Oh, you’re going to get lower commissions alright – on the backs of the buyer-agents.
The last time I checked a couple of months ago, there were 30% of the monthly closed sales that offered a buyer-agent commisssion under 2.5 percent. Of the 92 closings so far this month, 25% of them were under 2.5% – and those were determined before the NAR debacle.
The listing agent determines how much the buyer-agent gets paid.
Not the seller, not NAR, not the attorneys – it is the listing agent who decides the commission rate to offer the buyer-agents. It makes for an easy solution. Want a lower overall commission rate? Just take it off the amount paid to the buyer-agent. What’s worse is the MLS rule that buyer-agents are not allowed to negotiate the rate – hopefully that will go away now.
Listing agents aren’t lowering their commission rate – they are taking the same or more than ever, and paying less to the buyer-agents. They are under-appreciating the amount of work it takes to conclude a successful buyer-side transaction (usually 3-6 months of frustration and losing).
If the listing agent has superior skills that result in a higher sales price and a smooth transaction, then no one will mind them getting paid accordingly, but their success is also at least partially due to the buyer-agent doing his job well. The good buyer-agents shouldn’t be penalized, and ideally, there would be a sliding scale based on performance.
But because everyone will be hearing that commissions are negotiable (for the first time, says Biden), the listing agents who feel the need to agree to a lower rate with their sellers will just subtract the same discount from the buyer-agent side. But is that in the best interest of the seller?
This practice will expedite the demise of the buyer-agent.
Every realtor-related entity is scrambling right now to train agents how to get their buyers to agree to a contractual relationship where the buyer pays the buyer-agent commission.
It would all be well and good – and be similar to the listing agreement we have with sellers – if it weren’t for the paragraph in red above that allows for cancellation by either party. Even if the parties agree to Exclusive Representation, the buyer can still cancel with a 30-day notice (in C1ii). Both boxes on the left need to be checked to eliminate the option to cancel.
The big problem is that listing agents will be advertising to buyers to come direct to them to buy their listing and not pay ANY commission.
Will agents be able to convince buyers to sign the Exclusive Representation with no cancellation? Or will it be a happy compromise just to agree to representation that they can cancel at any time. Yes, the happy compromise will be preferred, mostly because it is so clearly laid out on the form.
But it means that the minute the buyers see a hot new listing advertised as No-Fee-If-You-Come-to-Me, they will cancel their existing buyer-broker agreement and go direct to the listing agent.
Buyer frustration builds quickly even if you have a great buyer-agent because the good deals or cool houses are competitive and almost all picky buyers will lose a few bidding wars before they win one. Buyers don’t like losing houses they had their heart set on winning, and the temptation to go direct to the listing agent – especially when you can save the fee – will be very high.
I’m guessing this will all blow over in a few months because listing agents will be advertising to buyers directly – leading with the No-Fee-If-You-Come-to-Me mantra – and it will expedite the industry’s transition to single agency, and eliminate buyer-agents altogether.
The reporting on the NAR settlement seems to be focused on creating hysteria, rather than finding the truth. Realtors commissions have always been a juicy topic, and the media is intent on using this opportunity to fabricate wild and salacious stories to attract the maximum number of eyeballs.
The hysteria may just be beginning, however. The NAR settlement included penalties for every brokerage that sells more than $2 billion in volume per year. For Compass, the top brokerage in the country for total volume, it means imposing a fine of $500 million without consulting with Compass management, let alone negotiating. The NAR doesn’t have the authority to speak for us, or commit us to any penalty so who knows what they were thinking but it guarantees the end of NAR – why would any brokerage want to be associated with such bums?
Those fines will get litigated and drawn out for years. The requirement to remove the commission rate in the MLS will start in July, but listing agents can advertise the amount of buyer-agent commission everywhere else. We will hear more about the buyer-agent commission than ever before – and steering done by both buyer-agents and buyers themselves. Buyers will prefer the listings that pay more commission, so they pay less. So much for fixing the concerns about steering!
As realtor-panic goes, the beginning of Covid was much worse – we didn’t think we’d sell a house for months! Those who panic about this hiccup are the realtors who don’t have much to offer – those who aren’t real salespeople. Nobody will mind seeing them either get better, or get out of the business.
But houses will keep selling at a brisk pace regardless of commissions.
This will blow over in a few months.
