NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

[Alan Asriants]

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

1. Buyer's agents won't wait long to get into written agreement with a Buyer. Right now, many agents don't sign any agreements until they sign an offer. With this new system, I won't wait long to sign an agreement and spell out what commissions are owed. Many Buyers will refuse to sign, but will quickly see that no one will want to work with them for free without an agreement in place. This is actually not a bad thing for Buyer's agents, as we will encounter less tire kickers. 

2. Prices of listings will adjust. The MLS market always included both sides of the commission. So if the Seller is not offering that commission, then the price of the home offered should be less, since the buyer is now assuming this responsibility

3. Many agents will leave the business. Again, this is a good thing. For many agents it can be a sigh of relief, as we no longer have to compete with incompetent family members for business 

4. The market will drive commissions. In a sellers market, anyone can sell a home. This is why I believe this issue started in the first place. Sellers got greedy and wanted more money in their pocket because they felt they could sell their home on their own just by putting it on the market. While some of this is true, this won't hold true when the market shifts. In a Buyer's market, sellers offer LARGER commissions to Buyers agents in hopes of getting an offer. To the sellers thinking they are going to make more money, maybe not. 

5. Buyers who don't have representation will get screwed. If a buyer doesnt want to pay an agent and goes directly to the seller, their interests are not protected. In the short term we might not see any issues, but overtime, cases will arise when Buyers start getting screwed in shaky deals. Its like going to court without a lawyer. The lawyer could've likely gotten you a shorter sentence.

What are your thoughts?

[Zander Kempf]

I don't see listing prices being adjusted. If you were about to sell your house and your listing agent told you that you only need to pay 3% now instead of 6%, would you drop your price by 3%? Nope, sellers will just pocket the difference. 

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Marc Rice:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

 I agree! Should be way easier for good agents. Part time agents will get flushed out, good buyers agents will charge a premium, and things will be ok. I see Redfin and Zillow launching "flat fee low budget, low service" buyer-agent lead network, but those agents will not be good, especially anything investment related. If you're a buyer agent finding off market deals, you can now charge even more for your service due to the extra headaches.

Some of realtor folks here are always making funny assumptions :-) why in the world the part time agent would get flushed out, the other way around could be happening too because as the cake is smaller, it's almost no make sense to have living as full time agent lol 

also there's no such thing as good and as bad agent, if good agent offering 3 percent and lousy agent could offer 1 percent , buyer can still flock using the lousy agent. 

Remember this all good cop bad cop good agent bad agent is only self-proclaimed imaginary status lol

[Steve K.]

Quote from @David M.:

@Steve K. Any chance you've got a link to the court doc?

 Settlement Agreement:

https://thedataadvocate.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Nar_Settlement_Agreement.pdf

NAR Response to media inaccuracies "Correcting the Record" that I mentioned above:

https://www.nar.realtor/newsroom/correcting-the-record-nar-d... 

Another piece from NAR "The Truth About the NAR Settlement" about pervasive misinformation in the media:

https://www.nar.realtor/magazine/real-estate-news/law-and-et...

Interesting take on Youtube from Jack Gately (real estate agent but not a Realtor):

Link may not work, google or search youtube for Jack Gately, "I read the whole 108 page proposed NAR settlement and found a HUGE LOOPHOLE"

Notorious ROB's take on it (after he read the settlement) which I thought was really good (paywall alert, sorry):

https://notoriousrob.substack.com/p/the-nar-settlement-first...

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Devin Scott:

The degree to which realtors think their skills dictate a sale price and/or time on market is breathtaking.  The industry has changed from 30 years ago.  Information is widely available.  Selling a house isn't anywhere near reliant on broker-to-broker relationships or special marketing as it once was.  I don't care how good or bad an agent is, if a house is over-priced it won't sell.  If it's priced right, it will.  That's why this busting of price fixing is loooooong overdue.

want to say the same in just one paragraph.
 
i could see many realtors are actually afraid of the changes and still prefer to live in old status quo.

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marc Rice:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

 I agree! Should be way easier for good agents. Part time agents will get flushed out, good buyers agents will charge a premium, and things will be ok. I see Redfin and Zillow launching "flat fee low budget, low service" buyer-agent lead network, but those agents will not be good, especially anything investment related. If you're a buyer agent finding off market deals, you can now charge even more for your service due to the extra headaches.

Some of realtor folks here are always making funny assumptions :-) why in the world the part time agent would get flushed out, the other way around could be happening too because as the cake is smaller, it's almost no make sense to have living as full time agent lol 

also there's no such thing as good and as bad agent, if good agent offering 3 percent and lousy agent could offer 1 percent , buyer can still flock using the lousy agent. 

Remember this all good cop bad cop good agent bad agent is only self-proclaimed imaginary status lol

Respectfully disagree with this. “Good” agents are the ones doing 90% of the deals and they’re mostly getting business by their good reputation, so their business will continue to grow and thrive even more now with less competition. They’re working mostly with sellers through referrals, the type of clients who appreciate value and are less likely to haggle on commissions. These agents are not purchasing buyer leads from Zillow or working with bottom-feeders like the newer agents who haven’t built that referral pipeline for themselves yet are forced to do.  The barrier to entry will be a bit higher for that reason and the cream will rise to the top, which is good. 

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Steve, that's precisely why they are in the wrong business model . Zillow too.

So far the one that has passion to eliminate NAR is Roofstock and REX.

This pivotal phase would just intensify the war between RE tech co vs NAR and also between brokerage vs brokerage.

And also between agent vs agent. 

Co-Star seems to be positioned well.   

[Jeff S.]

@Sasha Mohammed

One cannot simultaneously get the highest price for the seller and the lowest price for the buyer in the same transaction.

This assumes someone gets the better end of the deal and then you have each agent trying to convince their client/customer they got the better end of the deal. The best agent will understand and meet the needs of both the buyer and seller with a fair deal on both sides. 

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Jeff S.:

@Sasha Mohammed

One cannot simultaneously get the highest price for the seller and the lowest price for the buyer in the same transaction.

This assumes someone gets the better end of the deal and then you have each agent trying to convince their client/customer they got the better end of the deal. The best agent will understand and meet the needs of both the buyer and seller with a fair deal on both sides. 

 The dual agency dilemma has actually been the focus of several class actions and landmark lawsuits already, leading to it being illegal in several states currently and prohibited by many brokers in states where it is still legal. It's already one of the most litigated arrangements in RE due to the inherent conflict of interest. If we see an uptick in dual agency transactions, we'll probably also see an uptick in lawsuits and increased regulation around dual agency. 

[Marc Rice]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Marc Rice:

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

 I agree! Should be way easier for good agents. Part time agents will get flushed out, good buyers agents will charge a premium, and things will be ok. I see Redfin and Zillow launching "flat fee low budget, low service" buyer-agent lead network, but those agents will not be good, especially anything investment related. If you're a buyer agent finding off market deals, you can now charge even more for your service due to the extra headaches.

Some of realtor folks here are always making funny assumptions :-) why in the world the part time agent would get flushed out, the other way around could be happening too because as the cake is smaller, it's almost no make sense to have living as full time agent lol 

also there's no such thing as good and as bad agent, if good agent offering 3 percent and lousy agent could offer 1 percent , buyer can still flock using the lousy agent. 

Remember this all good cop bad cop good agent bad agent is only self-proclaimed imaginary status lol

 There's big differences between a good agent and bad agent. Same thing with a good cop and bad cop.......

[Jeff S.]

@Steve K. unfortunately lawsuits are the big thing now no getting around that. This big lawsuit really had to do with having 2 agents having to split one commission. How about just getting paid by the hour by the broker who owns the listings. Sell 8 houses a month or go down the road just like cars.

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Jeff S.:

@Steve K. unfortunately lawsuits are the big thing now no getting around that. This big lawsuit really had to do with having 2 agents having to split one commission. How about just getting paid by the hour by the broker who owns the listings. Sell 8 houses a month or go down the road just like cars.

