Will new real estate law on August 17th dramatically lower realtor commissions?

[Plinker]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

[retiredguy123]

Is this a Florida state law, or is it an MLS rule? I have never agreed to pay any commission to a buyer's agent.

[Plinker]

Is this a Florida state law, or is it an MLS rule? I have never agreed to pay any commission to a buyer's agent.

FTC ruling so is national and all realtors must abide. Google “New realtor commissions and FTC”

[justjim]

Sounds like it’s another bureaucratic overreach to me. But I suppose we will see how it all “shakes out” when this is implemented.

[candacev]

This is the buyer information sheet from NAR. We will be able to have open houses without the form signed for touring an open house. However to answer specific questions and price negotiations we will have to have a form signed. No REALTOR will be able to show you a home without a from signed. It does not ask for financial information.


NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS®
HOMEBUYERS:
HERE'S WHAT THE NAR SETTLEMENT MEANS FOR YOU
Buying a home is one of the largest financial transactions most people will ever undertake. Agents who are REALTORS® are a trusted source of advice and stand ready to help you navigate your homebuying journey and make the choices that work best for you. NAR's recent settlement has led to several changes that benefit homebuyers, and we wanted to clearly lay them out for you.
Here is what the settlement means for homebuyers:
• You will sign a written agreement with your agent before touring a home.
• Before signing this agreement, you should ensure it reflects the terms you have negotiated with your agent and that you understand exactly what services and value will be provided, and for how much.
• The buyer agreement must include four components concerning compensation:
a. A specific and conspicuous disclosure of the amount or rate of compensation the real estate agent will receive or how this amount will be determined.
b. Compensation that is objective (e.g., $0, X flat fee, X percent, X hourly rate)-and not open-ended (e.g., cannot be "buyer broker compensation shall be whatever the amount the seller is offering to the buyer").
c. A term that prohibits the agent from receiving compensation for brokerage services from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to in the agreement with the buyer, and,
d. A conspicuous statement that broker fees and commissions are fully negotiable and not set by law.
• Written agreements apply to both in-person and live virtual home tours.
• You do not need a written agreement if you are just speaking to an agent at an open house or asking them about their services.
• The seller may agree to offer compensation to your agent. This practice is permitted but the offer cannot be shared on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) — MLSs are local marketplaces used by both buyer brokers and listing brokers to share information about properties for sale.
REALTORS are members of the National Association of REALTORS"

[retiredguy123]

FTC ruling so is national and all realtors must abide. Google “New realtor commissions and FTC”
Thank you. I don't understand how this would affect me at all. I have sold houses with a listing broker contract, but I have always made it clear that the broker is representing me only, not the buyer or their agent. The entire commission is paid by me at closing, and all of the money goes to the listing broker. Any licensed agent who shows my house is representing me. If they have a written buyer's agent agreement, they cannot show the house. It is also a violation of Florida law to be a dual agent.

[Plinker]

I’m not sure we are on the same page. I understand what the duty is of a sellers agent but this has nothing to do with the splitting of the commission. If a seller agrees to pay their broker a 6% commission, then that commission is split. At closing, the sellers agent will pay around half of their 6% commission to the buyers agent. Thus, the seller paid both the selling and buying agent fees. If the agent for the seller also brings a buyer then they get the entire 6%. This is known as double dipping. You mention that you paid the commission, as is customary. If a buyer has a realtor who shows and sells them a home then this is when the split occurs. May I ask what commission rate you paid? If it’s 5 to 6%, then you paid both agents. This is why the FTC got involved.

[candacev]

The new listing agreement that is out has more choices for the seller:

A: seller pays x% to listing agent and listing agent split with buyer's agent (what it has been)
B: seller pays x% to listing agent and seller pays x% to buyer's agent
C: seller pays x% to listing agent and 0 to buyer's agent

[BPRICE1234]

It didn't help me at all in Ohio. The way ot was explained it if you pay the seller realtor 3% and offer the buyer 2%, the home buyer makes up the difference. I was also told that realtors can see and sometimes won't show a house if they feel shorted on the commission. The whole thing is a scam.

[retiredguy123]

I’m not sure we are on the same page. I understand what the duty is of a sellers agent but this has nothing to do with the splitting of the commission. If a seller agrees to pay their broker a 6% commission, then that commission is split. At closing, the sellers agent will pay around half of their 6% commission to the buyers agent. Thus, the seller paid both the selling and buying agent fees. If the agent for the seller also brings a buyer then they get the entire 6%. This is known as double dipping. You mention that you paid the commission, as is customary. If a buyer has a realtor who shows and sells them a home then this is when the split occurs. May I ask what commission rate you paid? If it’s 5 to 6%, then you paid both agents. This is why the FTC got involved.
It's about representation. Under Florida law, an agent cannot represent both the buyer and the seller. When I sign a listing agreement, it is clear that any licensed agent who shows my house is representing me, the seller. If an agent has a written agreement to represent the buyer, they cannot show my house because they are acting as an illegal dual agent. At closing, the entire commission is paid by me on the seller's side of the closing statement. If it turns out that an agent showing my house has a buyer's agent agreement, they are violating both the listing contract and Florida law. I am willing to pay an agent to represent me in selling a house, but, I will not agree to pay any commission to a buyer's agent. I expect agents to treat buyers and sellers fairly, but, I expect them to act in my best interest to get the best price, since they are representing me, the seller.

