Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Are you saying someone buying a fridge for a condo should pay different from a fridge fo a mansion?
Maybe a fee for how much work the realtor is puts in? Or a bonus commission % for getting extra high price above a baseline?

Mind blowing, I know.

You don't need to be snarky. I was asking a genuine question because I'm not understanding how the flat fee arrangement would work. It seems grossly unfair that Jeff Bezos will pay the same price for selling his home(s) than the blue collar worker in Appalachia.

As to your fridge analogy, I'll bet the fridge that the 400k condo owner buys will be much less expensive than the luxury fridge the 3.5 million home owner buys for their tricked-out kitchen. Mind blowing, I know.

You don't understand how it would work? It would just happen, this how it would "work".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Are you saying someone buying a fridge for a condo should pay different from a fridge fo a mansion?
Maybe a fee for how much work the realtor is puts in? Or a bonus commission % for getting extra high price above a baseline?

Mind blowing, I know.

You don't need to be snarky. I was asking a genuine question because I'm not understanding how the flat fee arrangement would work. It seems grossly unfair that Jeff Bezos will pay the same price for selling his home(s) than the blue collar worker in Appalachia.

As to your fridge analogy, I'll bet the fridge that the 400k condo owner buys will be much less expensive than the luxury fridge the 3.5 million home owner buys for their tricked-out kitchen. Mind blowing, I know.

Why not pay the same price? The realtor is not lifting the home on his shoulders to deliver it the buyer, not paying for anything by the pound like we are at a deli.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Are you saying someone buying a fridge for a condo should pay different from a fridge fo a mansion?
Maybe a fee for how much work the realtor is puts in? Or a bonus commission % for getting extra high price above a baseline?

Mind blowing, I know.

You don't need to be snarky. I was asking a genuine question because I'm not understanding how the flat fee arrangement would work. It seems grossly unfair that Jeff Bezos will pay the same price for selling his home(s) than the blue collar worker in Appalachia.

As to your fridge analogy, I'll bet the fridge that the 400k condo owner buys will be much less expensive than the luxury fridge the 3.5 million home owner buys for their tricked-out kitchen. Mind blowing, I know.

Key Terms from NAR on the proposed settlement:
• Release of liability: The agreement would release NAR, over one million NAR members, all state/territorial and local REALTOR® associations, all association-owned MLSs, and all brokerages with an NAR member as principal that had a residential transaction volume in 2022 of $2 billion or below from liability for the types of claims brought in these cases on behalf of home sellers related to broker commissions.
o NAR fought to include all members in the release and was able to ensure more than one million members are included. Despite NAR’s efforts, agents affiliated with HomeServices of America and its related companies—the last corporate defendant still litigating the Sitzer-Burnett case—are not released under the settlement, nor are employees of the remaining corporate defendants named in the cases covered by this settlement.
• Compensation offers moved off the MLS: NAR has agreed to put in place a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation on the MLS. Offers of compensation could continue to be an option consumers can pursue off-MLS through negotiation and consultation with real estate professionals. And sellers can offer buyer concessions on an MLS (for example—concessions for buyer closing costs). This change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.
• Written agreements for MLS participants acting for buyers: While NAR has been advocating for the use of written agreements for years, in this settlement we have agreed to require MLS participants working with buyers to enter into written representation agreements with their buyers. This change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.
• Settlement payment: NAR would pay $418 million over approximately four years. This is a substantial sum, and it will be incumbent on NAR to use our remaining resources in the most effective way possible to continue delivering on our core mission. NAR’s membership dues for 2024 will not change because of this payment.
• NAR continues to deny any wrongdoing: NAR has long maintained — and we continue to believe — that cooperative compensation and NAR’s current policies are good things that benefit buyers and sellers. They promote access to property ownership, particularly for lower- and middle-income buyers who can have a difficult-enough time saving for a down payment. With this settlement, NAR is confident it and its members can still achieve all those goals.

FWIW, DH and I have been buying and selling residential real estate for 20 years now. Even back then the commission is negotiable. We alway pay 4.5%. 3% goes to the buyer’s agent/agency and 1.5% to my agent to split w his agency. He worked as an independent under a listing agency. He essentially takes b/t 0.5-0.75% per transaction. He doesn’t advertise and has a pretty extensive inventor client list that buys/sells both residential and commercial properties. He makes a great living and we have done well with him through the various up-and-down markets.

Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?

The are not necessary.

Anonymous wrote:Flat fee advocates, help me out here. Are you saying that someone selling a 440k condo should pay the same fee as someone selling their multi-million dollar mansion?

Yes, they can charge sellers a flat fee and buyers can pay by the hour. Are you suggesting that selling a $2m condo is more work than a $500k condo? Sometimes it is and sometimes it’s not, completely depends on the clients, the market, the price etc. percent based listings doesn’t make sense.

Btw DCUM I made this suggestion a few years ago and you all chewed me out.

Anonymous wrote:So what does this mean for people who have active listings right now (looking at me, here!)? We're going into our second OH this weekend. Will prospective buyers want to wait until this lawsuit is finally settled? Can I ask the buyer to pay for the buyer's commission even if I already signed the contact? What awful timing for my family.

Read the listing agreement

Anonymous wrote:Big benefit for sellers. Huge downside for buyers. Example- I have a west coast client looking “in Arlington and DC”. He was in town last weekend and I showed him 16 properties over two days- from Brentwood to Shaw to Congress Heights. I spent a ton of time assembling and pre screening the properties. Am I going to work with another client like him anymore? Nope. Now he can arrange showings with 16 separate listing agents, and the listing agents can figure out who is going to write his offer and represent his interests.

Or he can hire an agent willing to work hourly. And this will be newer agents who have no clue what they are doing. Trust me I am trying to make a purchase in another state and the agent I was referred to is so useless. So he can pay hourly for his nouveau agent or not have an agent at all.

It’s already hard enough for buyers these days. This is a massive blow to homebuyers.

Give me a break. I was an agent for 10 years. Sometimes you work with people for a year and they never buy, or buy with the agent at the open house. Sometimes you get a call and they buy the first thing they see. Lower agent fees means fewer agents in the industry. This is a win for agents too, there are too damn many of them fighting for business.

Anonymous wrote:If I am reading correctly, this new system will become effective July. Would some people intending to put their house on the market choose to wait until July to do it? If so, inventory could fall even further, and prices climb more in the next few months.

If anyone lists their home in the next few months, I’d expect it to say “no buyer agent commission will be paid” in big letters in the listing.

If I am reading correctly, this new system will become effective July. Would some people intending to put their house on the market choose to wait until July to do it? If so, inventory could fall even further, and prices climb more in the next few months.

Anonymous wrote:This is great news overall, especially for sellers. I can see why some cash-strapped buyers in expensive areas might be hurt as they would need to pay for realtor services -- I am doubtful prices will decline materially because of lower transaction costs for sellers and thus help buyers -- but the ability to use limited services should greatly mitigate that.

Nothing wrong with this--if I am buying something, I pay for it, all parts of the purchase.

Anonymous wrote:Big benefit for sellers. Huge downside for buyers. Example- I have a west coast client looking “in Arlington and DC”. He was in town last weekend and I showed him 16 properties over two days- from Brentwood to Shaw to Congress Heights. I spent a ton of time assembling and pre screening the properties. Am I going to work with another client like him anymore? Nope. Now he can arrange showings with 16 separate listing agents, and the listing agents can figure out who is going to write his offer and represent his interests.

Or he can hire an agent willing to work hourly. And this will be newer agents who have no clue what they are doing. Trust me I am trying to make a purchase in another state and the agent I was referred to is so useless. So he can pay hourly for his nouveau agent or not have an agent at all.

It’s already hard enough for buyers these days. This is a massive blow to homebuyers.

Sorry you've basically lost your job. I really am, even if it's better for the economy to not have anti-competitive market distortions.

This is great news overall, especially for sellers. I can see why some cash-strapped buyers in expensive areas might be hurt as they would need to pay for realtor services -- I am doubtful prices will decline materially because of lower transaction costs for sellers and thus help buyers -- but the ability to use limited services should greatly mitigate that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Big benefit for sellers. Huge downside for buyers. Example- I have a west coast client looking “in Arlington and DC”. He was in town last weekend and I showed him 16 properties over two days- from Brentwood to Shaw to Congress Heights. I spent a ton of time assembling and pre screening the properties. Am I going to work with another client like him anymore? Nope. Now he can arrange showings with 16 separate listing agents, and the listing agents can figure out who is going to write his offer and represent his interests.

Or he can hire an agent willing to work hourly. And this will be newer agents who have no clue what they are doing. Trust me I am trying to make a purchase in another state and the agent I was referred to is so useless. So he can pay hourly for his nouveau agent or not have an agent at all.

It’s already hard enough for buyers these days. This is a massive blow to homebuyers.

This is strange. Shouldn’t someone like that be attending open houses?

Also sounds like an agent who doesn't know the market and what a client is looking for very well. Brentwood, Shaw and Congress Heights are very different areas with very different price points. Also, why nowhere in Arlington if that was part of the ask? This agent should have asked more pointed questions of the client to narrow down the choices. Sounds like someone I probably wouldn't hire.