 Yeah, lawyers are the winners here. And they get their "customary" 30-40% cut of the winnings! But Realtors are the ones accused of price fixing. Up until the 1970's in Colorado, real estate agents had to have a law degree. Maybe we're heading back in that direction. Unfortunately most of the time when I've seen a buyer or seller get in a situation where they want to sue, it's usually too late for them and they just screwed up. 

[Matthew Paul]

Quote from @David Avery:

The NRA will work through this quickly 

Might be a good time to buy a 🏠 and save

$12,000.(3 percent ,)( 400,000 house, )

Who Knows. 

It will work itself out.

 What do guns have to do with this , the NRA is the National Rifle Assoc

[Mark Cotter]

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

The fact that article came out in 2001 and that hasn't happened yet nearly a quarter of a century later literally just proves my point. What are Redfin and Zillow waiting for, why haven't they cut agents out yet? Probably because they get all of their data from agents and would not exist for a day without agents inputting that data for them. The lawyer who presented the details of the settlement to my office last week thinks it's a win for NAR. She's seeing something that you're not. Probably that they got off light with some small procedural changes and a reasonable fine they can pay with cash on hand, compared to going bankrupt. But you're entitled to your own opinion!

[Alan Asriants]

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Bradley Miller:

Are we just going to dump the buyer's agent? I don't think so. Despite the fact that the 2023 Profile of Home Buyers & Sellers survey comes from NAR, I think it is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on in our real estate business. It reveals that although 97% of home buyers search online for their future home, 89% still use a real estate agent to purchase a home. And of those, 87% said they would (73%) or probably would (14%) recommend their agent for future service. These don't look like the kind of numbers where people are just going to dump this valuable resource.

My thoughts are that there will be a change in how buyer's brokers commissions are agreed to. Instead of putting them in the MLS (which will no longer be allowed), they will become part of the offer... much like asking for closing costs. But even before that, a fee will be agreed to between the broker and the buyer for representation with the understanding that the broker will do their best to get the seller to pay as much of that fee as possible.

Of course if the sellers refuse to pay for the buyer's side commission, then the price of the home will need to be negotiated to reflect that, especially in those cases where people push their lending limits to the edge.

People use a buyers agent because it is built it already, not because “it’s a valuable resource.” When they look online and ask for info it sends them to a buyers agent. I specifically have to look up the listing agent and call them direct to avoid this annoyance. And then it’s already built into the listing contract that 6% of the buyers money is going to agents so they often opt for their own instead of dual agency. The end result of this is going to be no change in price for those who forgo an agent, and an increase for those that use one. 

 Do you think Buyer's agents are not valuable?

[Alan Asriants]

Quote from @Nathan Harden:

Personally,

I love it. I think that after a year or so we will see the number of agents dwindle DRASTICALLY. It’s going to turn into supply and demand. The demand of buyers will still be there but with less agents to compete for their business with. 
I’ve been practicing buyer agency agreements and the way I explain it is that, no I do not work for free but nothing is really changing. The buyer has always essentially paid the buyers broker compensation through the purchase price if you really think about it. The buyer pays $500k for the house, a buyers agent commission has always been built into that sales price. 
So if a seller isn’t offering a commission on that $500k house. Add your fee on top of the $500k so it’s all wrapped into the purchase price. This way, you get paid and the buyer still has representation without having to come out of pocket for the buyers agents commission. Win win. 

I think the buyers agency agreement is great for agents who produce, and the agents that do real estate as a side job will be a thing of the past. 
Now, I would like to know what they plan on doing about appraisals going foward…

 Likely you will negotiate that appraised value does not change commission offered to Buyer's Agent into the contract. Otherwise you are working on chance.

[Shane H.]

Quote from @Alan Asriants:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Bradley Miller:

Are we just going to dump the buyer's agent? I don't think so. Despite the fact that the 2023 Profile of Home Buyers & Sellers survey comes from NAR, I think it is a fairly accurate representation of what is going on in our real estate business. It reveals that although 97% of home buyers search online for their future home, 89% still use a real estate agent to purchase a home. And of those, 87% said they would (73%) or probably would (14%) recommend their agent for future service. These don't look like the kind of numbers where people are just going to dump this valuable resource.

