Real Estate Agent
Market News & Data
General Info
Real Estate Strategies
Landlording & Rental Properties
Real Estate Professionals
Financial, Tax, & Legal
Real Estate Classifieds
Reviews & Feedback
How does the NAR settlement help Investors get the highest price for their property?
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)?
#2 Real Estate Agent Contributor
- Real Estate Broker
- Coppell, TX
There are all kinds of potential bad outcomes of this for sellers.
Most businesses and consumers should be striving for efficiency and transparency. This settlement makes things more complicated. On a regular basis I call/text/email an agent to ask pertinent questions to make an offer and never get any response even after multiple attempts. Send offers with no response. So maybe now less sales get done.
Maybe the big boy brokerages go all in house, so don't pay a buyer's agent. So market shrinks and more lawsuits happen when buyers go unrepresented. Big brokerages control the market. Do fees go up or down with less competition? Maybe they go up if 2-3 brokerages control the market vs the thousands there are today.
Maybe all the buyer agents go out of business and just leave the big brokerages to control the market.
Plenty of bad things can happen. Winners were the attorneys. Losers were everyone else. Oh wait, I think the class action participants might get $50 each.
Quote from @Bruce Lynn:
There are all kinds of potential bad outcomes of this for sellers.
Most businesses and consumers should be striving for efficiency and transparency. This settlement makes things more complicated. On a regular basis I call/text/email an agent to ask pertinent questions to make an offer and never get any response even after multiple attempts. Send offers with no response. So maybe now less sales get done.
Maybe the big boy brokerages go all in house, so don't pay a buyer's agent. So market shrinks and more lawsuits happen when buyers go unrepresented. Big brokerages control the market. Do fees go up or down with less competition? Maybe they go up if 2-3 brokerages control the market vs the thousands there are today.
Maybe all the buyer agents go out of business and just leave the big brokerages to control the market.
Plenty of bad things can happen. Winners were the attorneys. Losers were everyone else. Oh wait, I think the class action participants might get $50 each.
Agree with everything you said. Is it wrong for me to believe that going unrepresented, I may not be missing out on much especially since the agents themselves did not represent their interests other than wanting status quo. They let lawyers bend them over where buyers of properties like you said are only going to get $20 or less at settlement.
Good representatiion and having a client for life would suggest they should have been doing more to advocate for those who purchased in the past.
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.
Quote from @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)?
To me this actually makes much more sense than the current system, people just don’t like change lol, basically the buyer & thier agent negotiate a fair fee and that fee is no longer being “hidden”. the agent than negotiate’s a concession with the sellers agent, that’s literally it, it’s a totally logical system that makes much more sense then the current one, and I think people (mainly agents who are afraid as soon as the seller realizes they are getting 3%, that they might not be worth it) are just making way to big of a deal of it.
Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @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?
To me this actually makes much more sense than the current system, people just don’t like change lol,
The reason people often hire an agent is that they suck at negotiation. To now say that you have to negotiate with the negotiator is a level of XXXXX that needs to be taken out and shot. Would love to see Youtube videos from agents articulating to buyers on how to negotiate their fee percentages lower.
Quote from @James McGovern:
Quote from @Jack Seiden:
Quote from @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?
To me this actually makes much more sense than the current system, people just don’t like change lol,
The reason people often hire an agent is that they suck at negotiation. To now say that you have to negotiate with the negotiator is a level of XXXXX that needs to be taken out and shot. Would love to see Youtube videos from agents articulating to buyers on how to negotiate their fee percentages lower.
People say agents are good at negotiating, but in most cases that’s simply not true, in fact pretty much every deal I’ve ever done, I’ve been able to save 10-15k through just simply out negotiating the other party, most agents just want to get to the finish, not go to bat for their client over 5-10k.
