MemphisAg1 said:

---

befitter said:

---

Typically the buyers agent makes 3% and the sellers agent makes 3%. Now...the buyers agent is no longer a part of that deal meaning the buyer is on their own with no representation....because why would an agent want to work for a buyer if they are not going to make a dime.

Good luck with that buyers.

I am not a real estate agent.

---

I bought several houses over the last 25 years as we moved many times for my career. We did all the homework and selected the houses we wanted to see from internet listings. Then we contacted an agent to arrange showings. We didn't think about fees because we weren't paying them.

If I were buying a house today, we would do the homework again but then arrange the showings ourself by calling the listing agent directly. No way I'd pay a 3% fee on a $500k to $1M house just for arranging a showing.

This is good. 6% baked-in RE commissions were a racket sustained through a monopoly approach. Going forward commissions will be earned on a value-added basis.

Hint: it won't be 6%

---

So, you want to call up the selling agent directly? The agent who has a fiduciary responsibility to the sellers? The sellers are paying your [buyers] agent. It isn't costing you a penny to have an agent represent you as a buyer. If you don't have an agent, not only are you going to be doing all of the legwork, you will losing money as a buyer.

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

This is what jumped out at me. Think about how many people pay for their buyers agent via the actual purchase. Let's say the home you want to buy is $400K. That's an $8K-$12K commission that the buyer needs to pony up if they aren't rolling it into the purchase price. Money like that severely limits down payment cash and reno budgets.


I have had some really great buyer and seller agents over the years and they have been worth every bit of the 3%. I think part of that comes with the nature of my wife's job because agents and fees are considered the norm and people agree with their value.

Maybe this ruling will cause some of hobbyist realtors to quit but I really don't know what the shake up will look like.

agracer said:

---

you always paid 3% as a buyer and the seller paid 3% .

the whole "the seller pays the buyers agents fee" was some of the biggest BS I've ever heard in my life.

The price accounts for a 6% commission. You can do the math however you want, but it's sill there.

---

What are you talking about. I never signed an agreement with my buyers agent to pay him 3%. The seller signed at 6% agreement to list. Then real estate agents have their own agreement to split commissions.

This is why double dipping is such a common problem. If you opt to close without your own agent, that sellers agent is going to howl about how they don't have to come down on the commission at all. And you might be able to convince the seller to team up on the agent and reduce the commission down to 4%, but that seller is going to want to keep that commission himself, not just offer you up a 2% reduction.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

You act like this is such a huge burden. I had a preapproval flyer from capital one in a matter of minutes. Those papers were useless.

---

I don't believe Capital One originates loans anymore so I'm guessing that was probably awhile ago? Not a realtor but to some degree, failing to obtain financing still happens. The few realtors I've spoken to recently (not related to this) want that in hand before working with a client for different reasons.

---

Yes, it was some time ago that I bought my home. The rub on any of these preapproval letters where that the bank could still refuse to underwrite a loan for you once the full details came out. Preapproval letters are just credit score vouchers at the end of the day. 'Yes, this guy has good credit, we would happily underwrite a loan for him, neither party has an obligation to complete a loan here'. Our real estate agent, Jamie didn't ask for any evidence of financial capability. We did tell him that we were shooting for a conventional loan and we had no reason to think we couldn't get a bank to provide us a loan.

This is different than financing falling through. There was like a month's time to go search for loans, get underwritten, and get approved by the banks for the loan. We easily found a loan at another bank.

My parents were searching for homes one time and the seller demanded to see a financial asset statement of being a millionaire. My parents were like GTFO with that. They wrote a letter explaining that they wouldn't be sharing their financial details but they will be able to pay. The owners still let them tour the house.

These 'show me the money' back and fourths can get ridiculous. During the height of buying in 2020 and it became 'cash only' there was a lot of 'cash offers' where buyers would show they had the capability to pay in cash, but then they'd just get a loan instead. So the seller missed out on none of the closing stupidity.

---

You told your agent up front what route you were going which makes a difference. Depending on when that was and the market, I'm guessing the agent probably thought it was worth it to spend his time with you on your search. I'm also guessing he probably gathered some other information from you sans pre-approval letter on what you did and how long you had been employed in the industry and/or at your current employers all of which can help piece together information for responsibility on your end.

