Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: One day I think AI will replace realtors.
Artificial intelligence isn't going to replace a trade that does not require intelligence.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:link? clown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-10-16/us-realtors-lucrative-fee-system-faces-mounting-antitrust-risk?embedded-checkout=true
I assume this is what OP is referring to.
"Commission rates, which often get baked into a home’s listing price, are an attractive target for the Biden administration as low housing supply and spiraling mortgage costs combine to create the least affordable housing market in four decades. On a $407,100 house — the median existing-home sales price — a 5.5% commission comes to about $22,390.
...
In some parts of the world, total commissions for each sale are significantly lower – around 2% in countries like Australia and the UK.
…
Completely untying buyer and seller agent fees could eventually lower commissions by as much as $30 billion annually, according to a study by the Consumer Federation of America, a watchdog group. If aspiring homeowners had to pay agents directly, they would likely shop around before hiring one — increasing competition — or pay an hourly or flat-fee service to handle paperwork at closing.
…
NAR has said the buyer commission offer doesn’t have to be the traditional 2.5% – the group recently said it could even be $0. But that higher rate persists in most transactions as sellers fear that listing with lower payouts for buyers’ agents would cause them to steer clients away — a concern borne out by recent research.
…
These changes could also put the future of the National Association of Realtors in doubt. The group [NAR] collects $150 in annual dues from more than 1.5 million agents. It’s a moment of reckoning for the group that last year surpassed the US Chamber of Congress to be the biggest spender on lobbying in the US, laying out more than $80 million in 2022."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote: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.
I believe NAR spends more on lobbying than any other entity in America. They need $ to protect what their bad arguments can’t.
Look at AIPAC public numbers and then add 100% for gifts in kind.
Anonymous wrote:Heck, yeah. Long overdue. It’s an absurd amount of money.
Anonymous wrote:IMO agents have realized their declining value added for some time now, and that's why they're pushing staging as something they can bring.
Anonymous wrote: One day I think AI will replace realtors.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If everyone needs to pay for their own realtor upfront, it will make it harder for buyers to afford to buy. But I agree that agent fees are too high. I doubt this will change the cost that much on average, it might shift it around or sellers will start giving credits or closing costs. The whole model will be difficult to change.
Not sure about that premise. Nowadays with redfin and zillow it's not clear whether everyone still needs their own realtor.
+1
Retain a real estate attorney for contracts.
Hire an inspector for inspections.
Pay a real estate agent 25k+ if you have questions about which side to the basement to put that child-sized teepee for staging, or if you need someone to post "Thoughts on this house..." / "Why is this sitting..." threads on DCUM > Real Estate.
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.
Anonymous wrote: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.
I believe NAR spends more on lobbying than any other entity in America. They need $ to protect what their bad arguments can’t.
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.
Agree, consumers should be going after title agencies as well.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:If everyone needs to pay for their own realtor upfront, it will make it harder for buyers to afford to buy. But I agree that agent fees are too high. I doubt this will change the cost that much on average, it might shift it around or sellers will start giving credits or closing costs. The whole model will be difficult to change.
Not sure about that premise. Nowadays with redfin and zillow it's not clear whether everyone still needs their own realtor.