NAR Class Action lawsuit settlement has been reached

[Echo Lodge]

If one lists a property FSBO and agrees to pay the buyer's agent a set percentage, it's a win win for both the seller and buyer?

 

[2Driver]

I posted this in the vin thread.
Maybe cdog can verify but it explains all the ins and outs. Like a lot of specific focused laws, there will stuff no one thought about until it gets inacted.

 

[Mrhavasu]

If it is all available on Zillow as you say, and following your comment that sellers will no longer have to pay 3% to buyers agents, how exactly will the “consumer suffer”?

Under your scenario, there is another 3% on the table for the consumer to negotiate for?

Since most consumers do not understand the value of being represented and protected by a good experienced agent looking
out for the best interests, they will suffer. They will not know to get home inspections, markets conditions affecting
value, and such. This is not like buying a car. Huge investment with lots of potential for problems and lawsuits down the road.
Dave put it best below and he is a smart guy for doing this.

"Upon first read this almost reads like it's encouraging dual agency / double ending? I have always tried to stay away from that because how can one person represent two peoples interests? When it happens on our transactions we split it between two agents on the team."

 

[530RL]

Since most consumers do not understand the value of being represented and protected by a good experienced agent looking
out for the best interests, they will suffer. They will not know to get home inspections, markets conditions affecting
value, and such. This is not like buying a car. Huge investment with lots of potential for problems and lawsuits down the road.
Dave put it best below and he is a smart guy for doing this.

"Upon first read this almost reads like it's encouraging dual agency / double ending? I have always tried to stay away from that because how can one person represent two peoples interests? When it happens on our transactions we split it between two agents on the team."

I’ve just never agreed with the premise that a seller is forced to pay for a Buyers representation? Why should a seller be forced to pay for the individual who is both negotiating against them and does not have their best interest in mind? Why should a seller be forced to pay for someone who has no fiduciary duty to them?

This settlement does not prevent consumers from being represented, nor does it preclude sellers from offering to pay for such representation. Nothing in the settlement prevents that.

It just prevents NAR from requiring that the seller pays for a party that is adverse to their interests.

It just always seemed fundamentally un-American for the NAR to construct a system that forces a seller to pay for the party adverse to their interests?

 

[Englewood]

I’ve just never agreed with the premise that a seller is forced to pay for a Buyers representation? Why should a seller be forced to pay for the individual who is both negotiating against them and does not have their best interest in mind? Why should a seller be forced to pay for someone who has no fiduciary duty to them?

This settlement does not prevent consumers from being represented, nor does it preclude sellers from offering to pay for such representation. Nothing in the settlement prevents that.

It just prevents NAR from requiring that the seller pays for a party that is adverse to their interests.

It just always seemed fundamentally un-American for the NAR to construct a system that forces a seller to pay for the party adverse to their interests?

A seller is never forced to offer a buyer agent commission. They can offer $1 on the MLS if they choose to. Most choose to offer 2-2.5% to get it sold faster (in CA).

I’d love to see NAR stripped of the power it has on the industry.

 

[530RL]

A seller is never forced to offer a buyer agent commission. They can offer $1 on the MLS if they choose to. Most choose to offer 2-2.5% to get it sold faster (in CA).

I’d love to see NAR stripped of the power it has on the industry.

That’s not what the jury found.

And if the rules under NAR and local MLS systems didn’t coerce or force a seller to pay a buyers commissions, then why was it the major consideration for the settlement?

“As part of the settlement, the NAR agreed to no longer require a broker advertising a home for sale on MLS to offer any upfront compensation to a buyer’s agent. The rule change leaves it open for individual home sellers to negotiate such offers with a buyer’s agent outside of the MLS platforms, though the home seller’s broker has to disclose any such compensation arrangements.”

The huge $418 million realtor settlement means you can find a home online without having to pay a buyer's agent commission

As part of the settlement, the NAR won't require a broker advertising a home for sale to offer upfront compensation to a buyer’s agent.

fortune.com

 

[lbhsbz]

I’ve just never agreed with the premise that a seller is forced to pay for a Buyers representation? Why should a seller be forced to pay for the individual who is both negotiating against them and does not have their best interest in mind? Why should a seller be forced to pay for someone who has no fiduciary duty to them?

