6% no more? - Page 2

themissinglink

1:18p, 3/18/24

I was doing a little more reading about it and it looks like the DOJ still has a number of lawsuits against various MLSs to decouple agent commissions...

DOJ REJECTS COURT SETTLEMENT AND AFFIRMS IMPORTANCE OF DECOUPLING AGENT COMMISSIONS

Quote:
DOJ does not envision a compensation system in which buyers must come up with additional cash to pay their agents. The agency agrees that sellers could provide dollar concessions to be used for this compensation and other buyer expenses. However, DOJ stressed that buyers must have the ability to negotiate these commissions then decide what, if any, concessions to seek from sellers. Similarly, sellers would have the ability to decide whether to offer any concessions and, if so, their amount.

Some of the details of this decoupled system need to be worked out. "It is critically important that buyers negotiate buyer agent commissions before their agents search for properties," said CFA's Brobeck. "Otherwise, buyer agents could steer buyers to properties with the highest dollar concessions and potential agent compensation," he added.

It is also important that buyer agents be prohibited from being compensated by both buyer and seller, a practice the NAR Code of Ethics disapproves of. Otherwise, buyer and listing agents could easily collude to maintain existing commission levels.

Quote:
"To ensure significant price competition, both buyers and sellers would need to discuss and try to negotiate compensation of their agents," Brobeck said. "Even then, rates would be unlikely to fall immediately, yet over time could decline to an average of 3-4 percent level, saving consumers an estimated $20-$30 billion annually, with much greater variation in types of compensation and rates charged by different agents. No longer would inexperienced agents be able to charge the same rates as highly competent agents with years of experience," he added.

ATM9000

1:43p, 3/18/24

I get the frustration around agents getting paid 6%. But at the same time, it feels like every few years a new model like OpenDoor is introduced that's allegedly set to completely disrupt how real estate deals are done. And… none of those models take off because they are prohibitively more expensive than how it works now.

Discount brokers can and do exist and do ok but they also don't disrupt the market but end up being a niche.

So… I dunno… maybe around 6% isn't a grand cabal against the public but actually just the market equilibrium cost to transact real estate.

themissinglink

2:41p, 3/18/24

In reply to ATM9000

The DOJ article linked above does a decent job laying out the anti-trust issues with the traditional "coupling" of agent commissions. The standard listing arrangement used in the industry largely results is the seller/seller agent, not the buyer, setting the buyer agent compensation and can directly or indirectly result in agent's steering clients to specific properties. Ultimately, the buyer agent's compensation should be set exclusively between the buyer and his/her agent. While the seller may offer concessions to pay the buyer agent compensation, those concessions should be agreed between the buyer and seller.

As a seller, agreeing to a listing fee of 6% under the traditional arrangement which is expected to be split between seller agent/buyer agent is slightly different than agreeing to a 3% commission to the seller agent and offering to the buyer up to 3% in concession to cover buyer agent commissions. Under the later arrangement, if a buyer wishes to go unrepresented by agent, they can make their offer more attractive by not taking the concession. An unrepresented buyer does not have that option under the former arrangement.

I suspect ultimately the compensation model goes towards the seller agreeing the seller agent's commission and offering up concessions to the buyer to cover agent commission.

warreng

3:00p, 3/18/24

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If you read the settlement from NAR it says

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 exampleconcessions for buyer closing costs). This change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.

The key there to me is "And sellers can offer buyer concessions on an MLS (for exampleconcessions for buyer closing costs). " In other words you can no longer say you will pay 3% to the buyers agent or put that in the mls. What you can say is "Seller will pay 3% or buyers closing costs" which the buyer could then use to pay their agent. So the question is, will this really change things or are we just calling the same thing by a different name? Only time will tell on that one.

The other thing that I think could actually not be great for sellers is that the rate is actually negotiable now. In the past agents had to abide by what was in the mls. So if the MLS offered the buyers rep fee at 2% you were not allowed to negotiate or change that. So sellers could set that fee up front. Now it will all be negotiable. This may be good or may be bad, I don't think anyone is sure yet. The rate has always been negotiable up front with the listing agent but now will be negotiable during the contract negotiation phase. It will be interesting to see how many deals fall apart because of this.