On the process, iirc yes a pre-approval is not a binding agreement and is a rough estimate based on what information provided. I'm sure you're aware that thre are other things that can prevent a buyer from securing financing. However, the point I was making is that it demostrates to a potential seller and the agents that the buyer has the potential to get the loan and that there are things that happen (sometimes by the buyer's choices) that will result in that failure to obtain the financing.

AFAIK, cash offers are handled differently. If I was a seller looking at a cash offer I'd probably want some assurance that the sale would actually close but that's my opinion.

Regardless, if I'm understanding Houston Lee correctly even if a potential buyer doesn't have a pre-approval then there are still options for them to see a property like an open house. I don't see how the changes here would affect that.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

befitter said:

---

Typically the buyers agent makes 3% and the sellers agent makes 3%. Now...the buyers agent is no longer a part of that deal meaning the buyer is on their own with no representation....because why would an agent want to work for a buyer if they are not going to make a dime.

Good luck with that buyers.

I am not a real estate agent.

---

I bought several houses over the last 25 years as we moved many times for my career. We did all the homework and selected the houses we wanted to see from internet listings. Then we contacted an agent to arrange showings. We didn't think about fees because we weren't paying them.

If I were buying a house today, we would do the homework again but then arrange the showings ourself by calling the listing agent directly. No way I'd pay a 3% fee on a $500k to $1M house just for arranging a showing.

This is good. 6% baked-in RE commissions were a racket sustained through a monopoly approach. Going forward commissions will be earned on a value-added basis.

Hint: it won't be 6%

---

So, you want to call up the selling agent directly? The agent who has a fiduciary responsibility to the sellers? The sellers are paying your [buyers] agent. It isn't costing you a penny to have an agent represent you as a buyer. If you don't have an agent, not only are you going to be doing all of the legwork, you will losing money as a buyer.

---

I'm talking about the future state that will supposedly result from this settlement where buyers will have to hire their own agent and not rely on the current model of everything being bundled with the seller's agent.

In that world, I won't hire a buyer's agent for 3%. I'll do my homework first and then call the seller's agent to arrange showings.

I agree that the value proposition is super lopsided - where a selling agent often has to do quite a bit of work for their 3%, and a buyers agent gets the same 3% for what translates to less than 10 hours of work in many cases.

To take advantage of this - I've bought two homes by approaching the seller/agent with a cash offer, including the proposal that their agent signs up to represent us both and cuts their fee to 4%. Since price is already established in my offer, I'm basically making everyone better off by eliminating the role of the buyers agent. Each of us effectively gets a better deal by 1%.

Like I said, I'm 2 for 2 with this approach. And admittedly my price point is high, so 4% is still a lot of money.

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

YUP.

Its always the Buyer paying.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I agree that the value proposition is super lopsided - where a selling agent often has to do quite a bit of work for their 3%, and a buyers agent gets the same 3% for what translates to less than 10 hours of work in many cases.

To take advantage of this - I've bought two homes by approaching the seller/agent with a cash offer, including the proposal that their agent signs up to represent us both and cuts their fee to 4%. Since price is already established in my offer, I'm basically making everyone better off by eliminating the role of the buyers agent. Each of us effectively gets a better deal by 1%.

Like I said, I'm 2 for 2 with this approach. And admittedly my price point is high, so 4% is still a lot of money.

---

Seems like a good approach. Do you have the other 2% applied to your closing costs, or do you just assume it helps you in negotiations with the seller?

That's a shame…

All my Realtor Facebook friends stopped their daily **** posting that was all the rage post Covid. Couldn't have happened to worse people

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Tex117 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

befitter said:

---

johnnyblaze36 said:

---

befitter said:

---

Typically the buyers agent makes 3% and the sellers agent makes 3%. Now...the buyers agent is no longer a part of that deal meaning the buyer is on their own with no representation....because why would an agent want to work for a buyer if they are not going to make a dime.

Good luck with that buyers.

I am not a real estate agent.

