MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

Again, I think that's an overly optimistic view and really the status quo won't change for who is involved because of espeically first time buyers not knowing how to navigate the process. Since as I understand it under this new agreement buyers will have to enter into an agreement with their agent, the main change I see is that the commission will be negotiated up front which will be different. Though it remains to be seen if that will actually go into effect.

https://www.latimes.com/business/real-estate/story/2024-03-19/realtor-rules-just-changed-dramatically-heres-what-buyers-and-sellers-can-expect

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.

---

Lordy.......can you imagine using buyer agents in the purchase of an automobile. Albeit some vehicles are listed as high as some cheap housing....but, the chaos would be incredible.

Would the dealership, as the seller, be required to pay my buying agent 3% on the list price of the vehicle.....

LOL

MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

It's effectively unbundled. Buyers will pay for services now to their agent instead of seller paying for all of it. HTH

So the seller still pays the total commission, which is then split between seller's and buyer's agents according to their sharing agreement?

The buyer does not pay the buyer's agent directly?

That's different than what I've been seeing in the media. Not saying it's wrong; just different.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

It's effectively unbundled. Buyers will pay for services now to their agent instead of seller paying for all of it. HTH

---

100% FALSE

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

Baseball Is Life said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

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.

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

It's effectively unbundled. Buyers will pay for services now to their agent instead of seller paying for all of it. HTH

---

100% FALSE

---

100% true!

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

I suspect this already actively happens. The difference is that the MLS listings won't show the commission anymore.

Might be my last post on this. If the seller still pays the buyer's agent fee, I don't see much changing.

If the buyer has to pay it however, I see a lot changing.

I bought 5 homes from 1998 to 2005, and we did all the home searching ourselves using the internet. Buyers agents didn't bring forward one that we hadn't already found. We used those agents to arrange showings and it was convenient. Since we weren't paying for it, we didn't worry about it. But if we had to pay for it, we would have bypassed them and gone directly to the seller's agent. We were good buyers on corporate moves with the ability to close in 30 days and I highly doubt seller's agents would have rejected us.

The flip side is I also sold 5 homes during that period. My company covered the real estate commissions, so again I didn't obsess over it. But I clearly had the belief that seller's agents brought more to the table in the way of value creation than buyers agents. If I were selling a home today I would absolutely use a seller's agent. I would use a buyer's agent if the seller is paying for it, but not if I am.

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

First, highlight where I personally said I would do any of those. I am just pointing out the reality of what is going to happen. Also, please point out where I have asked for anyone to "sympathize" with me? I am just asking for people to stop spreading fake news.

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.

---

the pricing of title insurance in Texas is not negotiable...it's mandated by state law.

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Might be my last post on this. If the seller still pays the buyer's agent fee, I don't see much changing.

If the buyer has to pay it however, I see a lot changing.

I bought 5 homes from 1998 to 2005, and we did all the home searching ourselves using the internet. Buyers agents didn't bring forward one that we hadn't already found. We used those agents to arrange showings and it was convenient. Since we weren't paying for it, we didn't worry about it. But if we had to pay for it, we would have bypassed them and gone directly to the seller's agent. We were good buyers on corporate moves with the ability to close in 30 days and I highly doubt seller's agents would have rejected us.

The flip side is I also sold 5 homes during that period. My company covered the real estate commissions, so again I didn't obsess over it. But I clearly had the belief that seller's agents brought more to the table in the way of value creation than buyers agents. If I were selling a home today I would absolutely use a seller's agent. I would use a buyer's agent if the seller is paying for it, but not if I am.

---

I will say this: You will have sellers who hear this news and say they aren't going to pay a buyers commission. That is their right and always has been their right. Good agents will run away and won't list these, so they will be FSBO. The ironic thing is, most FSBOs offer 3% to buyer agents and are trying to save on listing agent side. Once the house sits, they will come to their senses. The market will always correct itself.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

With all due respect, I think you are in for a hard lesson!

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

---

A buyer will still be represented free of charge. The Buyers Rep has always been a thing and is nothing new. No agent is going to ask for money to represent their buyer side client(s).

We used to find their needs, price, etc. and search the MLS to compile a list of properties that worked for them. Almost every listing was 3% to the buyers agent, with some being 2%. I never had an issue with including the rare 2% commission in my lists, but some agents did have a problem with these. Hence, where the lawsuit came from. They (lawyers/plaintiffs) are saying there is a monopoly (NAR/MLS) on the commission rates, and if the buyers commission was shown at less than 3% on the MLS, their houses weren't being shown. Now, the commission percentage can't be shown, but it exists just the same as before. You just have to call and ask the other agent what the commission is.

They are hoping that with no commissions listed on the MLS, people will just include these listings in their property lists to clients. The clients will fall in love with property, want to tour it and buy it. That will not happen. Any drip feed listings emailed to clients will stop. All other lists will be called on before they are sent out. The no commissions and 1% listings will be removed and never shown by an agent.


Edit - I am writing this as if/when the change takes place in July. Currently, the MLS is showing commissions and running as is.

Logos Stick said:

---

With all due respect, I think you are in for a hard lesson!

---

Where you come from and your knowledge of the process, sure, this will impact any agents you deal with, however, your everyday American isn't going to understand the process and won't waste time trying to learn.

Viper16 said:

---

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.

---

Lordy.......can you imagine using buyer agents in the purchase of an automobile. Albeit some vehicles are listed as high as some cheap housing....but, the chaos would be incredible.

Would the dealership, as the seller, be required to pay my buying agent 3% on the list price of the vehicle.....

LOL

---

A home purchase is in between buying a car or truck and a commercial real estate purchase. It is much more vast and complex with a lot more to it than just browsing a car lot.

I just don't think some of these comparisons are very accurate. We are taking appraisals, inspections, a very personal and in depth search process. Again, good luck to the average home buyer being able to do it on their own esp while holding down a job, running a family etc.

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

---

That's right....hard to figure out if he, as the seller's agent, is working in the interests of the seller or the buyer's agent. He suggest he's working more in the buyer's agent interests than his seller's interests by establishing a minimum fee of 2%. That's OK, I just would never contract an agent like that.

Logos Stick said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Real estate commissions are negotiable, though the fixed 3% each way is getting push back.

This haircut in OP is just negotiating in mass by trying to guilt her customers. She's appealing to emotion rather than logic.

---

Always been negotiable

---

so this law does nothing then?

---

I don't understand what this law does.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Might be my last post on this. If the seller still pays the buyer's agent fee, I don't see much changing.

If the buyer has to pay it however, I see a lot changing.

I bought 5 homes from 1998 to 2005, and we did all the home searching ourselves using the internet. Buyers agents didn't bring forward one that we hadn't already found. We used those agents to arrange showings and it was convenient. Since we weren't paying for it, we didn't worry about it. But if we had to pay for it, we would have bypassed them and gone directly to the seller's agent. We were good buyers on corporate moves with the ability to close in 30 days and I highly doubt seller's agents would have rejected us.

The flip side is I also sold 5 homes during that period. My company covered the real estate commissions, so again I didn't obsess over it. But I clearly had the belief that seller's agents brought more to the table in the way of value creation than buyers agents. If I were selling a home today I would absolutely use a seller's agent. I would use a buyer's agent if the seller is paying for it, but not if I am.

---

I will say this: You will have sellers who hear this news and say they aren't going to pay a buyers commission. That is their right and always has been their right. Good agents will run away and won't list these, so they will be FSBO. The ironic thing is, most FSBOs offer 3% to buyer agents and are trying to save on listing agent side. Once the house sits, they will come to their senses. The market will always correct itself.

---

Also, the buyers themselves will be directing their buyers agents to only find homes where they don't have to pay any or little commission. It isn't against the law or any ethics for buyers to look after themselves and their pocket book. There will always be homes on the market were sellers offer 3% to buyers agents. Those buyers will want to buy those homes over ones where they need to fork out thousands.

On inventory homes, Builders currently offer up to 6% commission just to the buyers agent or even up to $10,000 in a BTSA (bonus) to the Buyers agent. They offer Buyers interest rates of 4.5% if you use their preferred lender. I wonder why they do that? duh…. It's all about incentivizing buyers and buyers agents to come see their homes. Smart sellers of resale homes understand this…

Tex100 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Tea Party said:

---

Real estate commissions are negotiable, though the fixed 3% each way is getting push back.

This haircut in OP is just negotiating in mass by trying to guilt her customers. She's appealing to emotion rather than logic.

---

Always been negotiable

---

so this law does nothing then?

---

I don't understand what this law does.

---

There is no LAW. It's a settlement by NAR and they make the rules that Realtors have to follow. We are talking about rules. There is also a question of who enforces any new rules. It isnt the government or the police. It's self-enforcement so they dont get sued.

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

Viper16 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

---

That's right....hard to figure out if he, as the seller's agent, is working in the interests of the seller or the buyer's agent. He suggest he's working more in the buyer's agent interests than his seller's interests by establishing a minimum fee of 2%. That's OK, I just would never contract an agent like that.

---

What he is talking about is a listing agent. Believe it or not Listing agents decline to take listings. Sometimes the seller is unreasonable of their expectations of their home's worth. Sometimes they wont do what is needed to get the home ready for the market. Experienced listing agents know that if the seller isnt going to offer a buyers agent little or no compensation, then the home will probably sit for a long time or maybe not even sell. So, why accept the listing and spend thousands upfront in marketing without getting anything in return? As I said before, buyers are getting the worst part of this deal and they are not going to want to buy homes where they have to fork out thousands to their buyers agent vs homes where the buyers agent gets compensation from the seller.