This settlement does not prevent consumers from being represented, nor does it preclude sellers from offering to pay for such representation. Nothing in the settlement prevents that.

It just prevents NAR from requiring that the seller pays for a party that is adverse to their interests.

It just always seemed fundamentally un-American for the NAR to construct a system that forces a seller to pay for the party adverse to their interests?

I never looked at like the seller was paying the buyers agent, I saw it as money that was added into the purchase price in a manner that it could be rolled into the new mortgage and not paid out of pocket by the buyer...which, as was pointed out in the video....is a significant hurdle for many first time or lower income buyers.

Its simply a different manner of structuring the same outcome, except it was easier before, now it's gonna be harder.

Also, how do you figure that agents bringing buyers, and serving to guide them through the process, to someone that's trying to sell something "adverse" the interest of the seller? This ain't like buying a car where I show up with cash or a check and have the seller hand me the keys and sign on the dotted line.

 

[530RL]

I never looked at like the seller was paying the buyers agent, I saw it as money that was added into the purchase price in a manner that it could be rolled into the new mortgage and not paid out of pocket by the buyer...which, as was pointed out in the video....is a significant hurdle for many first time or lower income buyers.

Its simply a different manner of structuring the same outcome, except it was easier before, now it's gonna be harder.

Also, how do you figure that agents bringing buyers, and serving to guide them through the process, to someone that's trying to sell something "adverse" the interest of the seller? This ain't like buying a car where I show up with cash or a check and have the seller hand me the keys and sign on the dotted line.

To the first point a seller can still offer to pay a buyers agent if they wish. The settlement simply states that they are no longer obligated to do so.

With respect to the second point, a buyers agent has a fiduciary duty to negotiate for the best economic outcome on behalf of the buyer and even to show them alternative choices possibly nixing the deal. The job of the buyers agent is to get the most out of the seller in price, concessions, repairs and terms that they can. That is an adverse party to the seller in a negotiation.

They have no duty or obligation to the seller, yet the seller has to pay them under current NAR and MLS rules.

 

[Englewood]

That’s not what the jury found.

And if the rules under NAR and local MLS systems didn’t coerce or force a seller to pay a buyers commissions, then why was it the major consideration for the settlement?

“As part of the settlement, the NAR agreed to no longer require a broker advertising a home for sale on MLS to offer any upfront compensation to a buyer’s agent. The rule change leaves it open for individual home sellers to negotiate such offers with a buyer’s agent outside of the MLS platforms, though the home seller’s broker has to disclose any such compensation arrangements.”

The huge $418 million realtor settlement means you can find a home online without having to pay a buyer's agent commission

As part of the settlement, the NAR won't require a broker advertising a home for sale to offer upfront compensation to a buyer’s agent.

fortune.com

Yes, they do require a commission amount to be published. It can be $1. There has never been a minimum or maximum. The seller determines the amount they want to pay.

You keep mentioned that the seller is “obligated” or “coerced”. The seller was previously only required to offer $1. Now it is $0.

Tell me how that changes anything?

In a year revert back to this thread. Sellers will still be paying commissions.

 

[530RL]

Yes, they do require a commission amount to be published. It can be $1. There has never been a minimum or maximum. The seller determines the amount they want to pay.

You keep mentioned that the seller is “obligated” or “coerced”. That is not correct. The seller is only required to offer $1. Now it is $0.

Tell me how that changes anything?

In a year revert back to this thread. Sellers will still be paying commissions.

I agree sellers will still be paying commissions. The question is will total commissions be lower.

But to your point, if this changes nothing as you suggest, no agent should care as it changes nothing.

 

[Englewood]

I agree sellers will still be paying commissions. The question is will total commissions be lower.

But to your point, if this changes nothing as you suggest, no agent should care as it changes nothing.

