All Forum Posts by: Trevor Richardson

Agents will still have to present all offers. The point I’m making, and highlighting is if the seller is not offering buyer broker commissions (like pre-settlement) your carefully crafted “seller gets more” won’t mean anything. It just comes down to price just like every other offer. 

Say before there is a $500k house and the seller is not offering BB commissions. Remember that’s the whole settlement issue. That’s $12,500 that the seller was paying to the buy side. You could have wrote your offer to not include that effectively making your offer $12,500 more net compared to other offers.

Now if that seller is no longer offering that, as a unrepresented buyer what’s your pitch to the seller? That $12,500 is no longer on the table. So if you offer $500k it’s the same as any other $500k offer even if the other buyers have agents. Because now that buyer is paying their own agent. The price is all that matters to the seller.

Before the settlement and after this settlement, buyers always had the option to approach the listing agent directly with an offer, a power they've held all along. It’s interesting to see how people are reacting like this is a newfound power for buyers.

Fundamentally, nothing in this respect has changed. However, the landscape could shift significantly for unrepresented buyers. The potential 2.5% commission that might have been directed to the buyer's side is now potentially off the table.

This change prompts a critical question for unrepresented buyers: how does this alter your strategic advantage when approaching a sale without an agent? Previously, that 2.5% could have served as a powerful negotiating chip, either to bolster your offer or to pocket as a credit. The pre-settlement era seemingly encouraged buyers to self-represent, lured by the possibility of claiming the buy-side commission for themselves.

Now, with this incentive structure altered, it will be interesting to see how the dynamics and strategies of unrepresented purchasing change in the current market.

Unrepresented buyers have lost power, here is something to consider.

Before the settlement there was nothing preventing a buyer from approaching the listing agent with an offer. Buyers have had this power the entire time. In that regard nothing has changed.

NOW that 2.5% that COULD have been coming to the buyer side (unrepped buyer) may not be there. 

Unrepresented buyers, how has this increased your unique leverage approaching without an agent? That 2.5% could no longer be a negotiation token that you used to have to make your offer stronger or put it in your pocket as a credit.

I can argue that the pre-settlement was incentivized buyers to self represent because the industry had commissions available to the buy side. 

You need a license, it’s pretty simple.

Think about it for a second, could you imagine the theft and insanity if literally ANYONE could just sign up and gain access to listed homes with a lockbox. 

There are very common sense reasons agents, MLS, realtors exist.

The comical part of the media coverage and general outlook from proponents is that somehow LESS real estate (buyer agents) = reduced fees. In what world does reducing labor in a high area of need, it’s only the biggest industry in America, reduce the cost of the service. It’s really laughable.

Additionally housing stock grows every year, this isn't a dying industry. More homes, more people are going to need more agents. Please someone tell me the logic on how costs on the buy side will drop with less agents.

I can see good buyers agents commanding over 3% because they are worth it and will be operating against a bunch of poorly trained flat fee discount brokerages. 

Buyers and low income buyers get hit hardest with this, everyone who knows this industry can see that coming without question. 

Also sellers who offer buyer broker commissions will probably sell their home quicker and for more money. Not because the buyer agent saw the commission, it’s because the home buyer doesn’t have to add 2.5% to their closing costs. 

Dont sellers get that? If you don’t offer commissions these first time home buyers working 40 hours a week with kids, scraping together every dollar for a down payment won’t be there making an offer. It takes like a year for an agent to learn how to compete for deals and negotiate. What people are just going to learn that overnight? Those people and there are a LOT of them need a professional and they are not going to work for free. Somehow that agent has to get compensated. 

Why is Immigration More Challenging in America Now Compared to the Past? Let's Talk About Housing 🏠 

Put extreme politics aside and discuss what has to be the real issue that makes immigration challenging in 2024. How do we house immigrants without putting them on the streets? 

In 2024, America faces a critical challenge that is often overlooked in discussions about immigration: a massive shortage of approximately 4 million housing units. This lack of housing has major implications for immigration policies and the nation's ability to welcome more people (even if they are skilled workers) as it has in centuries past.

Throughout history, the United States has been a beacon of hope for millions seeking a better life. Immigrants have significantly contributed well almost everything to American society (they created America), created its culture, economy, and diversity of the nation. I hope this continues but there are real tangible obstacles like building housing that is making it more difficult.

Let's start the conversation. Why do you think housing is often left out of the immigration debate?

Ok it’s kind of getting funny and out of control. Taking an off-market deal you found and blasting it out on social media, emailing to hundreds of buyer, posting on a massive website is creating an on-market deal. That’s on a marketplace haha!

Like if hundreds of people are looking at it, how in the world is it off-market.

Calling it what it is but I had to make this small point. 

Appreciation. In our market we helped an investor purchase a new home for $463k for an investment and it did not cash flow positive, actually like -$200/mo. It was the best available in the entire market, so it was a good investment.

Fast forward 2 months and the exact same house by the exact same builder was released for $490k and my clients had to bid out 30 (!) plus buyers to pay $500k for the exact same house. That means overnight in 2 months that property in that neighborhood appreciated $37,000. That’s almost 8% appreciation because the market has moved that fast and the property was that good a deal in November.

So why does the negative cash flow matter?

We are developing an AI chatbot that simply answers “what is the best single family investment” in our market. It will return the best investment a on a daily basis reading our advanced in house analytics that calculate income and expenses for every property on the market every day.