---

This couldn't be more inaccurate. The amount of fake news surrounding this topic is wild but I guess that's to be expected with all of the clickbait headlines circulating out there.

---

How is it not accurate?

---

-6% commissions (3% for Sellers Agent and 3% for Buyers Agent) is still used today. The NAR agreement has not yet been approved. Commissions have always been negotiable. Nothing has changed.

1) Buyers Agents are still being used and still will be used. Buyers Representation Agreements have already been in place for years. The only change is that a buyer will have to sign one BEFORE the agent can show them the property.

2) The big change is that the MLS (Multiple Listing Service) will no longer display/advertise any information on their website about how much commission listing and buyer agents are making for any particular property. That information can been placed anywhere on other webpages or advertisements, just not on the MLS website.

3) You are free (and always have been) to try and negotiate the commissions paid. There are plenty of "Discount Brokers" out there that will do things for less and thus offer less services and less support. You get what you pay for...

4) If you don't want to mess with a Realtor when you sell your house, you have always been able to do FSBO (For sale by owner). Statistics show that FBSO homes typically sell for 23% LESS than similar properties that were properly marketed and exposed by a licensed Realtor.

Quote:

---

For Sale By Owner (FSBO) Statistics

• FSBOs accounted for 7% of home sales in 2023. The typical FSBO home sold for $310,000 compared to $405,000 for agent-assisted home sales.
• FSBO methods used to market home:
  
  • Friends, relatives, or neighbors: 20%
  • Yard sign: 19%
  • Third party aggregator: 14%
  • Social networking websites: n/a
  • For-sale-by-owner website: 5%
  • Open house: 7%
  • Online classified ads: 4%
  • Multiple Listing Service (MLS) Website: 5%
  • Other website with real estate listings: 1%
  • Video hosting websites: 1%
• Most difficult tasks for FSBO sellers:
  
  • Preparing/fixing up home for sale: 4%
  • Getting the right price: 15%
  • Understanding and performing paperwork: 7%
  • Selling within the planned length of time: 7%
  • Having enough time to devote to all aspects of the sale: 4%
  • Attracting potential buyers: 4%
  • Helping buyers obtain financing: 5%

---

---

Blah blah. if this were true (That the commissions were "always negotiable", then there wouldn't have been these court cases and a settlement). A court literally found "conspiracy to keep commissions high."

Defend all you want, but change is coming. I have no idea the outcome, but change is coming.

---

Of course change is coming and commissions have always been negotiable. The cases were based around the fact agent commissions were published on the MLS and thus allowed supposed "steering" away from properties that were offering less commission to buyers agents. Cooperative compensation is not illegal and has not been found by any court to be illegal.

---

Why would change be coming if they've always been negotiable?

---

The change that is coming is what I explained above. The MLS Cant publish agent commissions and buyers cant see a property unless they sign a buyers rep agreement before seeing it.

---

Uh, that's not going to fly in court.

---

That is what is in the NAR settlement. A Realtor acting on behalf of a buyer can't show a home to a buyer unless they have signed a buyers rep agreement prior to the showing.

---

You said "buyers cant see a property unless they sign a buyers agreement before seeing it". That's not the same as your second statement.

I can contact the broker and see it.

---

Sure you can. And the listing agent should ask you if you are working with a Realtor and if you are pre-approved for a loan. If you are working with a Realtor than you need have the Realtor book your appointment. If you are not pre-approved for a loan or have proof of funds, then come back when you are because you are just wasting the Listing agents time.

Listing agents are not going to spend all day showing buyers. You can wait until they host an open house.

---

Then I won't list with that agent. They either show my house if a potential buyer calls or they can piss off.

---

13 Reasons the Seller Wants a Buyer Represented By a Professional Real Estate Agent

1. The seller and listing agent will work with a buyer's agent that has been fingerprinted and undergone background checks.

2. The buyer's agent will service as an intermediary that gives the seller the best chance of reaching agreement and closing. A buyer's agent can work with the listing agent to problem solve and help bridge differences between clients that could otherwise derail a positive transaction for the seller and buyer.