My previous post mentioned the need for getting good help. Getting cheap help will probably be tempting until people get a feel for the difficulty of what it’s like:
We made a clean, full-price offer. Three days later, still no answer.
We made an offer on a Friday that was $50,000 under list on a 2-br house in original condition. The sellers decided to take their chances with open houses (in search of two in the bush) over the weekend, instead of responding. We attend, and the listing agent isn’t doing the open house; there is a trainee there instead. We look harder to find something better, and succeed. By Monday, the listing agent wants to re-engage, and by Wednesday she begs me to get back in the game. They receive another offer, but it’s $100,000 under list. We moved on.
I’ve had several solid buyers attend open houses in the last year – people I’ve talked to who sure gave me the feeling that they liked the home so much that they were going to make an offer. But then when I follow up with their agents – who usually don’t accompany – they can’t close the deal. It makes me want to sell my listing to their buyer and just send them a check in the mail.
Multiple offers – what do you do? I lost another one where we offered the exact same price ($100,000 over list), and the listing agent seller picked the one with the bigger down payment, instead of letting the buyers decide it. Don’t you think there might be some gas left in the tank? Like $25,000 to $50,000?
You get an offer while off-market. Then what?
When does a seller lower their price? Or not?
Buyers and sellers typically have little experience in fixing things – especially the big stuff – and agents aren’t much better. So instead, a proper discount is attempted, but sellers always think in pennies, and buyers think in thousands. With little or no buyer representation, how are those going to get handled? They’re not, and more deals will die. This is a problem on virtually every sale.
Inexperienced people tend to over-react, and any bump in the road could be a deal-killer.
How much should buyers offer? Most agents respond with, “Well, that’s up to you”.
What is the real value of the property? Once a home is on the open market, Zillow and Redfin adjust their estimates to within a buck or two of the list price, so sellers, buyers, and agents must each determine the value themselves. How good are they at determining the value? How much variance is acceptable? Virtually nobody knows, and unless there is a good agent involved, more deals that are 1% to 2% apart will die an unnecessary death.
How do you know when you’re talking to the wrong agent?
Their only line is “Let me know if you have any questions”.
Good salespeople ask the questions, and then offer opinions and advice!
The commission lawsuits are the best thing to ever happen for my slogan! Get Good Help!
Everyone seems to have a take on the commission lawsuits. This is one of the best:
A way to implement an instant solution within the existing framework is to require that realtors possess a broker’s license, which takes a minimum of two years experience (or a four-year degree with a major/minor in real estate), plus passing EIGHT college-level courses.
Getting a salesperson license only requires a passing score of 70% on a 150-question multiple-choice test after talking a couple of classes. Once licensed, the office trainings are thin and too basic in nature, which unfortunately forces new agents to learn the trade on the backs of their first 100 clients or so.
The commission lawsuits may expedite the retirements of a million realtors, but they aren’t going to solve the problem – convincing the public that they should Get Good Help! Instead, the lawsuits will just keep everyone talking about the same old thing, with no advancement of what’s really best for the consumer.
Ryan tries to make the same point here, and look how fast it deteriorates:
What a headline! Nowhere in this article does it say that NAR is slashing commissions or that any agents – the people who determine the commissions – have agreed to slash the commissions. The weak, spineless agents who have nothing else to offer will gladly agree to work for less because to them, it beats not working – but consumers suffer when they hire a weak agent.
Nothing will change until consumers realize that the key is to GET GOOD HELP!
There will be only one result from these commission lawsuits. The buyer-agent will be eliminated in the name of ‘saving money’, and home buyers will be forever harmed by not getting any, let alone adequate, representation.
Nobody from the industry is quoted in the article, and they published the most outrageous quotes they could find.
Excerpts:
Housing experts said the deal, and the expected savings for homeowners, could trigger one of the most significant jolts in the U.S. housing market in 100 years. “This will blow up the market and would force a new business model,” said Norm Miller, a professor emeritus of real estate at the University of San Diego.
The lawsuits argued that N.A.R., and brokerages who required their agents to be members of N.A.R., had violated antitrust laws by mandating that the seller’s agent make an offer of payment to the buyer’s agent, and setting rules that led to an industrywide standard commission. Without that rate essentially guaranteed, agents will now most likely have to lower their commissions as they compete for business.
Economists estimate that commissions could now be reduced by 30 percent, driving down home prices across the board. The opening of a free market for Realtor compensation could mirror the shake-up that occurred in the travel industry with the emergence of online broker sites such as Expedia and Kayak.