[Plinker]

It's about representation. Under Florida law, an agent cannot represent both the buyer and the seller. When I sign a listing agreement, it is clear that any licensed agent who shows my house is representing me, the seller. If an agent has a written agreement to represent the buyer, they cannot show my house because they are acting as an illegal dual agent. At closing, the entire commission is paid by me on the seller's side of the closing statement. If it turns out that an agent showing my house has a buyer's agent agreement, they are violating both the listing contract and Florida law. I am willing to pay an agent to represent me in selling a house, but, I will not agree to pay any commission to a buyer's agent. I expect agents to treat buyers and sellers fairly, but, I expect them to act in my best interest to get the best price, since they are representing me, the seller.

I agree with your post 100%. However, with respect, the new law is about how seller and buyer realtor commissions will be paid and not about representation.

[Snakster66]

I agree with your post 100%. However, with respect, the new law is about how seller and buyer realtor commissions will be paid and not about representation.
It's not a law, but yes.

[retiredguy123]

I agree with your post 100%. However, with respect, the new law is about how seller and buyer realtor commissions will be paid and not about representation.
Thanks. Referring to Post No. 8, I have always used option C. I don't care if a buyer has an agent, but I will not pay for it.

[Normal]

I’m not sure we are on the same page. I understand what the duty is of a sellers agent but this has nothing to do with the splitting of the commission. If a seller agrees to pay their broker a 6% commission, then that commission is split. At closing, the sellers agent will pay around half of their 6% commission to the buyers agent. Thus, the seller paid both the selling and buying agent fees. If the agent for the seller also brings a buyer then they get the entire 6%. This is known as double dipping. You mention that you paid the commission, as is customary. If a buyer has a realtor who shows and sells them a home then this is when the split occurs. May I ask what commission rate you paid? If it’s 5 to 6%, then you paid both agents. This is why the FTC got involved.

I would in no way shape or form agree to a 6% sales contract now that the new law is coming into effect. You can list any home on the MLS yourself for $99. Zillow is a great platform to advertise on.

[retiredguy123]

The new listing agreement that is out has more choices for the seller:

A: seller pays x% to listing agent and listing agent split with buyer's agent (what it has been)
B: seller pays x% to listing agent and seller pays x% to buyer's agent
C: seller pays x% to listing agent and 0 to buyer's agent
I hasn't been that way when I have signed a listing contract. I have always used option C.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I hasn't been that way when I have signed a listing contract. I have always used option C.

correct, it hasn't been that way because now the FTC rules have changed. .

You can pay 0 to the buyers agent, your choice, the result may be that you are limiting your pool of buyers to a much smaller subset, which means your buyer pool is

Either is not using a buyer's agent, so could care less about buyer's commission
or
Is using a buyer's agent AND can pay for the buyer's commission in addition to the house sale.

You will be excluding buyers with agents who can't afford to pay the buyer's agent separately.

Of course you can do whatever you want, you just might have consequences you don't want, such as waiting much longer for a buyer who meets your qualifications. .

Other questions are,
will the buyer put into the offer letter that the seller must pay the buyer's agent or the offer is null and void?

If so, then you may have a lot of failed bids when one tries to sell.

Will you the buyer accept a higher offer with the excess over listing returned to the seller as the buyer's commission at closing?

Will the bank accept that higher price and those terms for financing by the buyer?

again, the market will be sh!t show until everyone figures out a standardized way of managing a real estate transaction, including banks and buyers. . Its a change, humans resist change or make a mess of it, one way or another

[retiredguy123]

correct, it hasn't been that way because now the FTC rules have changed. .

You can pay 0 to the buyers agent, your choice, the result may be that you are limiting your pool of buyers to a much smaller subset, which means your buyer pool is

Either is not using a buyer's agent, so could care less about buyer's commission
or
Is using a buyer's agent AND can pay for the buyer's commission in addition to the house sale.

You will be excluding buyers with agents who can't afford to pay the buyer's agent separately.

Of course you can do whatever you want, you just might have consequences you don't want, such as waiting much longer for a buyer who meets your qualifications. .

Other questions are,
will the buyer put into the offer letter that the seller must pay the buyer's agent or the offer is null and void?

If so, then you may have a lot of failed bids when one tries to sell.

Will you the buyer accept a higher offer with the excess over listing returned to the seller as the buyer's commission at closing?

Will the bank accept that higher price and those terms for financing by the buyer?

again, the market will be sh!t show until everyone figures out a standardized way of managing a real estate transaction, including banks and buyers. . Its a change, humans resist change or make a mess of it, one way or another
My only reason to pay a seller's commission is to pay for an experienced agent's sales, marketing, and negotiating skills. If potential buyers have their own agent, and expect me to pay them, I don't need an agent. I would rather list the house as a FSBO and offer a 3 percent finder's fee to whoever brings me a buyer.