ATM9000

5:05p, 3/18/24

In reply to themissinglink

themissinglink said:

I suspect ultimately the compensation model goes towards the seller agreeing the seller agent's commission and offering up concessions to the buyer to cover agent commission.

And I suspect ultimately nothing major changes.

Every suggestion for an alternative in this thread has clear unintended consequences. For this one, you are just making deals messier. Now, the seller and realtor's broker agree to a fee up front which can and does get negotiated sometimes and the seller's broker and buyer's broker agree to commissions. What you are suggesting is all of that, plus an additional layer of buyer and seller negotiations plus buyer and buyers agent negotiations. This likely adds no practical value.

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

5:12p, 3/18/24

In reply to warreng

Quote:
So if the MLS offered the buyers rep fee at 2% you were not allowed to negotiate or change that.

This is not accurate - the MLS is a starting point and no offered terms are set in stone. We've negotiated buyers agent commissions from the buyers side for years. A better example would be price - just because a property is offered at a certain price doesn't mean you have to pay that price. Last example - I repped a buyer last year where even though the MLS listing said "no minerals would convey" we made an offer that included the minerals, the seller and sellers agent didn't catch it, and the seller signed the offer we made which conveyed minerals. This was a veteran agent who I'm guessing some of y'all have worked with in the past. The seller was livid when they realized what they and their agent had done. They tried to claim that terms quoted on the MLS must be adhered to and even got attorneys involved, sending me and my buyer threatening letters. Guess who got the minerals at closing? I'd say I earned my 1.5% fee on that deal just on the minerals alone.

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

themissinglink

5:13p, 3/18/24

In reply to ATM9000

ATM9000 said:
themissinglink said:

I suspect ultimately the compensation model goes towards the seller agreeing the seller agent's commission and offering up concessions to the buyer to cover agent commission.

And I suspect ultimately nothing major changes.

Every suggestion for an alternative in this thread has clear unintended consequences. For this one, you are just making deals messier. Now, the seller and realtor's broker agree to a fee up front which can and does get negotiated sometimes and the seller's broker and buyer's broker agree to commissions. What you are suggesting is all of that, plus an additional layer of buyer and seller negotiations plus buyer and buyers agent negotiations. This likely adds no practical value.

This is the problem. The default is the seller is the one negotiating the buyer broker's commission creating an incentive for steering. If nothing changes, expect DOJ lawsuits to intensify.

The practical value of the change would be increased price transparency and likely cost savings to consumers.

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

5:22p, 3/18/24

In reply to Red Pear Realty

Oh, and to make the story even more juicy, the partner at the law firm who sent me the nasty-gram decided that they didn't want to be a party to the disagreement after all when my litigation attorney informed them that they hadn't run their conflict checks because I am a client of another partner at their law firm. Complete clown show all around. I would have paid good money to be a fly on the wall when their/MY attorney got this:

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

southernskies

5:28p, 3/18/24

In reply to Red Pear Realty

Haha that's good for your client for sure. Feel bad for the seller. Either didn't know what he was looking at when he signed or trusted his agent and blanket signed everything. I don't think I could sleep well at night if I was the buyer though. Kind of a sleight of hand. Not taking away from the win you brought your client. The seller and his agent screwed up.

Sea Speed

7:46p, 3/18/24

In reply to southernskies

southernskies said:
Haha that's good for your client for sure. Feel bad for the seller. Either didn't know what he was looking at when he signed or trusted his agent and blanket signed everything. I don't think I could sleep well at night if I was the buyer though. Kind of a sleight of hand. Not taking away from the win you brought your client. The seller and his agent screwed up.

How is is sleight of hand? I have made offers on things that they said didn't convey or were completely random and guess what happened? They agreed or it became a negotiating point. How on earth is it the buyers fault and why should they feel anything? Its not like you can hide that your offer includes minerals? This is actually a PERFECT case to demonstrate for the value of a good realtor and that you don't always get what you pay for.

CS78

7:53p, 3/18/24

Yeah, id at least let them try to renegotiate for the minerals but ultimately that's on them to make sure the mineral reservation addendum gets signed.

I had an elderly lady call me up a month after selling me some land. All frantic that she didnt keep the minerals for her children. I got back with the title company and told them to figure out the paperwork to get the minerals back to her.

Her attorney actually cost me $20k above the agreed upon sales price. But I didn't have it in me to hold that against her.

