements with their buyers that spells out compensation up front, anything that makes the seller responsible is going to get brokerages and agents sued again.

Buyers' agents have always had to sign a contract with their clients regarding how they will be compensated. This is not new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the spring/early summer housing market will seize up now that sellers will know they can save money by waiting until July.

The industry practices will have to change, but the settlement, if approved, won’t necessarily get rid of commission sharing. The buyer agent promised commission just cannot be promised through the MLS platform anymore. It can and likely will take place off-platform in some new shape or form.

Per the local MLS:
“ What’s changing (late this year, if the settlement is approved):

While MLS subscribers will continue to be able to offer to share their compensation with a buyer’s broker, no longer would that be allowed in the MLS (effective July 2024). Instead, those offers of compensation could still be made, albeit only through separate negotiation, as needed (like commercial brokers do today).
And a new option will be added: A seller's agent will be able to enter into the MLS whether and what their seller client is willing to offer as a concession in the price, such as “$x towards a new roof and x% towards closing costs.”
MLS subscribers WILL NOT be allowed to put a specific amount of buyer-broker compensation in the concession field. More to come on this point in the coming weeks.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the spring/early summer housing market will seize up now that sellers will know they can save money by waiting until July.

The industry practices will have to change, but the settlement, if approved, won’t necessarily get rid of commission sharing. The buyer agent promised commission just cannot be promised through the MLS platform anymore. It can and likely will take place off-platform in some new shape or form.

Per the local MLS:
“ What’s changing (late this year, if the settlement is approved):

While MLS subscribers will continue to be able to offer to share their compensation with a buyer’s broker, no longer would that be allowed in the MLS (effective July 2024). Instead, those offers of compensation could still be made, albeit only through separate negotiation, as needed (like commercial brokers do today).
And a new option will be added: A seller's agent will be able to enter into the MLS whether and what their seller client is willing to offer as a concession in the price, such as “$x towards a new roof and x% towards closing costs.”
MLS subscribers WILL NOT be allowed to put a specific amount of buyer-broker compensation in the concession field. More to come on this point in the coming weeks.”

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if the spring/early summer housing market will seize up now that sellers will know they can save money by waiting until July.

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.

Exactly. Buyers will actually come out way ahead by not having pushy overpriced agents who are actually working against them. I represented myself when I bought my house, and got the 2.5% commission as a closing cost credit (in addition to negotiating 5% off the asking price). It was a great decision. I got the form contract from the sellers agent and filled it in myself. Anyone with a high school education should be able to figure it out.

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.

Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.