Honest question - What factors, in your opinion, might lead to a reduction in commissions as a result of the settlement?

I’m genuinely curious how people are coming to the conclusion that commissions will be lowered by removing a field from the MLS.

 

[530RL]

Honest question - What factors, in your opinion, might lead to a reduction in commissions as a result of the settlement?

There are a lot of situations where commissions are higher than they will be once this finds a new equilibrium.

For example, our office does about 25 hard money loans a week. Most of those borrowers have to eventually become licensed sales people in order to lower their costs on acquisition and on sale. This settlement will make it possible for them to do so without becoming a licensed salesperson. I suspect there will now just be discounts as opposed to commissions paid to themselves with a fee to their designated broker if they are not a broker themselves.

There are many other examples, particularly involving investors or developers who have to play the NAR game to minimize those costs.

With respect to sophisticated buyers, a lot of times they are inserting a ”friend” as the buyers agent when they don’t really need to pay anyone. A reduction in total commissions is possible in these cases from this settlement.

Also, this settlement will likely result in competition to the MLS system and to realtors in general. I think most will admit that some of the NAR and MLS rules are not there to protect buyers or sellers, but to protect the economic interests of the industry. I’m happy to pay someone if they add value, but the current system that results in 5 or 6 percent commissions pretty much every time regardless of value added is in my opinion, as the jury found, anti-competitive.

Lastly I don’t know what the ultimate outcome will be, but I do believe that when regulations are reduced or eliminated, such as in this settlement, markets and their participants have a way of finding how to do it faster and cheaper.

 

[Flyinbowtie]

I am watching this thread hoping for some clarity on exactly what this means. It appears it will take a bit.
We are hoping to list our place in about 45 days, as spring comes in earnest and houses hit the market again in the area we are hoping to move to.
Things have started to move again a wee bit up here, and we want out.

 

[2Driver]

Fuck if I’m paying $25,000 to some agent to so call “represent me” to buy a 1M house. It’s not that hard to buy a house.

I agree with the new deal, but there are so many question not thought through how this is going to really work. It’s going to be an interesting 6 months after it starts.

 

[2Driver]

I am watching this thread hoping for some clarity on exactly what this means. It appears it will take a bit.
We are hoping to list our place in about 45 days, as spring comes in earnest and houses hit the market again in the area we are hoping to move to.
Things have started to move again a wee bit up here, and we want out.

watch the video I posted

 

[Mandelon]

I thought it worked that the home seller offered 5% or 6% or 10% to the listing agent and the listing agent split that with the buyers' agent. The home seller isn't necessarily paying the buyers' agent per se. In actuality that's how it works out though.

 

[Flyinbowtie]

watch the video I posted

I did, thank you. It helped.

We will be talking to the agent we used when we tried 2 seasons ago in a week or two and see what he says. He has been doing RE in this area for more than 20 yrs.
We have a lot of stuff against us, homeowners has tripled in 4 years, the market around here has been in a post-covid coma for a couple years, uncertainty in the world and a election year...the economy here is in the tank, etc.
I am not yet ready to unpack tho. Really want out of California.

 

[badgas]

I spoke to an agent yesterday who loves this new plan. He said " finally " He lists a property, some guy finds on Zillow or comes to an open house. Then they call their realtor to prepare an offer and the buyers agent gets gets a rip for doing nothing more than writing on offer on house that their client found anyway. I could see getting a few hundred or few thousand but $20,000 in some cases for prepping an offer that escrow is going to do all the paperwork anyway ? I have purchased 2 homes and sold one home FSBO and the escrow company guides you along the process. Have a RE attorney read the contracts if you are scared. It is NOT a difficult process.

With that said the FSBO is going to sell for less that implied commission so in many cases it ends up being a wash.