3. The buyer's agent will work to safeguard the seller's home during showings.

4. The buyer's agent will work to ensure that the buyer is qualified to purchase the home.

5. The buyer's agent will work to ensure that the buyer has the cash available for down payment and closing costs.

6. The buyer's agent can provide feedback to the seller regarding price and condition that will help them sell their home.

7. Where available, the buyer's agent will use promulgated forms which protect all parties.

8. The seller and listing agent will work with the buyer's agent who has agreed to a code of ethics.

9. The buyer's agent is highly likely to be properly insured, which protects all parties.

10. The buyer's agent will advise the buyer to write an offer that reflects current market
conditions.

11. The buyer's agent will provide a list of the best professional vendors to choose from to keep the transaction as smooth as possible.

12. The buyer's agent will guide the buyer through all the steps from inspection to closing.

13. The buyer's agent will work tirelessly to ensure that the buyer maintains their creditworthiness until they arrive for the closing and the transaction funds.

---

did you get an email with all the talking points you've posted today? Or was this all saved on your phone already?

jja79 said:

---

That has nothing to do with whether it was negotiable because it always was.

---

Dude. There is a Missouri Court case that says otherwise.

You, and everyone else arguing this, looks like a fool.

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

befitter said:

---

Typically the buyers agent makes 3% and the sellers agent makes 3%. Now...the buyers agent is no longer a part of that deal meaning the buyer is on their own with no representation....because why would an agent want to work for a buyer if they are not going to make a dime.

Good luck with that buyers.

I am not a real estate agent.

---

I bought several houses over the last 25 years as we moved many times for my career. We did all the homework and selected the houses we wanted to see from internet listings. Then we contacted an agent to arrange showings. We didn't think about fees because we weren't paying them.

If I were buying a house today, we would do the homework again but then arrange the showings ourself by calling the listing agent directly. No way I'd pay a 3% fee on a $500k to $1M house just for arranging a showing.

This is good. 6% baked-in RE commissions were a racket sustained through a monopoly approach. Going forward commissions will be earned on a value-added basis.

Hint: it won't be 6%

---

So, you want to call up the selling agent directly? The agent who has a fiduciary responsibility to the sellers? The sellers are paying your [buyers] agent. It isn't costing you a penny to have an agent represent you as a buyer. If you don't have an agent, not only are you going to be doing all of the legwork, you will losing money as a buyer.

---

I'm talking about the future state that will supposedly result from this settlement where buyers will have to hire their own agent and not rely on the current model of everything being bundled with the seller's agent.

In that world, I won't hire a buyer's agent for 3%. I'll do my homework first and then call the seller's agent to arrange showings.

---

In the future, still call up an agent to represent you because nothing has changed. The inability to list commissions on the MLS doesn't actually change a thing. The only difference, is your agent now has to call the sellers agent, to see what commission the sellers are paying him/her.

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

Realtors today use showing services to manage showings (for a fee), so they don't have to be at those showings (because a buyer's agent is present). I don't imagine a listing agent will want to (or be able to) show up at every showing if this became the norm.

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

Yep, if in fact buyer's and seller's RE fees become unbundled, then seller's will still hire an agent to list and market their home. Smart buyers will do their own homework and contact seller's agent directly to arrange showings. This will kill RE commissions for buyers agents. Many of them will try to get more listings to stay whole on commissions, which will push down commissions for seller's agents.

Instead of 6% all-in, we're probably headed toward a world of 2% all-in, with the vast majority of that being earned by seller's agents. Won't happen overnight; will take time to play out.

StandUpforAmerica said:

---

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I agree that the value proposition is super lopsided - where a selling agent often has to do quite a bit of work for their 3%, and a buyers agent gets the same 3% for what translates to less than 10 hours of work in many cases.

To take advantage of this - I've bought two homes by approaching the seller/agent with a cash offer, including the proposal that their agent signs up to represent us both and cuts their fee to 4%. Since price is already established in my offer, I'm basically making everyone better off by eliminating the role of the buyers agent. Each of us effectively gets a better deal by 1%.

Like I said, I'm 2 for 2 with this approach. And admittedly my price point is high, so 4% is still a lot of money.

