Lynley Sides’ Post

View profile for Lynley Sides, graphic

Founder | COO | Board Director | Investor | Real Estate Disruptor | Builder

NAR Settlement Post #3: Why The Practice Changes Are Nowhere Near Enough   As mentioned briefly in Post #2 on this topic, the “changes in practices” that are PART of the NAR settlement partially address three important issues. The first of these is excessive fees paid by home sellers. What the settlement actually says and does to address excessive fees: - The settlement removes previous requirements that sellers offer “cooperating commission” to buyers’ agents. However, it does NOT prohibit sellers from making such offers. So seller’s agents will likely continue their historical practice of telling sellers that, if they don’t offer 2.5-3% to the buyer’s agent, their home won’t sell. And, like today, most sellers will want top dollar for their home, be inclined to trust their agents’ recommendations because they only sell every 7-10 years, and likely agree to offer the 2.5-3%. - When offers ARE made, the settlement removes previous requirements that those offers be blanket, unconditional or unilateral. However, it doesn’t say they can’t be. So I expect the pull of the status quo and desire for simplicity will be powerful forces behind continuing to make offers blanket, unconditional and unilateral – and therefore paid regardless of the services the buyer does/does not need, how much work the agent did, or how well they performed it. - It prohibits such offers from being posted on MLS’s or on aggregators that depend upon MLS feeds. It does NOT prohibit sellers’ agents from posting such offers on their brokerages’ websites or to non-MLS affiliated sites. The industry is buzzing about all the ways around this to make it easy for buyers’ agents to see these offers of commission. Any buyer’s agent with an internet connection will know what’s offered and will freely steer their buyers to high commission-paying listings (evidence – REX’s 600 call recordings and much more)   Hence my belief, unfortunately, that “cooperating commission” (otherwise known as collusion) will continue to be offered, steering will remain alive and well and, as a result, fees won’t drop much despite the headlines. Interested in others’ thoughts on this. I would love to be wrong!

The pull of simplicity will not be enough to keep the status quo, especially when your assumptions don't account for any new models or process innovations that improves simplicity without the need to offer seller paid buyer agent comp. Sellers know the difference between 3% and 6% and there is little value to offering unpublished blanket comp - they will never look back. We sold a home with 0% BAC offered today and had 16 offers (13 from agents). Your calls at REX happened at a much different time and with the changes that have been made now the agent mindset is completely different and will continue to evolve to put those calls even further in the past. A new breed of agents who embrace the changes will emerge as leaders and gobble up market share from those who still try to preserve the old rules. Now that capitalism has room to do its work, the changes that have been made are enough to prevent steering.

Patrick LeMond

Product Counsel @ EarnIn | Payments | Fintech | Regulation | Compliance

8mo

I agree with Dean DiCarlo here. In my experience, sellers are much more savvy now. I don't think the point of the NAR litigation was to end buyer agent compensation, but rather to ensure that all parties had the chance to agree (or disagree) on any prospective compensation paid in the transaction. I was always bothered by the notion that the buyer agent's compensation was negotiated before and without the actual buyer or their agent (makes no legal sense). One of the first things you learn in law school about real property is that EVERYTHING is negotiable. Also, I believe the real value in the verdict is that now sellers can reach into their pocket when an unscrupulous listing agent (or simply a bad one) wants to utter the words "the home won't sell if there is no buy side commission paid." I know that the holding doesn't specifically carve out a right of action, but given the context of the lawsuit, I'm sure we will see sellers use this precedence to ward off any commission arm twisting. If I was a managing broker right now, I would be working on developing training material that helps agents communicate and sell their value and not others'.

Steve D. deGuzman

MarTech Evangelist & Secret Agent

8mo

Lynley Sides 🤔💡 Why not rethink real estate all together: What if banks took over the fiduciary responsibilities for buyers and sellers? This shift could potentially eliminate the need for traditional real estate commissions, thereby reducing home prices and streamlining the entire buying and selling process. By automating essential steps—like title checks, appraisals, and home inspections—and leveraging banks' vested interests in transaction integrity, we could make real estate dealings more transparent and efficient 🚀. Plus, with modern technology, marketing properties becomes easier, reducing dependence on traditional MLS systems 🌐. 🤔 What are your thoughts? Could banks as fiduciaries be the key to transforming the real estate market? Let's discuss the possibilities! 🏠💬 #RealEstateInnovation #FiduciaryDuty #HomeBuying #PropertyMarket #RealEstateTech #FutureOfRealEstate #REXMafia 🍝

Like
Reply
See more comments

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics