Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Another settlement lawyer who accuses people of towing the line rather than toeing the line. Yeah, the smart ones.

"If you have the facts on your side, pound the facts; if you have the law on your side, pound the law; if you have neither the facts nor the law, be a Grammar Karen."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Anonymous wrote:NAR is melting down in real time.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/02/realestate/bob-goldberg-resign-national-association-realtors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.7Uw.t0ED.thbWnODf-NoF&smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

Will the NAR even exist in 6 months?

The chief executive of the National Association of Realtors resigned from his post two days after a federal jury ruled that the powerful organization conspired to inflate home commissions.
…
[Mr. Goldberg] had previously planned to retire at the end of 2024, but had faced calls for his immediate resignation since August, when The New York Times published an article showing that the organization was rife with complaints of harassment and discrimination from multiple women.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

NP. I don't think that is what PP suggested.

Seller represents seller. Seller agent provides access to the property for buyer - "Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer."

Seller agent does not provide any representation or negotiating on behalf of the buyer, naturally.

Buyer can hire an agent, retain and attorney, pay an independent negotiator consultant, or DIY, if buyer so chooses.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Another settlement lawyer who accuses people of towing the line rather than toeing the line. Yeah, the smart ones.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?

You sound like a realtor. The motives of buyers agents are already in direct conflict with the best interest of buyers. Buyers agents want the buyer to pay as much as possible and offer the best terms to close the deal. No joint agent. Just a seller's agent who shows properties to buyers, just like the sales guy at the car dealership, appliance store, clothing boutique, etc. all show their wares to the buyer.

You're towing the NAR party line of pretending to serve in the best interest of the buyers. Realtors never have.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

A few clarifications. The boilerplate forms are developed by local associations of realtors based on the state and jurisdictional laws. There is no standard boilerplate set of forms from NAR. You think that fewer agents would pay to have those forms developed by lawyers, right?

Listing agents would go less business because they would spend more time showing houses or having other agents show houses for them as buyer agents now do

Many settlement companies have only a few lawyers who did not graduate at the top of their class. They employ settlement agents to handle the closing with no ability to handle issues. If you want settlement companies to hire more lawyers that will increase cost yo buyers

Your system is fine, but it needs tweaking.

Anonymous wrote:it's a monopolistic scam

Anonymous wrote:What isn’t [a monopolistic scam]?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nice. No more 6% for those clowns.

it's a monopolistic scam

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I’m a lawyer and I’m very sure that:

1) you’re indulging yourself in wishful thinking here
2) you are not a lawyer

As an agent, I would love for about 80%of the nonproductive agents to disappear. It would make the business much more professional. With teams becoming more common in the last 5 to 10 years, a large number of people are people lured into a business where they have no hope of doing more than enriching the person at the top of the team. IMHO, teams are now the real problem in real estate. They form joint ventures with settlement companies, mortgage companies, even pest control companies and there are fees which only increase prices to the consumers.

Ah, this explains why all the former MLM ladies in my neighborhood became real estate agents. A natural progression.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Anonymous wrote:Nice. No more 6% for those clowns.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can't wait for buyers to have to pay for their own agents. When we get buyers' agents out of the picture (because most buyers won't pay for one), it will be a much more honest system.

Services will become a la carte for buyers.

This ruling is really going to make RE attorneys a lot more valuable in the process. Most buyers were relying on their agent to advise on various aspects of the process. When, really, they should've been working with an attorney on the contract and ensuring they were not getting taken for a ride.

The contracts are boilerplate - you fill out the various pieces: price offer, contingencies, lender info, etc. I had to make all those decisions myself - my Redfin agent just filled it out.

My agent then talked to the other agent....and that was it. Contract accepted, here's the dates we are thinking of closing, etc.

Then the closing is all done with a title company in your jurisdiction....there's nothing for your agent to do.

So really the only important thing for a buyers agent is to fill in the blanks on a NAR standardized contract according to your directions. That's about it. And it should probably be a RE attorney doing that for you, not some agent who has no fiduciary duty and can have only a HS diploma.

It's been such a stupid system for a looooooooooong time.

I agree that the system has been messed up for a long time, but I don't think that a la carte services or RE attorneys paid for by buyers is the solution. There's just no need for that. There's a standard form and the buyer makes selections. The process would become more transparent for the buyer. Then the title attorney handles the legal aspects and coordinates with the lender.

The best solution is to just have one realtor for each home. The seller selects the realtor and pays 2%. Buyers contact the seller's agent to see the property, and the seller's agent shows it to the buyer. There would be fewer realtors. The realtors left would make 2%, which is close to their current standard of 2-2.5%. They would do a little more work to earn it though.

Some people have a very misguided understanding of what a buyer's agent actually does for you. They don't look out for the buyer or provide any legal support. NRA is banking on the fear and neediness of first-time buyers, but this hand-holding is unnecessary and results in higher costs for the consumer.

Am I correct that you’re proposing having a joint buyer/seller agent as the norm? Wouldn’t this create conflicts of interest and even more ethical problems?