1) Would I be happy to pay a buyers agent for bringing me a pocket listing that I get a good deal on ? YES
2) Would I be happy to pay a buyers agent out of town or out of state who finds and previews houses for me. They show me properties via FaceTime and have inspections done and help source local contractors etc. YES happy to pay for that service.
3) Would I be happy to pay for preparing an offer on house 15 minutes from my own home that I found on my own ? NO

Good agents that put a lot of listings under contract ( the 10-20% ) will still make bank. Part time agents who wait for a phone call ( the 80-90%) from a client to make an offer for them , Not so much.

 

[hallett21]

Or when you tell the agent to ask for 20k in concessions and they tell you no way they go for it lol. And then they accept.

That being said there’s a big advantage to having a buyers agent to “soften” your demands. It’s a delicate dance on getting what you want and having a seller tell you to kick rocks.

 

[Cdog]

I posted this in the vin thread.
Maybe cdog can verify but it explains all the ins and outs. Like a lot of specific focused laws, there will stuff no one thought about until it gets inacted.

I agree with most of what he has to say. Seems most have left out the fact that Zillow makes a lot of cash off of their premier agent program. How are they going to demand cash from their lead generation system now that buyers will have to pay to represent themselves?

There’s no one answer to all of this yet. In a buyers market it’s highly likely the process reverts to the same compensation model we have seen and used to.

As of right now I see 3 options.
1. A traditional buyers agent that will either be compensated by the buyer or buyers credit.
2. A licensed consultant that offers a list of contacts & a non NAR contract with no real liability or help. This will likely be laughed at and rejected by sellers & sellers representation.
3. A agent or broker that offers services on an à la cart basis. Showings, contracts, inspections. Basically Violent Femmes Add it up.

 

[530RL]

I agree with most of what he has to say. Seems most have left out the fact that Zillow makes a lot of cash off of their premier agent program. How are they going to demand cash from their lead generation system now that buyers will have to pay to represent themselves?

There’s no one answer to all of this yet. In a buyers market it’s highly likely the process reverts to the same compensation model we have seen and used to.

As of right now I see 3 options.
1. A traditional buyers agent that will either be compensated by the buyer or buyers credit.
2. A licensed consultant that offers a list of contacts & a non NAR contract with no real liability or help. This will likely be laughed at and rejected by sellers & sellers representation.
3. A agent or broker that offers services on an à la cart basis. Showings, contracts, inspections. Basically Violent Femmes Add it up.

With respect to item 2 and using NAR contracts, they are fairly standard and even title companies have standard boiler plate contracts that are for the most part identical to NAR contracts. I just bought some land in Havasu using the NAR vacant land contract filled out by myself without an agent and explained to the seller and the seller’s agent that my offer was simply 3% higher as there is no payment coming to a buyer‘s agent. Anyone can pull one up and use it. They are free and readily available on the internet. The selling agent did not laugh or reject it. The seller wanted to sell and the agent wanted their commission.

This is an example of how this settlement can lower total costs to sellers.

 

[Cdog]

With respect to item 2 and using NAR contracts, they are fairly standard and even title companies have standard boiler plate contracts that are for the most part identical to NAR contracts. I just bought some land in Havasu using the NAR vacant land contract filled out by myself without an agent and explained to the seller and the seller’s agent that my offer was simply 3% higher as there is no payment coming to a buyer‘s agent. Anyone can pull one up and use it. They are free and readily available on the internet. The selling agent did not laugh or reject it. The seller wanted to sell and the agent wanted their commission.

This is an example of how this settlement can lower total costs to sellers.

I would bet the contracts moving forward will have language that will protect their use only by licensed NAR agents.

But good for you. You seem to have enough business acumen to handle yourself

 

[RiverDave]

Probably not.

But if buyers can now get access to the MLS without going through an agent, or agreeing to pay an agent, then experienced buyers can probably negotiate for themselves and sellers can probably pay lower total commissions.

They could already do that before if they wanted..

 

[530RL]

They could already do that before if they wanted..

As you know I was looking for a while for a house in Parker. And I couldn’t get on the LaPaz county MLS without going through a member. I couldn’t even pay to join as I was not a licensed agent.

Those are the NAR rules and la Paz County realtors rules.

To the extent that I am wrong, please send me a link on how to get on the LaPaz county MLS as an individual who is not a licensed realtor?

Happy to sign up and admit my error.

 

[hallett21]

They could already do that before if they wanted..

Thought you needed a real estate license and brokerage or a Broker License.

 

[BabyRay]

As you know I was looking for a while for a house in Parker. And I couldn’t get on the Mojave county MLS without going through a member. I couldn’t even pay to join as I was not a licensed agent.

Those are the NAR rules and la Paz County realtors rules.

To the extent that I am wrong, please send me a link on how to get on the LaPaz county MLS as an individual who is not a licensed realtor?

Happy to sign up and admit my error.

With sites like Zillow and Redfin, do you need to access MLS? I may be wrong, but I thought they scraped the MLS sites.

 

[530RL]

With sites like Zillow and Redfin, do you need to access MLS? I may be wrong, but I thought they scraped the MLS sites.

The MLS site has dramatically greater information much earlier and more robust. There is a clear competitive advantage for buyers having access to MLS and its capabilities over the public sites you list.

That is why they protect it with access barriers to licensed members only. And those barriers protect commissions and the plaintiffs alleged higher total commissions.

 

[hallett21]

With sites like Zillow and Redfin, do you need to access MLS? I may be wrong, but I thought they scraped the MLS sites.

A lot of properties are on the MLS and not on Redfin/Zillow

 

[530RL]

Zillow, and every other syndicated feed are updated every 15 minutes. They have access to every single field on the MLS except showing information/contact info. I was heavily involved in the original syndication process 20yrs ago (that was supposed to change the profession also).

What people fail to realize is that Zillow publishes the fields it chooses to publish. They are there to sell leads, that’s it. They provide enough information to get you to signup. They then sell you to an agent.

We used to pay $500+ for each MLS membership. Are consumers willing to pay $500 to search the MLS? 99.9% won’t.

There is no secret information in the MLS.

All fair points with the exception that anyone can get all the information and search functions available on MLS on a free public site. They can not. It’s certainly not available on the public sites. And information is economic power.

But if a buyer wants to pay 500 bucks to access MLS in exchange for a 3% savings in the transaction should they be able to?

That is the economic question?

 

[Vib]

This change has no effect on how we do commercial real estate brokerage in CO. We always require a buyers agency agreement ( long story, but I learned over a decade ago to avoid getting ripped off by unscrupulous buyers).

What I think is comical is thinking that as a broker representing the Seller where the Buyer has no representation that they are going to get a fair deal.

If it's not required by law we won't provide a property disclosure, OEC coverage, ILC, certainly not offering comparables, appraisal is a joke, etc.

My job is to benefit the party I represent only!

This is only going to hurt new buyers, low income buyers, buyers who do not regularly engage in purchasing, and benefit some attorneys years down the road.

 

[530RL]

This change has no effect on how we do commercial real estate brokerage in CO. We always require a buyers agency agreement ( long story, but I learned over a decade ago to avoid getting ripped off by unscrupulous buyers).

What I think is comical is thinking that as a broker representing the Seller where the Buyer has no representation that they are going to get a fair deal.

If it's not required by law we won't provide a property disclosure, OEC coverage, ILC, certainly not offering comparables, appraisal is a joke, etc.

My job is to benefit the party I represent only!

This is only going to hurt new buyers, low income buyers, buyers who do not regularly engage in purchasing, and benefit some attorneys years down the road.

In no other industry that I can think of is the seller coerced into paying for someone to protect the buyers interest.

 

[COCA COLA COWBOY]

I think mostly it will be business as usual. However, I believe the marketing websites such as Zillow that would sell buyer's information to agents will suffer. Agents will most likely reduce the amount they are willing to pay to work with buyers. Most agents will spend their marketing dollars towards sellers which was always my philosophy in this industry.

My biggest issue is "does this help the consumer?" I believe it will hurt the buyer in the long run and potentiality hurt the seller, but mostly likely will not affect the seller. A percentage of buyers will either have to 1) pay out of pocket for representation, 2) representation will be wrapped into their loan (another expense) or 3) will buy a home without any representation at all. Before, agent were beating down the doors of buyers to help them. This may change somewhat.

Demand for sellers properties may be reduced a tad for those not willing to offer commissions to buyers. This is a gray area through. Time will tell.

For those that are amazing salespersons, buyers agents may find a way to double dip. Not in stone yet, but I foresee a loophole opening where the buyers agents will be able to get compensation offered by sellers and still get buyers to pay additional compensation out of their pocket.

In the end, it's my experience when some major change comes to an industry it's the consumer that gets the short end of the stick. History has dictated this.

 

[Vib]

In no other industry that I can think of is the seller coerced into paying for someone to protect the buyers interest.

You mean like every single product produced where the price is marked up to cover the liability costs generated by buyers/consumers attorneys?

Real estate has just been more transparent.

 

[COCA COLA COWBOY]

Somehow, somewhere a corporation has to be postivitly impacted by this judgement...I just don't see it yet. In fact, so far it only negatively impacts Zillow and Redfin.

 

[badgas]

Somehow, somewhere a corporation has to be postivitly impacted by this judgement...I just don't see it yet. In fact, so far it only negatively impacts Zillow and Redfin.

maybe when Zillow or Redfin or some other site is like an online car buying service and they implement escrow companies etc. There won't be any RE agents. I sure hope not as my family is In the business but things do change.

I agree with on the motive, some big corp will end up winning.

 

[RiverDave]

Yes, they do require a commission amount to be published. It can be $1. There has never been a minimum or maximum. The seller determines the amount they want to pay.

You keep mentioned that the seller is “obligated” or “coerced”. The seller was previously only required to offer $1. Now it is $0.

Tell me how that changes anything?

In a year revert back to this thread. Sellers will still be paying commissions.

I agree..

Selling agents bring marketing and good selling agents can even bring buyers immediately.. but overall it’s their job to market and show it in the best light possible, in order to get as much interest and in turn as much money as possible.

Buyers agents bring customers to purchase said property and look after their principals interests.

Both are necessary to the transaction.. whether the jury likes it or not. You remove the buyers agent and it might feel like a win for the consumer but I can assure it isn’t.

1. Smart guys that want to move homes will offer the commissions anyways..

2. People buying homes without representation are going to get fucked a million different ways across the country without someone looking out for them.

Now I understand there’s a general hatred for re agents because there’s a lot of shitty ones out there that just want you to sign some paperwork and they get a fat check..

However the people that are top of their field and are doing the majority of work aren’t doing that. They are navigating a journey full of expenses, pitfalls, and victories that most would never even hear about.

RD

 

[Vib]

Somehow, somewhere a corporation has to be postivitly impacted by this judgement...I just don't see it yet. In fact, so far it only negatively impacts Zillow and Redfin.

Law firms will win huge litigating problems with real estate deals in the future.

 

[attitude]

Reading between the lines, one of the things this ruling did was cut the number of “required” agents in half?

As a future first time buyer, I am not very stoked about it.

 

[hallett21]

I could see a real estate law firm cashing in on this. Charge $500 an hour for representation, paperwork, negotiating etc.

The MLS has always been a way for realtors to keep properties “on the inside”. I remember when realtors didn’t want you to look at anything on Zillow or Redfin lol.

A quality agent is worth their weight in gold.

 

[RiverDave]

I could see a real estate law firm cashing in on this. Charge $500 an hour for representation, paperwork, negotiating etc.

The MLS has always been a way for realtors to keep properties “on the inside”. I remember when realtors didn’t want you to look at anything on Zillow or Redfin lol.

A quality agent is worth their weight in gold.

You can already see everything though between sites like Zillow and Trulia etc.. Stacy and I found my house 12 years ago on trulia.. this isn’t something new?

RD

 

[hallett21]

You can already see everything though between sites like Zillow and Trulia etc.. Stacy and I found my house 12 years ago on trulia.. this isn’t something new?