#2 Market Trends & Data Contributor
- Investor and Real Estate Agent
- Milwaukee - Mequon, WI
- 6,045
- Votes |
- 4,296
- Posts
#2 Market Trends & Data Contributor
- Investor and Real Estate Agent
- Milwaukee - Mequon, WI
I don't think it benefits buyers or sellers very much financially. It adds an extra element of complexity to the process (now you have to negotiate buyer-side commission as part of the deal).
What it will do is drive a lot of part-time agents out of business who slipped into a buyer agent role by simply being there at a showing. Now buyers have to potentially pay for their agent: they will be a lot more intentional in picking an agent who they believe is a strong negotiator and brings a lot of value.
Fewer agents generally means less competition and higher fees.
-
Real Estate Agent Wisconsin (#82198-94)
- 262 671 6868
- http://www.OnPointRG.com
- [email protected]
@James McGovern apparently in my area, we're now supposed to provide any seller offer to pay buyer brokers commission upfront in writing somewhere but not in the MLS. Doesn't make any sense. My sellers will have to consider those costs just like CCA, anyway, when determining list price, so it will likely take a while before any savings is actually seen. Hopefully a logical answer will present itself once all the problems arise.
Quote from @Lynn McGeein:
@James McGovern apparently in my area, we're now supposed to provide any seller offer to pay buyer brokers commission upfront in writing somewhere but not in the MLS. Doesn't make any sense. My sellers will have to consider those costs just like CCA, anyway, when determining list price, so it will likely take a while before any savings is actually seen. Hopefully a logical answer will present itself once all the problems arise.
1. Offer contains Appraisal Gap Coverage
2. Offer is substantially above asking pricef
3. Offer waives inspection period
Thoughts?
Quote from @James McGovern:
Quote from @Lynn McGeein:
@James McGovern apparently in my area, we're now supposed to provide any seller offer to pay buyer brokers commission upfront in writing somewhere but not in the MLS. Doesn't make any sense. My sellers will have to consider those costs just like CCA, anyway, when determining list price, so it will likely take a while before any savings is actually seen. Hopefully a logical answer will present itself once all the problems arise.
1. Offer contains Appraisal Gap Coverage
2. Offer is substantially above asking pricef
3. Offer waives inspection period
Thoughts?
I like the idea of tying seller agreement to pay buyer broker fees with an appraisal guarantee, especially if broker fee is added to list price with list price already being top of market. But if buyer has that much money to cover gap in any appraisal vs purchase price, wouldn't they be more likely to just pay their own buyer broker fee? I imagine most buyers who request the seller cover their buyer broker fee are those that can't really afford to pay it so wouldn't be able to pay an appraisal gap. I actually prefer that buyer has a home inspection, avoids potential problems where buyer may say that seller was trying to hide something. Also eliminates many Walk Through items if they were waived in the inspection, so can't become last minute issues.
#2 Real Estate Agent Contributor
- Real Estate Broker
- Coppell, TX
The least successful people I see in real estate are the people who try to over financial engineer it and try to overcomplicate things. It's not that hard.
Quote from @Bruce Lynn:
The least successful people I see in real estate are the people who try to over financial engineer it and try to overcomplicate things. It's not that hard.
Agreed. Encouraging buyers agents to over-engineer is a good sign that they are willing to work to make a deal happen.
Quote from @James McGovern:
Quote from @Lynn McGeein:
@James McGovern apparently in my area, we're now supposed to provide any seller offer to pay buyer brokers commission upfront in writing somewhere but not in the MLS. Doesn't make any sense. My sellers will have to consider those costs just like CCA, anyway, when determining list price, so it will likely take a while before any savings is actually seen. Hopefully a logical answer will present itself once all the problems arise.
1. Offer contains Appraisal Gap Coverage
2. Offer is substantially above asking pricef
3. Offer waives inspection period
Thoughts?
That might work if your listing is a very desirable one...what happens if it sits on the market 30+ days?
-
Real Estate Agent North Carolina (#167034)