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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

Lol are you replying to your own posts now? That's just so sad. NO ONE IS GOING TO PAY YOU $500-$2000 AN HOUR. I do not feel terrible for you.

I love how the agent-apologist does not even consider the possibility of negotiation. Negotiation is not even part of their vocabulary.

Also the price for them will forever remain fixed, as they believe it should be. What changes is who pays. But the price is a fixed rate.

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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

How much is NAR paying you?

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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

Wait, you seriously think a settlement as complex as this, as deeply negotiated as this, would be rejected by the judge? Do you have any concept of what obligations a judge has as they oversee litigation like this? If both sides agree there is an incredibly small number of scenarios in which a judge has the legal authority to reject a settlement. One like this has a 0.001% chance of being rejected by the judge.

Haven't you been paying attention? He is a Realtor. We are not possibly in a position to question his expert judgment.

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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

Wait, you seriously think a settlement as complex as this, as deeply negotiated as this, would be rejected by the judge? Do you have any concept of what obligations a judge has as they oversee litigation like this? If both sides agree there is an incredibly small number of scenarios in which a judge has the legal authority to reject a settlement. One like this has a 0.001% chance of being rejected by the judge.

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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

Lol are you replying to your own posts now? That's just so sad. NO ONE IS GOING TO PAY YOU $500-$2000 AN HOUR. I do not feel terrible for you.

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.

Exactly!

And real estate agents are currently paid $500 an hour minimum, with many in the area bringing in $2K+ per hour. Buyers are about to be in for a very rude awakening when they realize what they will need to pay. I feel terrible for them.

I seriously doubt that the judge will end up approving this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone believe the argument that this decision will lower home prices? I don’t know why sellers would lower the price even if the fees are lower especially since it’s a seller’s market.

A previous poster's dead-weight loss explanation is useful

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/150/1193145.page#27090047

Even if the dead-weight loss effect does not lower prices, the proceeds will go into the pocket of the consumer, rather than the "dead-weight".

since it’s a seller’s market

That condition will likely prevent price drops. But that condition is not eternal. In a buyers market condition, this along with the settlement decision is highly likely to lower prices.

+1 It also reduces the gap between buyers and sellers for price. Lots of deals aren't made because the seller won't walk away with enough after paying the exorbitant realtor fees.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone believe the argument that this decision will lower home prices? I don’t know why sellers would lower the price even if the fees are lower especially since it’s a seller’s market.

I don’t. Not sure it moves the needle much for buyers or sellers. It should spark some innovation for service offerings by the real estate industry.

I just like it because it’s common sense. As a buyer, I always did most of my own work identifying and coordinating what I wanted. As a seller, multiple times, the house I sold recieved multiple offers and sold itself. Silly to pay for buyers fees.

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone believe the argument that this decision will lower home prices? I don’t know why sellers would lower the price even if the fees are lower especially since it’s a seller’s market.

A previous poster's dead-weight loss explanation is useful

https://www.dcurbanmom.com/jforum/posts/list/150/1193145.page#27090047

Even if the dead-weight loss effect does not lower prices, the proceeds will go into the pocket of the consumer, rather than the "dead-weight".

since it’s a seller’s market

That condition will likely prevent price drops. But that condition is not eternal. In a buyers market condition, this along with the settlement decision is highly likely to lower prices.

Does anyone believe the argument that this decision will lower home prices? I don’t know why sellers would lower the price even if the fees are lower especially since it’s a seller’s market.

Here is the Chat GPT summary of the settlement.

The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) has agreed to implement several changes as part of a settlement agreement. These changes include:

1. **Compensation Requirements**: NAR will eliminate the requirement that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers. It will also prohibit the disclosure of listing broker compensation or total broker compensation on the MLS.

2. **Participation Conditions**: NAR will eliminate any requirements conditioning participation or membership in a REALTOR® MLS on offering or accepting offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

3. **Non-MLS Mechanisms**: NAR agrees not to create or support any non-MLS mechanism for listing brokers or sellers to make offers of compensation to buyer brokers.

4. **Written Agreement Requirement**: NAR will require that all REALTOR® MLS Participants working with a buyer enter into a written agreement specifying the compensation they will receive.

5. **Representation of Brokerage Services**: NAR will prohibit REALTORS® from representing to a client that their brokerage services are free unless they will receive no financial compensation.

6. **Disclosure to Sellers**: NAR will require disclosure to sellers and obtain their approval for any payment to another broker acting for buyers.

7. **Negotiability of Commissions**: NAR will require disclosure to prospective sellers and buyers that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.

8. **Filtering of Listings**: NAR will require that REALTORS® must not filter out or restrict MLS listings based on the compensation offered to the buyer broker.

9. **Educational Materials**: NAR will develop materials consistent with these practice changes.

These practice changes are to be implemented as soon as practicable, no later than the date of class notice, and are intended to last for 7 years after the class notice date.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/03/28/real-estate-nar-settlement-home-buyers-sellers-commission-win/73070096007/

"I'm a Realtor. NAR settlement may not be as good for home buyers and sellers as they think."

LOL

Haha, do you think we should continue paying 5-6%?

You do it yourself dude. Don't use an agent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/03/28/real-estate-nar-settlement-home-buyers-sellers-commission-win/73070096007/

"I'm a Realtor. NAR settlement may not be as good for home buyers and sellers as they think."

LOL

Haha, do you think we should continue paying 5-6%?

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/03/28/real-estate-nar-settlement-home-buyers-sellers-commission-win/73070096007/

"I'm a Realtor. NAR settlement may not be as good for home buyers and sellers as they think."

LOL

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2024/03/28/real-estate-nar-settlement-home-buyers-sellers-commission-win/73070096007/

"I'm a Realtor. NAR settlement may not be as good for home buyers and sellers as they think."

The funniest part to me will always be the capitalized R.

I noticed that too but thought it was just a typo. If it was deliberate then it’s funny.

No that's the branding. It's a registered trademark, to the extent that I have often seen it with the circled C copyright mark after the word in ads. They all do it with that word because of the brand

Sorry, "circled R copyright mark"