RD

Not in our area. A lot are strictly on the MLS.

Idk how they do it but my mom will shoot me properties all the time that are a MLS link but you search on Redfin etc you don’t see them.

Edit.

But then if they’re under contract they do populate

 

[Englewood]

Not in our area. A lot are strictly on the MLS.

Idk how they do it but my mom will shoot me properties all the time that are a MLS link but you search on Redfin etc you don’t see them.

Edit.

But then if they’re under contract they do populate

If a property is not being syndicated to outside sites via IDX, it is because the SELLER elected to NOT have it published on those sites.

It’s incredibly naive to think the MLS has some secret information not available to the public. It’s just simply not true.

Law firms will win huge litigating problems with real estate deals in the future.

This will be the most entertaining part. On another note, where do people expect a buyer to come up with $500/hr for legal representation?

I am no longer involved in the day-to-day of my real estate company. The big problems occasionally make their way to me for advice.

An agent recently had a seller decide they no longer wanted to sell, the DAY BEFORE CLOSING! I’d love to see an unrepresented buyer deal with that mess.

People are more concerned with saving “3%” commission and having access to the MLS than they are the actual legal exposure they will be subject to.

I’m gonna sit back and watch as people lose their life savings in an effort to save a couple percent in commission.

Once this news cycle dies and the social media bloggers can no longer get views from it, it will be business as usual.

I’d love to throw some actual scenarios out and see how the “agents aren’t needed” crowd would react. I’ll wait to disclose the total legal cost and outcome.

 

[hallett21]

If a property is not being syndicated to outside sites via IDX, it is because the SELLER elected to NOT have it published on those sites.

It’s incredibly naive to think the MLS has some secret information not available to the public. It’s just simply not true.



This will be the most entertaining part. On another note, where do people expect a buyer to come up with $500/hr for legal representation?

I am no longer involved in the day-to-day of my real estate company. The big problems sometimes make their way to me for advice.

An agent recently had a seller decide they no longer wanted to sell, the day before closing. I’d love to see an unrepresented buyer deal with that mess.

People are more concerned with saving “3%” commission and having access to the MLS than they are the actual legal exposure they will be subject to.

I’m gonna sit back and watch as people lose their life savings in an effort to save a couple percent in commission.

Lol but you just said the MLS does have secret information if the seller chooses.

$500 hr for writing my offer and reviewing documents might cost 4k? I assume I have cash for a down payment? Are buyers really using every last nickel?

Edit. I’ll admit I’m always looking for property that needs work because that tends to be where the “deals” are. So I wouldn’t even enter a purchase without 50-100k at the ready. If I can spend 4-8k with an attorney that saves me at least 10k and potentially 20+.

 

[RiverDave]

If a property is not being syndicated to outside sites via IDX, it is because the SELLER elected to NOT have it published on those sites.

It’s incredibly naive to think the MLS has some secret information not available to the public. It’s just simply not true.



This will be the most entertaining part. On another note, where do people expect a buyer to come up with $500/hr for legal representation?

I am no longer involved in the day-to-day of my real estate company. The big problems occasionally make their way to me for advice.

An agent recently had a seller decide they no longer wanted to sell, the DAY BEFORE CLOSING! I’d love to see an unrepresented buyer deal with that mess.

People are more concerned with saving “3%” commission and having access to the MLS than they are the actual legal exposure they will be subject to.

I’m gonna sit back and watch as people lose their life savings in an effort to save a couple percent in commission.

Once this news cycle dies and the social media bloggers can no longer get views from it, it will be business as usual.

I’d love to throw some actual scenarios out and see how the “agents aren’t needed” crowd would react. I’ll wait to disclose the total legal cost and outcome.

The only information I can think of is maybe the commission splits or bonuses?

 

[Englewood]

Correct. Commission percentages, confidential remarks, and showing/contact information.

The only information I can think of is maybe the commission splits or bonuses?

 

[hallett21]

Correct. Commission percentages, confidential remarks, and showing/contact information.

But that is on the MLS right?