---

Seems like a good approach. Do you have the other 2% applied to your closing costs, or do you just assume it helps you in negotiations with the seller?

---

Yeah, I guess that's where it's not perfectly clean - because I'm usually offering a price that's not exactly what they were asking. But I have kept all the other terms really clean to get the maximum price concession.

Both times I was also offering a fast close, which can also increase the seller's value (if they are out of the house).

one MEEN Ag said:

---

agracer said:

---

you always paid 3% as a buyer and the seller paid 3% .

the whole "the seller pays the buyers agents fee" was some of the biggest BS I've ever heard in my life.

The price accounts for a 6% commission. You can do the math however you want, but it's sill there.

---

What are you talking about. I never signed an agreement with my buyers agent to pay him 3%. The seller signed at 6% agreement to list. Then real estate agents have their own agreement to split commissions.

This is why double dipping is such a common problem. If you opt to close without your own agent, that sellers agent is going to howl about how they don't have to come down on the commission at all. And you might be able to convince the seller to team up on the agent and reduce the commission down to 4%, but that seller is going to want to keep that commission himself, not just offer you up a 2% reduction.

---

I'm saying the 6% was always there. However you want to spilt it, it was there. The cost is the cost and it was included in the price of the home.

I don't have much of a dog in this fight, but I build custom homes, so I am around this A LOT.

Bear in mind, the relationship between builder and realtor is often extremely contentious. So, again, I am not a realtor nor do I have any real love in my heart for a very large segment of them.

I am not a real estate tycoon, but I have done a large number of real estate transactions & I can say unequivocally that in my 50 years on this planet commissions have always been negotiable and are negotiated a lot more than some on this thread seem to think. There have always been discount brokers out there (I've seen them as low as 1%). Having worked with both discount brokerages and traditional brokerages I personally agree with the poster that said "you get what you pay for".

There is nothing wrong with foregoing representation, I do it often. However, for those who don't do this everyday, & don't see the value in working with a quality agent, then I would say that you have not worked with a quality agent. As much of a headache as agents are for me professionally, I will say that the good ones are worth every penny for most buyers, & the bad ones are not worth a dang. If you choose to have representation, do your due diligence and find a quality agent. Or don't have any representation at all.

That said, imho, this lawsuit was nothing more than class action farce; very much akin to McDonalds losing a huge lawsuit because they sold coffee that was hot.

I have always made every buyer sign a Buyers Rep and every other agent/broker has been doing this as well. It didn't mean that they owed me money, it actually laid out that they didn't owe me anything, but they couldn't use any other agent for a defined period of time. Any agent or broker who put in work for clients without a Buyers Representation Agreement, are freakin silly.

The only substantial change, is the selling agent can no longer list commissions on the MLS. That is the only real change. The lawsuit is about sellers being pissed off because agents wouldn't show homes with reduced commission on the MLS. Nothing is going to change with this, either.

Agents are going to run their search and then call each listing agent. "Hey, Mark! What are y'all paying commission wise for 123 Haven Way?...... Well, good luck selling it for a 1% buyers agent commission" Those listings that are 0 or 1%, won't ever get shown, and they will adjust.

Quote:

---

Those listings that are 0 or 1%, won't ever get shown, and they will adjust.

---

but hey guys remember it's totally negotiable! it's on you for not negotiating!

Tex117 said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

YUP.

Its always the Buyer paying.

---

Agents are a cost of doing business, and there are dozens of line item 'CODB' on a closing statement. This is just reducing the fees paid out against the seller and allowing the owner of the asset to retain more of the value of the investment.

This is very much like the semantics over 'who actually pays for credit card fees'. The vendor pays the fees, and they turn around and charge more for it. If there aren't credit card fees, there doesn't have to be a cash discount.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

I have always made every buyer sign a Buyers Rep and every other agent/broker has been doing this as well. It didn't mean that they owed me money, it actually laid out that they didn't owe me anything, but they couldn't use any other agent for a defined period of time. Any agent or broker who put in work for clients without a Buyers Representation Agreement, are freakin silly.