“The forces of competition will be let loose,” said Benjamin Brown, co-chairman of the antitrust practice at Cohen Milstein and one of the lawyers who hammered out the settlement. “You’ll see some new pricing models, and some new and creative ways to provide services to home buyers. It’ll be a really exciting time for the industry.”
Under the settlement, tens of millions of home sellers will likely be eligible to receive a small piece of a consolidated class-action payout.
The legal loss struck a blow to the power wielded by the organization, which has long been considered untouchable, insulated by its influence. Founded in 1908, N.A.R. has more than $1 billion in assets, 1.3 million members and a political action committee that pours millions into the coffers of candidates across the political spectrum.
The antitrust division of the Department of Justice is continuing its investigation of N.A.R.’s practices, including the organization’s oversight of databases for home listings, called multiple listing sites or the M.L.S. The sites are owned and operated by N.A.R.’s local affiliates. For decades, the Justice Department has questioned whether these databases stifle competition and whether some N.A.R. rules foster price-fixing on commissions.
Some experts said the shift on commission structure, and the billions of dollars that would flow into the housing market as a result, could spark a recovery in the housing market, going so far as to say that it could be as significant as the 1930s New Deal, a flurry of legislation and executive orders signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt designed to stabilize and rebuild the nation’s economic recovery following the Great Depression.
“This will be a really fundamental shift in how Americans buy, search for, and purchase and sell their housing. It will absolutely transform the real estate industry,” said Max Besbris, an associate professor of sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and the author of “Upsold,” a book exploring the link between housing prices and the real estate business. “It will prompt one of the biggest transformations to the housing market since New Deal-era regulations were put in place.”
Despite N.A.R.’s turbulence over the last several months, however, there was one constant: their insistence that the lawsuits were flawed and they intended to appeal. With Friday’s settlement agreement, N.A.R. gave up the fight.
The settlement includes many significant rule changes. It bans N.A.R. from establishing any sort of rules that would allow a seller’s agent to set compensation for a buyer’s agent, a practice that critics say has long led to “steering,” in which buyers’ agents direct their clients to pricier homes in a bid to collect a bigger commission check.
And on the online databases used to buy and sell homes, the M.L.S., the settlement requires that any fields displaying broker compensation be eliminated entirely. It also places a blanket ban on the longtime requirement that agents subscribe to multiple listing services in the first place in order to offer or accept compensation for their work.
“The reset button on the sale of homes was hit today,” said Michael Ketchmark, the Kansas City lawyer who represented the home sellers in the main lawsuit. “Anyone who owns a home or dreams of owning one will benefit tremendously from this settlement.”
From the NAR President:
NAR has agreed to put in place a new rule prohibiting offers of compensation on the MLS. Offers of compensation could continue to be an option consumers can pursue off-MLS through negotiation and consultation with real estate professionals. And sellers can offer buyer concessions on an MLS (for example—concessions for buyer closing costs). This change will go into effect in mid-July 2024.
It’s been obvious that the entire real-estate-selling business has been deteriorating towards single agency. I see it every day on the street, and I’ve posted evidence of the shift regularly.
The trend is moving quickly now on multiple fronts.
The DOJ is going to decouple commissions, which will prohibit sellers from offering to pay the buyer’s agent. The buyers can include it in their offer, but it likely won’t get that far. The buyer-agents who are left will want a written agreement to get paid by the buyer if the seller won’t pay. How many agents will be able to demonstrate why they are worth it? Not many, but maybe the buyers won’t ask too many questions.
Homes.com is spending millions and billions on advertising their website to compete with Zillow. Their twist? They funnel all the leads back to the listing agent, instead of farming them out to the highest bidders like Zillow does. I’ve been called by several phone jockeys from Homes.com to sign up for their enhanced listing packages, and I’ll sign up. Robert Reffkin responded positively to the Homes.com program, and you can see how Gary Keller feels about it above.
Agents are giving up on representing buyers because it’s too hard and doesn’t pay enough. Most of the unsold listings are grossly over-priced and the occasional deal gets multiple offers within minutes. Agents have to spend months or years working with their buyers before they get lucky, only to then get a reduced commission from the listing agent. Now I have to convince the buyer to pay the commission too? Great, thanks.