CS78

8:00p, 3/18/24

In reply to Sea Speed

Its pretty easy to slip it by. Don't sign the addendum to reserve, keep your mouth shut about minerals, and hope they sign the offer before noticing. All offers are "with" minerals. And the seller must make sure they get reserved. Definitely a goof on the selling agents part but i suspect a common one for agents that deal mostly in houses.

And the seller needs to double check that its there at closing. Ive seen the title companies forget to add it.

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

8:29p, 3/18/24

In reply to Sea Speed

I'm going to start having this conversation with all new clients:

"We are going to win so much. We are going to win at every level. We are going to win with every single facet. We are going to win so much you may even get tired of winning."

And they'll say, "Please! Please! It's too much winning! We can't take it anymore! Mr. Red Pear, it's too much."

And I'll say, "No it isn't. We have to keep winning. We have to win more. We are going to win so much!"

So the real question, Mr. Sea Speed, is "Are you tired of winning yet?"

In all seriousness, it is funny to see people say, "Realtors just open doors, they don't provide value." And then in the same thread say, "that's too much winning." Ha!

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

8:30p, 3/18/24

In reply to CS78

CS78 said:
Yeah, id at least let them try to renegotiate for the minerals but ultimately that's on them to make sure the mineral reservation addendum gets signed.

We actually did this, and they refused to come back to the table. So my client took it all and the seller got nothing.

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

8:30p, 3/18/24

In reply to CS78

I disagree. It's not like they missed a single check box....they missed an entire addendum to the contract. It's a broker's job to check contracts and the contract says in big bolded letters that buyers and sellers should consult an attorney before signing. Maybe select your broker based on qualifications and not attractiveness?

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

ATM9000

1:19a, 3/19/24

In reply to themissinglink

themissinglink said:
ATM9000 said:
themissinglink said:

I suspect ultimately the compensation model goes towards the seller agreeing the seller agent's commission and offering up concessions to the buyer to cover agent commission.

And I suspect ultimately nothing major changes.

Every suggestion for an alternative in this thread has clear unintended consequences. For this one, you are just making deals messier. Now, the seller and realtor's broker agree to a fee up front which can and does get negotiated sometimes and the seller's broker and buyer's broker agree to commissions. What you are suggesting is all of that, plus an additional layer of buyer and seller negotiations plus buyer and buyers agent negotiations. This likely adds no practical value.
This is the problem. The default is the seller is the one negotiating the buyer broker's commission creating an incentive for steering. If nothing changes, expect DOJ lawsuits to intensify.

The practical value of the change would be increased price transparency and likely cost savings to consumers.

Sellers know what's likely the maximum amount of commission they are going to pay up front right now. In your scenario, they don't. What you are suggesting doesn't increase price transparency at all. It just adds complexity.

It also likely becomes more costly for the buyer… there's a reason seller concessions are capped and the size of the cap gets bigger when the buyer puts more money down… concessions generally increase risk to the financing.

Houston Lee

3:35a, 3/19/24

1-There seems to be a lot of disdain for Realtors by some on this thread. Sorry you had such a bad experience with some Realtors in your past or that you think they earned "Money for Nothing" as the Dire Straits song famously touted…I know that I get my chicks for free!

2-The good news is that you don't have to use a Realtor. As a seller, nothing is stopping you from doing "For Sale by Owner" and selling your home yourself. That has always been an option. There are even companies that will buy your house with a cash offer today at about 20% less than what you could sell your home if you use a Realtor to list it. I'm sure all you folks here that don't like Realtors are doing the For Sale By Owner option and saving a ton of money.

3-If you are a Buyer and you don't want to deal with a Realtor, then HIRE A LAWYER to do the paperwork for you. That has always been an option and I hope all you seasoned buyers here are doing this and not hiring a Realtor.

Quote:
That ain't workin', that's the way you do it

Money for nothin' and your chicks for free

Houston Lee

6:18a, 3/19/24

With this settlement, there is some bad news for buyers that really hasn't been discussed much.

Realtors can't show a home and therefore, Buyers can't go tour a home, unless they first sign a buyers representation agreement. They can still go to an open house hosted by the listing agent. But, that is about it.

Zillow (along with many other companies) do a great job of connecting Buyers with Buyers Agents. The buyer can go on Zillow and see a house they like. They can click on a button to "take a tour" and be instantly connected by phone with a buyers agent in that area to go see the home that same day. The agent sets up the appointment and BAM, they meet at the home and tour the property. If the buyer likes the agent, then they typically hire them to find more homes to tour and a relationship is born.

Most of these buyers are first time homebuyers or people that don't know the area or buyers from out of town. Now, these buyers are going to have to sign a written agreement with an agent on the hood of a car prior to an agent opening the door for them. This seems kind of backwards and scary for the first time homebuyers. No time to develop a relationship.

What an unintended consequence of this rule could be is that homes end up with less showings and that buyers will have to take a leap of faith.

Imagine you are in California and you want to see some homes in Texas and don't have or know an agent in that area. You want an agent in Texas to go to a home on your behalf and do a video (face-time) virtual tour of the property. This happens all the time. Now, before that agent can do a video tour of the property, you will have to sign a buyers rep agreement with them. Very interesting.

As a seller, you want as many people touring your home as possible. Sometimes, the buyers are serious and ready to buy now and sometimes they are just starting their search. This is going to make it interesting for sure.

Sea Speed

6:22a, 3/19/24

In reply to Houston Lee

How can a buyer not use tourly or similar or not just pay a local agent per showing?

BMo

7:14a, 3/19/24

In reply to warreng

warreng said:
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. If you read the settlement from NAR it says

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 exampleconcessions for buyer closing costs). This change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.

The key there to me is "And sellers can offer buyer concessions on an MLS (for exampleconcessions for buyer closing costs). " In other words you can no longer say you will pay 3% to the buyers agent or put that in the mls. What you can say is "Seller will pay 3% or buyers closing costs" which the buyer could then use to pay their agent. So the question is, will this really change things or are we just calling the same thing by a different name? Only time will tell on that one.

The other thing that I think could actually not be great for sellers is that the rate is actually negotiable now. In the past agents had to abide by what was in the mls. So if the MLS offered the buyers rep fee at 2% you were not allowed to negotiate or change that. So sellers could set that fee up front. Now it will all be negotiable. This may be good or may be bad, I don't think anyone is sure yet. The rate has always been negotiable up front with the listing agent but now will be negotiable during the contract negotiation phase. It will be interesting to see how many deals fall apart because of this.

Human nature says the buyer won't want to pay the buyer's agent and go on their own. Many deals are not straightforward, and I see many buyers getting into trouble either up front but likely later when it is too late to do anything about it.

southernskies

7:24a, 3/19/24

In reply to Sea Speed

In the regard that it wasn't mutually agreed upon and got slipped in. Yes it's a win for the buyer but I wouldn't necessarily be proud to say I tricked someone into giving up something that was stated in the listing as not wanting to convey. If it's something small, ok not as big a deal, but what if the minerals were the sellers plan to pass on for inheritance or for their retirement? I don't know all the details but it could have upturned someone's life. "Love the neighbor as thyself" would be my guiding principle and thus the reason I wouldn't feel like a champ on the back end of that deal. Like I said though, in this instance value was definitely added by the realtor.

Sea Speed

7:35a, 3/19/24

In reply to southernskies

Why do you assume the seller was tricked? I dont think that is a fair assumption at all.

Red Pear Realty

Sponsor

7:40a, 3/19/24

In reply to BMo

This is exactly what I'm afraid of. But what I'm most afraid of is that investors and big companies, who bought 40% of all houses in America last year, will still have representation because they can afford it. But the first time homebuyers, and the folks at or below the median price point won't be able to afford representation. So their offers just become that much less competitive if they need to ask the seller to pay for their rep. My markets in Houston are absolutely strong sellers markets right now. Starting in July if these rules go into effect, I'm pretty sure sellers are going to tell my buyers where they can put it if they ask them to pay for their agent via a credit of any kind.

If buyer's agents really don't add value, nothing will change and we will all go on about our business as usual.

Sponsor Message: We Split Commissions. Full Service Agents in Austin, Bryan-College Station, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston and San Antonio. Red Pear Realty

southernskies

8:12a, 3/19/24

In reply to Sea Speed

He said the seller and the agent were livid when they found out what had happened

Sea Speed

8:42a, 3/19/24

In reply to southernskies

southernskies said:
He said the seller and the agent were livid when they found out what had happened

How does that equate to tricking them? I would be pissed too if I overlooked something so obvious.

