How does the NAR settlement help Investors get the highest price for their property?

[James McGovern]

Is it wrong to believe that the NAR Settlement is evil for sellers who want their real estate agents to get the maximum value for properties they flip? Why does denying agents the ability to show a commission benefit anyone?

Would this not turn off buyers agents who don't know how to articulate their value from working harder? 

Would this not reduce the number of potential buyers brought to the table when the realtor can't use the largest marketing platform to its full advantage (aka the MLS)?

[Russell Brazil]

Evil? No thats a pretty harsh word. Genocide is evil. Restricting certain elements you can advertise may not be good, but it is certainly not evil.

Is the settlement good for sellers? Might be worth asking if it is good for buyers too.

I generally believe that the settlement is not good for either sellers or buyers.  More transparency is generally a good thing I believe. This settlement removes transparency from the process. Additionally, the main business plan of agents on the lower end of the price spectrum were ones with rebate businesses.  This settlement essentially puts rebate broker business structures out of business altogether, since they have no ability to plan on getting X dollars and rebating Y dollars of it. 

 The requirement to enter into buyer-broker agreements I view as neutral. This was already required in 18 states plus DC. Some consumers have never liked it, but things still function perfectly normal in those states. So it will just be a minor adjustment to consumers in the states that didnt require this already.