My thoughts are that there will be a change in how buyer's brokers commissions are agreed to. Instead of putting them in the MLS (which will no longer be allowed), they will become part of the offer... much like asking for closing costs. But even before that, a fee will be agreed to between the broker and the buyer for representation with the understanding that the broker will do their best to get the seller to pay as much of that fee as possible.

Of course if the sellers refuse to pay for the buyer's side commission, then the price of the home will need to be negotiated to reflect that, especially in those cases where people push their lending limits to the edge.

People use a buyers agent because it is built it already, not because “it’s a valuable resource.” When they look online and ask for info it sends them to a buyers agent. I specifically have to look up the listing agent and call them direct to avoid this annoyance. And then it’s already built into the listing contract that 6% of the buyers money is going to agents so they often opt for their own instead of dual agency. The end result of this is going to be no change in price for those who forgo an agent, and an increase for those that use one. 

 Do you think Buyer's agents are not valuable?

 I don’t think that they are never valuable. Just not that people use them because of that. Let’s face it. People use realtors based on personal feeling more than the value they bring. They hire their friend or family member. Or the one realtor.com or Zillow refers. Usually the first one they meet. If they know enough about the industry to interview and pick one based on qualifications, they probably know enough to do the job better than half of the available agents. Most investor realtors started because they couldn’t find one who could do what they needed. 

[Mark Cotter]

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

The fact that article came out in 2001 and that hasn't happened yet nearly a quarter of a century later literally just proves my point. What are Redfin and Zillow waiting for, why haven't they cut agents out yet? Probably because they get all of their data from agents and would not exist for a day without agents inputting that data for them. The lawyer who presented the details of the settlement to my office last week thinks it's a win for NAR. She's seeing something that you're not. Probably that they got off light with some small procedural changes and a reasonable fine they can pay with cash on hand, compared to going bankrupt. But you're entitled to your own opinion!

You seem to missing the point here, the NAR is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and this erodes that power. When I started trading stocks in 1988 commissions were 4%. A 100k trade cost 4k in commission and then we started seeing online trading and the start of flat fees. Stock Brokers still exist but certainly are not as ubiquitous as they were. You can now trade for free and the money is made on the back end cutting out most human tasks, stock brokers didn't have a powerful lobby group to protect them. RE will likely not go to this extreme but it will move in that direction without the protection of the powerful lobbyist. Anyone who thinks the MLS data will cease to be made public needs to think again, who profits from that data? Realtor.com is owned by NewsCorp and I highly doubt the Murdochs, one of the most powerful families on earth, will sit back and watch as this asset is rendered worthless. The NAR has been taken on by the DOJ many times without success, they were just brought to their knees by a personal injury lawyer and 5 normal middle-class homeowners. Oddly, you claim your lawyer sees it as a win for the NAR but you can't articulate exactly why only speculate. If it's so clearly a win in the eyes of this lawyer why can't she say how it's a win?

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

The fact that article came out in 2001 and that hasn't happened yet nearly a quarter of a century later literally just proves my point. What are Redfin and Zillow waiting for, why haven't they cut agents out yet? Probably because they get all of their data from agents and would not exist for a day without agents inputting that data for them. The lawyer who presented the details of the settlement to my office last week thinks it's a win for NAR. She's seeing something that you're not. Probably that they got off light with some small procedural changes and a reasonable fine they can pay with cash on hand, compared to going bankrupt. But you're entitled to your own opinion!