Houston Lee

8:42a, 3/19/24

In reply to Sea Speed

Sea Speed said:
How can a buyer not use tourly or similar or not just pay a local agent per showing?

Nobody pays to tour a house. For insurance and liability reasons, most listings wont allow anyone inside the home if they are not accompanied by a license holder.

Buyers wont be able to tour a home without signing an agreement first (unless an open house or at some builders model home). These agreements are usually for 3 to 6 months and state that buyer will use the Realtor if they purchase or lease any home during that period in the stated market area. My buyers agreements usually cover market areas for Harris and Montgomery county (TX). If a buyer uses a different agent while they are under a buyers agreement with another agent, they will owe that agent the commission stated in the agreement.

This will probably push the buyer that has no agent to call the listing agent directly and see of the listing agent will show them the home. But, then the question is if the listing agent must have the buyer sign some agreement before showing them since they may be representing the buyer and the seller (as an Intermediary)

Sea Speed

8:55a, 3/19/24

In reply to Houston Lee

I've paid several agents to open the door to a home i was interested in and will probably do the same when I get home next week. I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just dont see how this would stop someone from paying a random realtor for opening a door. I do understand that it is likely that more buyers agents will ask for an agreement though.

Houston Lee

9:01a, 3/19/24

In reply to Sea Speed

Sea Speed said:
I've paid several agents to open the door to a home i was interested in and will probably do the same when I get home next week. I'm not trying to be obstinate, I just dont see how this would stop someone from paying a random realtor for opening a door. I do understand that it is likely that more buyers agents will ask for an agreement though.

Most buyers are not you. The point is that first time home buyers have no idea what to do. The general public does not know what to do.

southernskies

9:32a, 3/19/24

In reply to Sea Speed

Call it whatever you want, the sellers did not intend to convey minerals but trusted their "professional" agent and got screwed from what they had stated in the listing was their intention.

Mistakes happen, but it sucks in this case because the sellers made it a point in the listing to say no minerals convey, so the message was clear from the start. So that's why I feel bad for them. It wasn't an after the fact change that came about after offers were coming in. Sounds like they just had a bad agent, because a decent one would have caught that.

If a waiter mistakenly gives you $100 extra in change and asks for it back, do you keep it? You know his/her intentions were to give you the proper amount of change. They just overlooked the amount of bills they were giving you at the table.

SquareOne07

9:54a, 3/19/24

Perhaps this has been discussed, so if so, I apologize.

As a prospective seller, I'm not interested in paying for the representation of the opposing (not meant in an antagonistic way) party. They are, from a fiduciary perspective, acting in the best interest of their client which could very easily and understandably not be in the best interest of me as the seller.

Is there another industry or profession where one party pays for the legal representation of another party directly involved in the case or transaction?

Heineken-Ashi

10:12a, 3/19/24

In reply to southernskies

southernskies said:
Call it whatever you want, the sellers did not intend to convey minerals but trusted their "professional" agent and got screwed from what they had stated in the listing was their intention.

Mistakes happen, but it sucks in this case because the sellers made it a point in the listing to say no minerals convey, so the message was clear from the start. So that's why I feel bad for them. It wasn't an after the fact change that came about after offers were coming in. Sounds like they just had a bad agent, because a decent one would have caught that.

If a waiter mistakenly gives you $100 extra in change and asks for it back, do you keep it? You know his/her intentions were to give you the proper amount of change. They just overlooked the amount of bills they were giving you at the table.

Did the waiter accept a contract from you that stipulated you keep it?

Sorry those people had poor representation. On the flip side, Jamie's client wanted the minerals, asked for them in writing, and it was accepted. EVERYTHING IS NEGOTIABLE. That's why you even try in the first place. It's not the client's fault the agent on the other side dropped the ball. It wasn't an attempt to trick. It was an attempt to get what they wanted. And it was accepted.

“Give it hell Heinekandle, I’m enjoying it.”
- Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX

“No secure borders, no alpha military, no energy independence, no leadership and most of all no mean tweets - this is the worst trade I’ve ever witnessed in my lifetime. ***Put that quote in your quote/signature section HeinendKandle*** LOL!”
- also Farmer @ Johnsongrass, TX (obviously in a worse mood)

BrazosDog02

11:06a, 3/19/24

In reply to southernskies

southernskies said:
Call it whatever you want, the sellers did not intend to convey minerals but trusted their "professional" agent and got screwed from what they had stated in the listing was their intention.