Look. Somehow the rest of the world gets by with less commission...That...mixed with new tech (just look at stock brokers), and things are going to change.

Anything else is just pure delusion.

(I don't know how it all will change, but change it will).

El Gallo Blanco said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

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.

---

Lordy.......can you imagine using buyer agents in the purchase of an automobile. Albeit some vehicles are listed as high as some cheap housing....but, the chaos would be incredible.

Would the dealership, as the seller, be required to pay my buying agent 3% on the list price of the vehicle.....

LOL

---

A home purchase is in between buying a car or truck and a commercial real estate purchase. It is much more vast and complex with a lot more to it than just browsing a car lot.

I just don't think some of these comparisons are very accurate. We are taking appraisals, inspections, a very personal and in depth search process. Again, good luck to the average home buyer being able to do it on their own esp while holding down a job, running a family etc.

---

Pretty sure you've missed my point.....no one is saying agents should earn a payday....it's the amount of payday that is exorbitant in today's markets........now, as the seller, if you want to negotiate the 6% payout on the difference between what the property was originally purchased for and what it sells for (capital gain or loss), I would go for that .......It is a more reasonable number than applying the 6% commission to the total selling price of the property in my view. Agents shouldn't be paid on the sell price.....Just the difference in the capital gain.

Nobody contacts an agent anymore for listings. It' all public now, Zillow, etc... You look on Zillow at an area with your filters and ask to see those homes that match.

You're not going to hide anything from a buyer. They will ask about a home and you can tell them if the seller pays the buyer fees. If not, then the buyer pays the fees.

So its more transparent and negotiable now imo.

Logos Stick said:

---

With all due respect, I think you are in for a hard lesson!

---

With all due respect, you should stop spreading misinformation.

Again, while this doesn't "unbundle" commissions, it has a minute possibility to cause some temporary disruptions in the market. Mainly due to misinformation. Either way, I am diversified personally and with my brokerage. Leasing and apartment locating make up 50%+ of revenue and sales listings make up almost all of the rest. I have done it, but I never was a fan of showing a million properties to buyers. Some of the agents under the brokerage, like to help buyers, but it is a very small portion of revenue.

My first "buyer" was a sick old man who was living in an apartment. He was diabetic, close to blind and had the fragile skin most older people have. I had to basically hold him up while touring houses, while his arms were bleeding. Then, he always wanted me to drive through restaurants and pick stuff up from stores while we were out looking at properties. He never ended up buying anything before his body finally gave out. He was a super nice guy, but this kind of set the tone on my desire to not represent buyers.

James Forsyth said:

---

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.

---

the pricing of title insurance in Texas is not negotiable...it's mandated by state law.

---

I know that.

Houston Lee said:

---

Viper16 said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

ok, let me make sure I'm understanding you because I must not be.

You're saying you are going to ask the buyer's agent how much they are working for when they contact you to show the house on behalf of a client? And if less than 2%, you refuse to show it..

---

That's right....hard to figure out if he, as the seller's agent, is working in the interests of the seller or the buyer's agent. He suggest he's working more in the buyer's agent interests than his seller's interests by establishing a minimum fee of 2%. That's OK, I just would never contract an agent like that.

---

What he is talking about is a listing agent. Believe it or not Listing agents decline to take listings. Sometimes the seller is unreasonable of their expectations of their home's worth. Sometimes they wont do what is needed to get the home ready for the market. Experienced listing agents know that if the seller isnt going to offer a buyers agent little or no compensation, then the home will probably sit for a long time or maybe not even sell. So, why accept the listing and spend thousands upfront in marketing without getting anything in return? As I said before, buyers are getting the worst part of this deal and they are not going to want to buy homes where they have to fork out thousands to their buyers agent vs homes where the buyers agent gets compensation from the seller.

---

I'm not sure you understand the people you are "preaching to" on this board. I've bought and sold about 5 homes in 73 years of life, probably not as much as the "professionals"......So, "preaching" to me and others about the value of agents doesn't really cut it. I have used friends as agents, and other's I've never really known before. Quite frankly most have come across as know-it-alls and only hold their interests ahead of their clients.

6% on the selling price of a home is crazy and unwarranted. Now, as I said in another post, if you negotiate a commission rate on based the difference between the capital gain of the original purchase price and current sell price, you might be on to something that is more palatable to all parties. Would solve a lot of anguish in the buying and selling of real estate.

Your paragraph highlighted above is a prime example of what is wrong with real estate agents. It is a smug, holier than thou example of how real estate agents see their clients....You don't own the house/property...your client does. The client invested their hard earned money in the property. Not you. They took the risks to own it. You should be thankful the client called you to sell or buy property. Not the other way around.

Oh, one other thing, I have sold property FSBO. It ain't that hard to do.....don't make it sound like it can't be done.