You seem to missing the point here, the NAR is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and this erodes that power. When I started trading stocks in 1988 commissions were 4%. A 100k trade cost 4k in commission and then we started seeing online trading and the start of flat fees. Stock Brokers still exist but certainly are not as ubiquitous as they were. You can now trade for free and the money is made on the back end cutting out most human tasks, stock brokers didn't have a powerful lobby group to protect them. RE will likely not go to this extreme but it will move in that direction without the protection of the powerful lobbyist. Anyone who thinks the MLS data will cease to be made public needs to think again, who profits from that data? Realtor.com is owned by NewsCorp and I highly doubt the Murdochs, one of the most powerful families on earth, will sit back and watch as this asset is rendered worthless. The NAR has been taken on by the DOJ many times without success, they were just brought to their knees by a personal injury lawyer and 5 normal middle-class homeowners. Oddly, you claim your lawyer sees it as a win for the NAR but you can't articulate exactly why only speculate. If it's so clearly a win in the eyes of this lawyer why can't she say how it's a win?

I said how it's a win for NAR in my last comment: because NAR only has to pay a manageable fine over 4 years, that they can cover without even increasing their dues, and they only have to make some small procedural changes to their business (removing the BAC from MLS and requiring buyers agents to have buyers sign agency agreements before showing any properties). This last one they've been moving towards anyway. This is all pretty good compared to bankruptcy if they hadn't settled and had lost. We're already seeing many of the main stream media correct their articles from last week as the dust settles and people actually read the settlement, and they realize their reporting was off. Check out the headlines on this today compared to last week. I see what you're saying on the long-term erosion of NARs power however, they've definitely got some problems that aren't going way. But having followed this since 2019, this is actually a good result in this particular case IMO. We can agree to disagree.

[Mark Cotter]

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

The fact that article came out in 2001 and that hasn't happened yet nearly a quarter of a century later literally just proves my point. What are Redfin and Zillow waiting for, why haven't they cut agents out yet? Probably because they get all of their data from agents and would not exist for a day without agents inputting that data for them. The lawyer who presented the details of the settlement to my office last week thinks it's a win for NAR. She's seeing something that you're not. Probably that they got off light with some small procedural changes and a reasonable fine they can pay with cash on hand, compared to going bankrupt. But you're entitled to your own opinion!

You seem to missing the point here, the NAR is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and this erodes that power. When I started trading stocks in 1988 commissions were 4%. A 100k trade cost 4k in commission and then we started seeing online trading and the start of flat fees. Stock Brokers still exist but certainly are not as ubiquitous as they were. You can now trade for free and the money is made on the back end cutting out most human tasks, stock brokers didn't have a powerful lobby group to protect them. RE will likely not go to this extreme but it will move in that direction without the protection of the powerful lobbyist. Anyone who thinks the MLS data will cease to be made public needs to think again, who profits from that data? Realtor.com is owned by NewsCorp and I highly doubt the Murdochs, one of the most powerful families on earth, will sit back and watch as this asset is rendered worthless. The NAR has been taken on by the DOJ many times without success, they were just brought to their knees by a personal injury lawyer and 5 normal middle-class homeowners. Oddly, you claim your lawyer sees it as a win for the NAR but you can't articulate exactly why only speculate. If it's so clearly a win in the eyes of this lawyer why can't she say how it's a win?

I said how it's a win for NAR in my last comment: because NAR only has to pay a manageable fine over 4 years, that they can cover without even increasing their dues, and they only have to make some small procedural changes to their business (removing the BAC from MLS and requiring buyers agents to have buyers sign agency agreements before showing any properties). This last one they've been moving towards anyway. This is all pretty good compared to bankruptcy if they hadn't settled and had lost. We're already seeing many of the main stream media correct their articles from last week as the dust settles and people actually read the settlement, and they realize their reporting was off. Check out the headlines on this today compared to last week. I see what you're saying on the long-term erosion of NARs power however, they've definitely got some problems that aren't going way. But having followed this since 2019, this is actually a good result in this particular case IMO. We can agree to disagree.