Mistakes happen, but it sucks in this case because the sellers made it a point in the listing to say no minerals convey, so the message was clear from the start. So that's why I feel bad for them. It wasn't an after the fact change that came about after offers were coming in. Sounds like they just had a bad agent, because a decent one would have caught that.

If a waiter mistakenly gives you $100 extra in change and asks for it back, do you keep it? You know his/her intentions were to give you the proper amount of change. They just overlooked the amount of bills they were giving you at the table.

Holy cow. I can't believe this is being discussed or that these responses are getting 'stars'. This is the problem with a lot of society now. No one wants to own up to mistakes and be accountable for their actions, or lack of actions. NOTHING WAS SLIPPED IN. NOTHING WAS SCAMMED. NO ONE WAS DEFRAUDED. Jamie did EXACTLY what he is supposed to be doing as a rep. These are his clients. The request and documentation/negotiation is clearly and succinctly stated in the contract. If the seller's agent did not read it, that's no one's problem except the agents. If the buyers didn't read it, that's also not the buyer's problem. Seriously think about what you are defending here. How many people missed a clearly written agreement????

Before I had a license, even I read the contracts that were presented to me. My Realtor did as well. My wife did, too. That's three sets of eyes. You will NEVER convince me that the fault would lie anywhere except with the sellers. These aren't difficult contracts to read...literally all you need to do is look at them.

Are you being serious or are you trolling the board?

I work with insurance, and when I have a client that has a contract with me, I will write in THOUSANDS of dollars worth of items for an insurance carrier to review. If they approved every single one of them because they didn't feel like going through a list of 73 items, so be it. It's legal. It's binding. My client gets a bunch of money. THAT IS MY JOB.

dallasiteinsa02

11:08a, 3/19/24

In reply to Red Pear Realty

Red Pear Realty said:
Quote:
So if the MLS offered the buyers rep fee at 2% you were not allowed to negotiate or change that.

This is not accurate - the MLS is a starting point and no offered terms are set in stone. We've negotiated buyers agent commissions from the buyers side for years. A better example would be price - just because a property is offered at a certain price doesn't mean you have to pay that price. Last example - I repped a buyer last year where even though the MLS listing said "no minerals would convey" we made an offer that included the minerals, the seller and sellers agent didn't catch it, and the seller signed the offer we made which conveyed minerals. This was a veteran agent who I'm guessing some of y'all have worked with in the past. The seller was livid when they realized what they and their agent had done. They tried to claim that terms quoted on the MLS must be adhered to and even got attorneys involved, sending me and my buyer threatening letters. Guess who got the minerals at closing? I'd say I earned my 1.5% fee on that deal just on the minerals alone.

The only mls rule was that you had to offer something to a buyer's agent for it to be in MLS. This is going away and should. Though it was typically 3%, I saw 2% or 1% on a regular basis especially as the value of the property went up.

I think the seller agent's side could be replicated for lower costs. Tons of people have gone after this side of the business with some success.

The buyer's side can almost be replicated with just one problem, showings. Are seller's going to open up their home without them there to buyers? There is already a ton of theft in the industry with licensed people opening the homes.

I have often thought of creating an Uber-type setup where you can coordinate a showing for a flat fee then per minute. A person gets paid to open the home and make sure you don't do anything. Both the seller and the buyer are signing up for the service.

1939

11:24a, 3/19/24

6% in this day and age is highway robbery. Lowest amount of work for agents ever and record home prices that have far exceeded inflation.

1939

11:27a, 3/19/24

In reply to ATM9000

ATM9000 said:
I get the frustration around agents getting paid 6%. But at the same time, it feels like every few years a new model like OpenDoor is introduced that's allegedly set to completely disrupt how real estate deals are done. And… none of those models take off because they are prohibitively more expensive than how it works now.

Discount brokers can and do exist and do ok but they also don't disrupt the market but end up being a niche.

So… I dunno… maybe around 6% isn't a grand cabal against the public but actually just the market equilibrium cost to transact real estate.

It hasn't taken off because all the agents collude and won't show houses if they aren't getting their 3%-6%. They have no incentive to offer properties at less than the standard.