The only substantial change, is the selling agent can no longer list commissions on the MLS. That is the only real change. The lawsuit is about sellers being pissed off because agents wouldn't show homes with reduced commission on the MLS. Nothing is going to change with this, either.

Agents are going to run their search and then call each listing agent. "Hey, Mark! What are y'all paying commission wise for 123 Haven Way?...... Well, good luck selling it for a 1% buyers agent commission" Those listings that are 0 or 1%, won't ever get shown, and they will adjust.

---

You wanna say that on a recorded line for me? I'm sure brokerages are going to love the impending lawsuits about this exact scenario.

All in all. Somehow the rest of the world manages just fine.

It will here as well.

bubblesthechimp said:

---

Quote:

---

Those listings that are 0 or 1%, won't ever get shown, and they will adjust.

---

but hey guys remember it's totally negotiable! it's on you for not negotiating!

---

That isn't what "negotiable" means in this content. Nobody is going to work for free! I have done land deals with reduced commissions. Guess who took the hit? I, the listing agent, took the hit. I left the buyers agent commission at 3% because I wanted other agents to bring me their clients. If a seller wants to negotiate 4% total commission, it would most likely work out at 2%-2%. However, no agent is going to waste their time showing a 0% or 1% property. You wouldn't work for free, either.

FrioAg 00 said:

---

I agree that the value proposition is super lopsided - where a selling agent often has to do quite a bit of work for their 3%, and a buyers agent gets the same 3% for what translates to less than 10 hours of work in many cases.

To take advantage of this - I've bought two homes by approaching the seller/agent with a cash offer, including the proposal that their agent signs up to represent us both and cuts their fee to 4%. Since price is already established in my offer, I'm basically making everyone better off by eliminating the role of the buyers agent. Each of us effectively gets a better deal by 1%.

Like I said, I'm 2 for 2 with this approach. And admittedly my price point is high, so 4% is still a lot of money.

---

In general, it is MUCH more actual work and headache to represent a buyer than a seller. The time a single client eats up can be pretty burdensome, and you're sometimes showing them quite a few properties, spanning a large area. Just think about the logistics. And again, the vast majority of a buyer's agent's work is done on the weekends, evenings, and night time...when most people are spendiing time with their family/children.

It really is apples and oranges. I am not saying the system is perfect, but my wife LOVES when she gets a listing, as opposed to a family or individual looking to buy. In a hypothetical world where you were to reward agents based on actual work and sacrifice, the vast majority of the time, the buyer's agent would make more than the seller's.

Houston Lee said:

---

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

As has been pointed out multiple times, they can certainly call the listing agent. But, listing agents are not buyers agents and they will not be opening up the home for every unrepresented "buyer" that comes along. Its a complete waste of time for the seller and the listing agent to vacate a home for every random person that calls without doing some pre-screening. That is what a buyers agent is supposed to do.

Unless there is an open house going on, if you call and you don't have representation or at least a pre-approval for a loan for the sales price of the listing, you are not seeing the home. And you will need to send a copy of your pre-approval to the listing agent before they agree to kick the seller out of their home so you can see it.

---

So get pre-approval and start calling.

I hope you are not an agent because you are going to go broke not showing houses you have listed. And the people using you are going to never use you in the future!

If I knew who you were, I would never list with you because you will refuse to show my house unless to another agent. No offense, but your position is simply crazy.

Houston Lee said:

---

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

As has been pointed out multiple times, they can certainly call the listing agent. But, listing agents are not buyers agents and they will not be opening up the home for every unrepresented "buyer" that comes along. Its a complete waste of time for the seller and the listing agent to vacate a home for every random person that calls without doing some pre-screening. That is what a buyers agent is supposed to do.

Unless there is an open house going on, if you call and you don't have representation or at least a pre-approval for a loan for the sales price of the listing, you are not seeing the home. And you will need to send a copy of your pre-approval to the listing agent before they agree to kick the seller out of their home so you can see it.

---

That's probably wishful thinking for someone who wants it to stay the way like it's always been. If the result of this legal action is that the buyer's agent fee is still bundled with the seller's agent fee (typical 5% to 6%), then I agree with you that not much will change.