Listing agents are advertising for buyers to avoid paying the buyer’s-agent commission by coming directly to the listing agent instead. Realtor cannibalization is what we deserve. (link)
This house priced at $1,985,000 in Rancho Penasquitos received 15 offers and likely sold for 15% to 20% over list (an offer that was 12% over with free rentback wasn’t enough).
I remember when $2,000,000 got you a decent house in Carlsbad!
The commission lawsuits and action by the DOJ will cause buyers to wonder if they need to pay for representation, and what do they get if they do.
It will also be a function of how much it costs. If the service was free, everyone would do it.
It’s been like that in the past, but it also caused buyers to be a little too casual about who they selected, and they tended to just grab someone – which doesn’t always bode well.
If the fee was 1% at closing, you’d probably do it – if you liked them.
If the fee was 1.5% to 2.0% and the terms were clean and non-exclusive plus the agent made a really good case why he’s worth it, then yeah, maybe.
If the fee was 2.5% to 3%, there would need to be some guarantees or real promise that you would get exactly what you wanted, and be very impressed with the service too.
Buyers will be able to include in their purchase offer that the seller pays all or part of the buyer-agent commission. But there won’t be any promises about what a seller might pay – if anything. So buyers should be prepared to pay the entire amount to their agent, as agreed up front.
What should buyers expect? What are the skills that good buyer-agents possess and implement on behalf of their buyers? Here is my quick list:
Overall analysis of general market conditions
Video /audio tours of prospective homes for sale
Pinpoint Home-Value Analyses
Measure up the sellers and listing agents
Winning-price predictions
Offer Strategies
Bidding-War Management
Contingent offers that win
Tough and detailed inspections with free quotes on repairs/improvements
Expert deal management
Foreclosure hunting
Bridge-loan financing
Off-market homes for sale
Sniff out any shenanigans
See the new listings in person every week.
There are also the 132 things agents do for buyers linked here, but the real problem is demonstrating the skills. How will buyers know what they need? How will agents show them what they have to offer?
When you go to the car dealer, they let you take the car for a drive around the block. How can you do that with a buyer-agent?
It would be fruitful for agents to have a blog where they demonstrate how they work, and provide evidence of their results. But that may be asking too much of agents.
We do free consultations for sellers. Let’s do them for buyers too.
Buyer-agents should offer their list of services AND be willing to meet any prospective clients-to-be at a home for sale so agents can show them what they do. A tour of a house to point out the positives and negatives will give the potential buyers a great sense of the agent’s expertise.
Agents – let’s make the free consultation at a home for sale part of the effort to assist buyers. Besides, you want to get a sense of whether you want to work with these buyers too.
Before you get married, you should have at least one date!
What do you look for when you meet your potential realtor at a home for sale to see what they have to offer? If they add to the experience something you didn’t know, then you’re on the right track – ask questions! If they say, “Here’s the kitchen”, it is an automatic disqualification – just run to your car!
These Palo Alto guys have been making national headlines since they rolled out their reduced-commission program last week. They are offering a $10,000 fee to buyer-agents, instead of a percentage, AND encouraging buyers to come directly to the listing agent to avoid paying any fees (which is my beef).
Why would a high-end independent brokerage that sold 100 homes in the last 12 months – mostly in the $3,000,000 to $10,000,000 range (with sales of $40,000,000 and $44,000,000 too) – feel the need to effectively shut out their fellow real estate agents? Beats me.
Last week, the Department of Justice stated that commissions should be decoupled and NO fee be offered up front to buyer-agents by the seller or listing agent (though they did agree that buyer-agents can include a seller-paid commission in their buyer’s offer).
What gets lost in the discussion is the 120-year history of broker cooperation – where other agents can sell my listings, and I can sell theirs. It is a terrific system that best serves the sellers and buyers, which is our fiduciary duty.
But greed and market-share dominance is pushing fiduciary duty to the sidelines. Instead, brokerages are taking advantage of the current uncertainty to craft a quasi-single-agency package that effectively shuts out the cooperating buyer-agents under the guise of saving the seller money. Is it in the seller’s best interest to discourage the outside buyer-agents?
This is one of their first listings to hit the open market that offered their $10,000 fee to buyer-agents, and it went pending in seven days:
We don’t need the DOJ or commission lawsuits to take down our business – realtors will self-destruct, beginning with the elimination of the buyer-agents as we’ve known them.
A few of the comments below. Click here to see the whole thread.