I'll finish with a clarification of my last point. You had said that a lawyer presented to your company and stated that she thought it was a win for the NAR and that she was seeing something that I was not. You then went on to speculate, from your perspective, why you think it is a win for the NAR. The implication of all this is that the lawyer stated it was a win but didn't say why which is what I thought was odd. Anyway I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for the civil discussion, rare these days.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Quote from @Mark Cotter:

Quote from @Devin Scott:

Quote from @Shane H.:

I think the whole thing is irrelevant. Prices aren’t going to go down. Are you seriously going to list a house for 145,500 instead of 150k because of this? Lol I expect an increase in overall cost. The only way it’s going to drive prices down is if buyers agents (like all of them not just one here or there) encourage buyers to make offers accordingly. I don’t see it… the fact of the matter is that buyers have always paid both sides of the fees. That hasn’t changed. This situation is the equivalent of a store listing sales tax in the price one day and not the next. Except in real estate the price is already so murky it won’t be as noticeable. 

 Prices aren't just determined by list price.  Buyers won't be able to pay as much across the board because they need to cover their own agent fees.  Hmm, what could that do to prices...

 When there is a void something always moves in to fill it. I'm willing to bet you that companies like Redfin and Zillow will be all over this. Buyers won't be using Agents within 5 years.

Redfin has been around for 20 years now and Zillow for 18. People have been saying they'll end real estate agents ever since they started. But the opposite happened: there are more agents now than ever before. Are they going to take over now just because buyers agent coop fees are moving from the MLS to somewhere else? All of the info on these sites originates from the MLS systems that NAR controls. They could not exist as they do without agents inputting that data, and NAR could end both of these companies overnight simply by cutting off their IDX feeds. Both of their stocks are down since the settlement announcement. Co-star stock however is up. Redfin announced they were leaving NAR last year (but didn't actually leave because they couldn't in most markets or they would lose the MLS access that their platform is built on), and Zillow is still a NAR member.

Because of the NAR's power over the industry and that is what will change. Do you think this is a simple change in where buyer's commissions will be displayed? Did you read the lawsuit? You should.

I started reading it last night, plan to finish over the weekend. Have you read it? So far the only 2 people I know who read it have the exact opposite take than all of the news media reporting on it, including the Times. It's clear that not one of the people reporting on it actually read it. The settlement is not nearly as ground-shaking or dramatic as the reporting on it wants the public to believe IMO. It's a win for NAR actually IMO (they avoided potential bankruptcy if they didn't settle and lost, and the fine isn't really that much for them. They can pay that easily with cash on hand without even increasing dues. The procedural changes are actually minor and loopholes and work-arounds are definitely possible. There's no admission of guilt, etc.).

Did you read NAR's response to the media this week "correcting the record". Google that if not. The biggest impact could be in the negative PR though, as sometimes perception becomes reality, factual or not.

Redfin was part of the suit (and several other similar suits), their business model of charging a set percent while providing limited services was clearly called out in the plaintiffs complaint. And Zillow makes almost all of their money by selling buyer leads to buyers agents, so less buyers agents just means less money for them. I don't see how either business model benefits from this.  

Yes i have read it and anyone who has read it and understood it could not possibly interpret this as an NAR win, there are still outstanding lawsuits by the way, The NAR will lose a lot of members, a lot of income, and most importantly, a lot of political power as a result of all this, the financial payout is nothing compared to all this. The current models of the 2 companies you call out are easily pivoted since they are primarily tech companies. There was an article published in the WSJ on January 25th 2001, yes a long time ago, and this was the first paragraph "NEW YORK -- Realtors, already battling Internet companies that have entered the home-selling business, are now organizing to fight a joint proposal of the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury that would allow federally chartered banks to move onto their turf." This ended in a bill that was defeated after the NAR lobbied their allies in Congress. Being one of the most powerful lobby groups in DC is expensive and I doubt the NAR can compete any longer with the massive budgets of tech and financial sectors.

The fact that article came out in 2001 and that hasn't happened yet nearly a quarter of a century later literally just proves my point. What are Redfin and Zillow waiting for, why haven't they cut agents out yet? Probably because they get all of their data from agents and would not exist for a day without agents inputting that data for them. The lawyer who presented the details of the settlement to my office last week thinks it's a win for NAR. She's seeing something that you're not. Probably that they got off light with some small procedural changes and a reasonable fine they can pay with cash on hand, compared to going bankrupt. But you're entitled to your own opinion!