But if it becomes unbundled, where the seller's agent gets their 2.5% to 3% from the seller and the buyer has to negotiate their fee and pay directly to a buyer's agent, I see an outcome where buyers do their own work and bypass a buyer's agent. In most cases you don't really need one; it's been this way since internet listings became available 25 years ago. Buyers typically used them for convenience because they weren't paying the fee; the seller was. If the fees become unbundled, seller's agents will do whatever screening is required; it's not that difficult.

I bought rural property four years ago and dealt directly with the seller's agent. No buyer's agent involved. Easy peasy.

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

This is specifically part of the settlement. Whether the court accepts it or not remains to be seen, but I don't know why you say it won't fly. It is simply a contract between the buyer and their agent. I usually try to get one signed before I show homes now, but definitely after the first house I show.

ABattJudd said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

This is specifically part of the settlement. Whether the court accepts it or not remains to be seen, but I don't know why you say it won't fly. It is simply a contract between the buyer and their agent. I usually try to get one signed before I show homes now, but definitely after the first house I show.

---

If the customer chooses to have a buyer agent, yes. I agree. But that says "buyer can't tour the property unless they go through an agent".

The settlement does not require a buyer to use an agent. I would never use a selling agent who refuses to show my house to people who choose not to use an agent.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

As has been pointed out multiple times, they can certainly call the listing agent. But, listing agents are not buyers agents and they will not be opening up the home for every unrepresented "buyer" that comes along. Its a complete waste of time for the seller and the listing agent to vacate a home for every random person that calls without doing some pre-screening. That is what a buyers agent is supposed to do.

Unless there is an open house going on, if you call and you don't have representation or at least a pre-approval for a loan for the sales price of the listing, you are not seeing the home. And you will need to send a copy of your pre-approval to the listing agent before they agree to kick the seller out of their home so you can see it.

---

That's probably wishful thinking for someone who wants it to stay the way like it's always been. If the result of this legal action is that the buyer's agent fee is still bundled with the seller's agent fee (typical 5% to 6%), then I agree with you that not much will change.

But if it becomes unbundled, where the seller's agent gets their 2.5% to 3% from the seller and the buyer has to negotiate their fee and pay directly to a buyer's agent, I see an outcome where buyers do their own work and bypass a buyer's agent. In most cases you don't really need one; it's been this way since internet listings became available 25 years ago. Buyers typically used them for convenience because they weren't paying the fee; the seller was. If the fees become unbundled, seller's agents will do whatever screening is required; it's not that difficult.

I bought rural property four years ago and dealt directly with the seller's agent. No buyer's agent involved. Easy peasy.

---

I think that it's pretty optimistic that the outcome is where buyers do their own work and bypass a buyer's agent. Gauging what we see daily in public activities, I suspect that having a buyers agent will continue to be the norm.

Old May Banker said:

---

Meh.... RE commissions, like most other things, are negotiable. Don't look at your HUD-1 and see what everyone from the title company to the attorney to the title insurance company to the surveyor makes if the commission makes you upset.

---

It's ridiculous. I was thinking the other day, on a financed house sell/ purchase, there must be 50+ people with their hand out wanting their slice.

ABattJudd said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

This is specifically part of the settlement. Whether the court accepts it or not remains to be seen, but I don't know why you say it won't fly. It is simply a contract between the buyer and their agent. I usually try to get one signed before I show homes now, but definitely after the first house I show.

---

Why would a buyer be required to use an agent? I understand leaving that as an option if a buyer finds it worthwhile, but requiring it seems over the top. Why can't they contact the seller's agent directly? A seller isn't required to use a seller's agent. They can do FSBO. Of course, it might be in their best interest to use an expert agent if they add enough value to justify the commission. That's a decision/outcome the seller has to make.

In my example above I didn't use a buyer's agent for a rural property purchase. What about buying a car? No buyer's agent required there.

jabberwalkie09 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

agracer said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

Its in the NAR Settlement that everyone is so happy about. The NAR settlement really benefits the seller. But, what the sellers don't seem to understand is now they have truly limited the buyers ability to tour and buy a house and in turn will have actually shrunk the pool of potential buyers for their own home.