 

[Englewood]

Lol but you just said the MLS does have secret information if the seller chooses.

$500 hr for writing my offer and reviewing documents might cost 4k? I assume I have cash for a down payment? Are buyers really using every last nickel?

Edit. I’ll admit I’m always looking for property that needs work because that tends to be where the “deals” are. So I wouldn’t even enter a purchase without 50-100k at the ready. If I can spend 4-8k with an attorney that saves me at least 10k and potentially 20+.

I can promise you, without a doubt, buyers DO NOT have money to spend on buyer representation or attorneys.

I did not say the MLS has secret info. There is nothing secret about it. An agent can send it to you. Just because a seller doesn’t want their house on every scummy site in the world, doesn’t mean it’s secret. They made the choice to only share it amongst agents.

But that is on the MLS right?

I quit. I’m genuinely trying to explain how it works but you don’t want to hear it. Next time you sell a home, go ahead and make your showing information, home availability, lockbox code, and contact information public so it’s not “secret”. I’m sure it won’t fall into the wrong hands.

You can take it from here. I don’t have the energy. Im trying to provide insight but some of you will argue over the color of the sky. I won’t waste my time in the future.

 

[RiverDave]

In no other industry that I can think of is the seller coerced into paying for someone to protect the buyers interest.

They aren’t.. they are coerced into bringing buyerrs via people that have clients ready to buy..

 

[hallett21]

I can promise you, without a doubt, buyers DO NOT have money to spend on buyer representation or attorneys.

I did not say the MLS has secret info. There is nothing secret about it. An agent can send it to you. Just because a seller doesn’t want their house on every scummy site in the world, doesn’t mean it’s secret. They made the choice to only share it amongst agents.

Understood but that circles back to Real estate professionals saying there’s nothing special about the MLS. Of course there is, the big one being that I (the buyer or seller) need an agent to access it. Commission structure, client info etc are a valuable thing to protect (and also to exploit). I don’t mean to say there’s not a value to the MLS. But it’s disingenuous to say there’s no difference between it and Zillow.

I’m not surprised that you’re saying buyers cannot afford the attorney. But that’s just the economy we’re living in.

To not have 4-8k in expendable income on a million dollar purchase is crazy. And if you’re spending it with a Real Estate Law firm, I’m not sure how that couldn’t be a better investment to make sure you’re protected in the transaction.

Can the public access the MLS?

 

[hallett21]

I can promise you, without a doubt, buyers DO NOT have money to spend on buyer representation or attorneys.

I did not say the MLS has secret info. There is nothing secret about it. An agent can send it to you. Just because a seller doesn’t want their house on every scummy site in the world, doesn’t mean it’s secret. They made the choice to only share it amongst agents.



I quit. I’m genuinely trying to explain how it works but you don’t want to hear it. Next time you sell a home, go ahead and make your showing information, home availability, lockbox code, and contact information public so it’s not “secret”. I’m sure it won’t fall into the wrong hands.

You can take it from here. I don’t have the energy. Im trying to provide insight but some of you will argue over the color of the sky. I won’t waste my time in the future.

Lol I’m not trying to ruffle any feathers. And I responded to your post before you edited.

By definition if there are properties, information etc on the MLS (only accessible by licensed real estate agents/brokers) that is not accessible via public websites like Tulia, Zillow, RF etc then it is secretive. There’s a competitive advantage for those who have access to the MLS.

Once again I’m not saying there shouldn’t be one lol. But there is one.

This discussion has been about buyer representation. Not sure where I ever said that I wouldn’t pay a top producing agent to represent my property. If you scroll up a few posts I said a good agent is worth their weight in gold.

I’m not arguing over the color of the sky. But the conversation ebbs and flows from buyers agents being representation of their client’s best interest. And it sure seems heavily inferred that using a buyers agent will protect the buyer and seller from future litigation.

My point was if I can save 10-20k+ by using a real estate attorney to represent me I’m going to. Last I checked if we go to court the same firm is gonna be representing one of the sides.