You seem to missing the point here, the NAR is one of the most powerful lobby groups in the country and this erodes that power. When I started trading stocks in 1988 commissions were 4%. A 100k trade cost 4k in commission and then we started seeing online trading and the start of flat fees. Stock Brokers still exist but certainly are not as ubiquitous as they were. You can now trade for free and the money is made on the back end cutting out most human tasks, stock brokers didn't have a powerful lobby group to protect them. RE will likely not go to this extreme but it will move in that direction without the protection of the powerful lobbyist. Anyone who thinks the MLS data will cease to be made public needs to think again, who profits from that data? Realtor.com is owned by NewsCorp and I highly doubt the Murdochs, one of the most powerful families on earth, will sit back and watch as this asset is rendered worthless. The NAR has been taken on by the DOJ many times without success, they were just brought to their knees by a personal injury lawyer and 5 normal middle-class homeowners. Oddly, you claim your lawyer sees it as a win for the NAR but you can't articulate exactly why only speculate. If it's so clearly a win in the eyes of this lawyer why can't she say how it's a win?

I said how it's a win for NAR in my last comment: because NAR only has to pay a manageable fine over 4 years, that they can cover without even increasing their dues, and they only have to make some small procedural changes to their business (removing the BAC from MLS and requiring buyers agents to have buyers sign agency agreements before showing any properties). This last one they've been moving towards anyway. This is all pretty good compared to bankruptcy if they hadn't settled and had lost. We're already seeing many of the main stream media correct their articles from last week as the dust settles and people actually read the settlement, and they realize their reporting was off. Check out the headlines on this today compared to last week. I see what you're saying on the long-term erosion of NARs power however, they've definitely got some problems that aren't going way. But having followed this since 2019, this is actually a good result in this particular case IMO. We can agree to disagree.

I'll finish with a clarification of my last point. You had said that a lawyer presented to your company and stated that she thought it was a win for the NAR and that she was seeing something that I was not. You then went on to speculate, from your perspective, why you think it is a win for the NAR. The implication of all this is that the lawyer stated it was a win but didn't say why which is what I thought was odd. Anyway I just wanted to clarify. Thank you for the civil discussion, rare these days.

I for one enjoy your guys back and forth and am learning a lot  !!!!

[Guy Gimenez]

Investor / broker here. 

Funny how it's always the other party who is greedy, never the person in the mirror. Why is it greedy that a seller takes a risk and wants to reap the full rewards, but it's not greedy for a buyer to expect the seller to pay someone to negotiate against a seller? 

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

[David Avery]

So sorry Mathew 

NAR , not NRA.

[Shane H.]

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here. 

Funny how it's always the other party who is greedy, never the person in the mirror. Why is it greedy that a seller takes a risk and wants to reap the full rewards, but it's not greedy for a buyer to expect the seller to pay someone to negotiate against a seller? 

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

 Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

[Guy Gimenez]

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here. 

Funny how it's always the other party who is greedy, never the person in the mirror. Why is it greedy that a seller takes a risk and wants to reap the full rewards, but it's not greedy for a buyer to expect the seller to pay someone to negotiate against a seller? 

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

 Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally. 

[Shane H.]

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Quote from @Shane H.:

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Investor / broker here. 

Funny how it's always the other party who is greedy, never the person in the mirror. Why is it greedy that a seller takes a risk and wants to reap the full rewards, but it's not greedy for a buyer to expect the seller to pay someone to negotiate against a seller? 

I think the proposed NAR settlement is a good thing. It levels the playing field for sellers, like myself.

 Well for starters… because the buyer always lid both fees so…

Review a HUD and tell me who pays. The industry language has never worked for me...I look at things logically, not emotionally. 

Logically speaking, only one side brings money to the table. The HUD is nonsense. The reality is the buyer pays a certain amount less based on certain things. The seller doesn't pay a penny. Unless they're under water that's a whole different thing, but it has to be pretty bad to pay at closing. Lol