---

No, that is not what is in the NAR agreement based on your own posts in here.

I wish I could get through to you, but alas, its impossible,. With all due respect, you are wrong.

---

Nope. Not Wrong.

Here is the wording from NAR about the settlement from an email I received from NAR President Kevin Sears:

MLS participants acting for buyers would be required to enter into written agreements with their buyers before touring a home.

So, buyers have to sign or the agent can't show them. Plain and simple.

---

as has been pointed out multiple times, they can call the listing agent to see the home.

---

As has been pointed out multiple times, they can certainly call the listing agent. But, listing agents are not buyers agents and they will not be opening up the home for every unrepresented "buyer" that comes along. Its a complete waste of time for the seller and the listing agent to vacate a home for every random person that calls without doing some pre-screening. That is what a buyers agent is supposed to do.

Unless there is an open house going on, if you call and you don't have representation or at least a pre-approval for a loan for the sales price of the listing, you are not seeing the home. And you will need to send a copy of your pre-approval to the listing agent before they agree to kick the seller out of their home so you can see it.

---

That's probably wishful thinking for someone who wants it to stay the way like it's always been. If the result of this legal action is that the buyer's agent fee is still bundled with the seller's agent fee (typical 5% to 6%), then I agree with you that not much will change.

But if it becomes unbundled, where the seller's agent gets their 2.5% to 3% from the seller and the buyer has to negotiate their fee and pay directly to a buyer's agent, I see an outcome where buyers do their own work and bypass a buyer's agent. In most cases you don't really need one; it's been this way since internet listings became available 25 years ago. Buyers typically used them for convenience because they weren't paying the fee; the seller was. If the fees become unbundled, seller's agents will do whatever screening is required; it's not that difficult.

I bought rural property four years ago and dealt directly with the seller's agent. No buyer's agent involved. Easy peasy.

---

I think that it's pretty optimistic that the outcome is where buyers do their own work and bypass a buyer's agent. Gauging what we see daily in public activities, I suspect that having a buyers agent will continue to be the norm.

---

Lol, if buyers have to start forking over $15k to $30k for the purchase of a $500k to $1M house because it's now unbundled and it's theirs to pay directly instead of being wrapped into the seller's agent's fees, I suspect you'll see many take a vested interest in bypassing buyer's agents where they don't think the value proposition justifies it. Won't happen overnight, but I'd be shocked if we don't see a change over time.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

ABattJudd said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

NEWS FLASH: If you are a Buyer this is what is coming:

SIDE NOTE: Just to be clear. When a showing of a property is booked, the Seller is supposed to leave the home for the showing. Sellers are not going to keep doing this for unverified "curiosity seeker" buyers that may or may not be pre-approved for a mortgage loan.

1- Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission.

2-Or the buyer can wait for the listing agent to host an Open House

3-If you are an unrepresented buyer a listing agent is probably not going to waste their time kicking their seller out of their home and showing you their listing in a private showing because you will come across as a curiosity seeker or a buyer that may not be pre-approved for a loan.

---

This

"Buyers can't tour a property unless they first sign a Buyers Agent Representation Agreement. This agreement will detail how much the buyer or the seller will have to pay for the Buyers Agent commission"


is not going to fly!

---

This is specifically part of the settlement. Whether the court accepts it or not remains to be seen, but I don't know why you say it won't fly. It is simply a contract between the buyer and their agent. I usually try to get one signed before I show homes now, but definitely after the first house I show.

---

Why would a buyer be required to use an agent? I understand leaving that as an option if a buyer finds it worthwhile, but requiring it seems over the top. Why can't they contact the seller's agent directly? A seller isn't required to use a seller's agent. They can do FSBO. Of course, it might be in their best interest to use an expert agent if they add enough value to justify the commission. That's a decision/outcome the seller has to make.

In my example above I didn't use a buyer's agent for a rural property purchase. What about buying a car? No buyer's agent required there.

---

Ok, I see what you're saying. The settlement says that IF a buyer is using an agent, they must sign an agreement outlining compensation BEFORE any showings. That was my frame of reference.