Anonymous wrote:Heck, yeah. Long overdue. It’s an absurd amount of money.

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!

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Do it however you want to do it.

That is the goal. And NAR opposes this. Start by looking into “fee-for-service” brokerages, “minimum service requirements” laws, and who/what advocates for MSR laws (spoiler: NAR).

"Why can't I just pay a realtor a flat fee for MLS access, and nothing else (fee-for-service)?"

In several states, this is illegal or has been illegal. Why? NAR, that's why. How do MSR laws benefit the public? They don't. They benefit NAR.

There is no monopoly here.

NAR has for the last 100 years been repeatedly and successfully sued for anti-trust, anti-consumer practices. And the litigation continues.

You can make other choices.

The schemes NAR uses to restrict your choices are nuanced; the nuanced schemes are product of tip-toeing around prior DOJ/FTC findings of anti-trust practices.

So what? The social waste of the real estate industry price-fixing and anti-competition practices has been estimated to be between $1.1 and $8.2 billion (see Chang-Tai Hsieh & Enrico Moretti). That is consumer money that could be put to better use, rather than supporting a social parasite.

Not all agents are bad, too many are. Not all used car salespeople are bad, too many are.

NAR is objectively bad. A parasite.

Anonymous wrote:Ha! It was something that began under Trump. Lol:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/real-estate-brokers-pocketing-6-185119778.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAABxo92bsLAG6gHZTLhJKEMs_JFwL0tpRHgNMxjqwlD2-JtpzWJLn_WTnDxZpKUdFqfRR-YPFT7Vq_zI5SFuDNDkwuNj_koex-aV4pu2PlHjAVPZcECxRadhilRnXtVyfcGY-QAb7Od9lcup7qcRFZTHv5eurWBn882WvP_pW368M

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:link? clown

Can’t use tech yourself? Predictable.

Realtors are an inappropriate tax on the American Dream.

Your illiteracy is showing.

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure there are great realtors out there, but in my personal experience they have been terrible and do not earn the fee.

But the industry lobby will never let this change, similar to CPA/tax preparers with simplifying tax returns and insurers/medical providers with healthcare reform.

Do it however you want to do it.

There is no monopoly here.

You can make other choices.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't read the article - behind a paywall. But the sellers should continue to pay for the realtor fees because the seller selects who to use to take pictures, list, possibly stage, etc.

With today's technology, I'm wondering if we even need buyer's agents anymore. We used to need them to even find out which homes are on the market. Now we just need one realtor to open the door. We've bought and sold multiple homes. We don't even use buyer's agents anymore. The last home we bought, we just called the seller's agent and they showed us the house and even wrote the offer for us (their preference, we've written offers ourselves).

Maybe the path forward is sellers pay 2% to one realtor? This would make it better for buyers and sellers. Less commission for the sellers to pay and it would close the gap between what buyers want to pay and what sellers want to get at settlement.

But the sellers agent is looking out for the best interest of the seller; their client.

I do like the premise of maybe 2/3% but the seller does put in the footwork; pictures and marketing. 6% is just ridiculous especially with the internet. When a buyer can look themselves and just need the realtor to open the door and do paperwork.

All agents are looking out for themselves, first and foremost. They just want to close the deal and get paid. They couldn’t care less about either party’s best interest.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Read the linked articles to understand your mistake.

I’m actually an antitrust lawyer and I turned down a very similar case due to the lack of solid footing for the theory. HTH

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.

A $50K fee on a $1M sale is substantial, not at all marginal.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I can't read the article - behind a paywall. But the sellers should continue to pay for the realtor fees because the seller selects who to use to take pictures, list, possibly stage, etc.

With today's technology, I'm wondering if we even need buyer's agents anymore. We used to need them to even find out which homes are on the market. Now we just need one realtor to open the door. We've bought and sold multiple homes. We don't even use buyer's agents anymore. The last home we bought, we just called the seller's agent and they showed us the house and even wrote the offer for us (their preference, we've written offers ourselves).

Maybe the path forward is sellers pay 2% to one realtor? This would make it better for buyers and sellers. Less commission for the sellers to pay and it would close the gap between what buyers want to pay and what sellers want to get at settlement.

But the sellers agent is looking out for the best interest of the seller; their client.

I do like the premise of maybe 2/3% but the seller does put in the footwork; pictures and marketing. 6% is just ridiculous especially with the internet. When a buyer can look themselves and just need the realtor to open the door and do paperwork.