[Sweatman]

Say I walk into an open house and I’m not signed with a buyers agent, make an offer representing myself… is the only commission due on the (accepted) offer paid by the seller based on their agreement with their listing agent?

[CoachKandSportsguy]

My only reason to pay a seller's commission is to pay for an experienced agent's sales, marketing, and negotiating skills. If potential buyers have their own agent, and expect me to pay them, I don't need an agent. I would rather list the house as a FSBO and offer a 3 percent finder's fee to whoever brings me a buyer.

So which are you going to choose? I get the logic, but you have to make a decision when selling the house, so which will it be?

a) paying a selling / listing agent
b) paying a buyer's agent and you will do the listing and the marketing?

since you gave an either or scenario, which are you going to choose?

[Robnlaura]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

Realtors need to make money. I don’t know any realtor that would help anyone for nothing. I think it’s going to be a massive disaster.. my thinking is you will see Zillow getting involved like it’s always been the goal they had. They sold leads to agents for a huge amount of money.. how do they replace that money.. hire a bunch of realtors for a fee. sign you up as client on a contract. And voila they own it all and you will pay..

[retiredguy123]

So which are you going to choose? I get the logic, but you have to make a decision when selling the house, so which will it be?

a) paying a selling / listing agent
b) paying a buyer's agent and you will do the listing and the marketing?

since you gave an either or scenario, which are you going to choose?
I would prefer to pay a seller/listing agent to represent me only because I think they are better qualified to market a house than I am. But, if they force me to pay a buyer's agent commission, I will do a FSBO.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I would prefer to pay a seller/listing agent to represent me only because I think they are better qualified to market a house than I am. But, if they force me to pay a buyer's agent commission, I will do a FSBO.

I agree with the selling agent.
Not sure how I will handle the buyer's agent fees, since here in MA lawyers do most of the buyer's work.. . . which is my I am reading my socials for specific news from reality is stranger than fiction. .

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Say I walk into an open house and I’m not signed with a buyers agent, make an offer representing myself… is the only commission due on the (accepted) offer paid by the seller based on their agreement with their listing agent?

expected to be yes. . .

[retiredguy123]

I agree with the selling agent.
Not sure how I will handle the buyer's agent fees, since here in MA lawyers do most of the buyer's work.. . . which is my I am reading my socials for specific news from reality is stranger than fiction. .
As I understand it, the buyer's and seller's agents don't get paid to do anything but to negotiate and execute a sales contract. Everything after that is the responsibility of the title company. They have lawyers on staff to make sure the title is clean and is transferred legally. When you sell a house as a FSBO, the title company will provide a FSBO package that has all of the forms needed to execute a sales contract, and they will take over from there.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

As I understand it, the buyer's and seller's agents don't get paid to do anything but to negotiate and execute a sales contract. Everything after that is the responsibility of the title company. They have lawyers on staff to make sure the title is clean and is transferred legally. When you sell a house as a FSBO, the title company will provide a FSBO package that has all of the forms needed to execute a sales contract, and they will take over from there.

Here in MA, we don't have title companies, we have lawyers and titles.
which is why I gave my MA scenario, and have spoken with lawyers about the sale.

The seller's agent lists and markets the house.
The buyer and selling lawyers execute the deal.
The buyer provides the funding checks, the lawyers handle the money to go where the agreement states. .

Which is why I am watching to see how to structure the sale with the listing agent and how to handle any MA buyer's agents. . just not sure how it will change the process quite yet, but it will change it.

[Plinker]

Say I walk into an open house and I’m not signed with a buyers agent, make an offer representing myself… is the only commission due on the (accepted) offer paid by the seller based on their agreement with their listing agent?

Yes. Prior to the FTC ruling, a seller agreed to a percentage of the sales price of the home due their agent (brokerage) upon closing. What many people don’t realize is that the seller’s agent had a side deal with the buyer agent, if a buyer was working with a realtor. The seller doesn’t see this arrangement on the documents they sign for representation. However, the MLS has a form that only the realtors have access to which discloses what the selling agent will pay the buyer’s agent if they bring a buyer and close the deal. We, as sellers, never see this.
Example: 5% commission on $600,000 home. Seller’s agent/brokerage receives $30,000 from seller at closing. The deal the seller’s agent made with the buyers agent may be 50% (could be less) of the $30,000 commission that the SELLER paid. So, yes, the seller paid both commissions. They just don’t realize it. This ruling is designed to prevent this such that each party pays their own agent’s fees.
If the buyer doesn’t engage the services of a realtor then the seller’s agent pockets the full fee. So, instead of agreeing to 5-6% you can now offer 2 1/2 - 3% to the listing agent and let the buyer decide if they want representation.
A previous post was spot-on. A buyer may ask a seller to pay their buyer fees but the seller can decline which may decrease the pool of offers.

[C. C. Rider]

I would prefer to pay a seller/listing agent to represent me only because I think they are better qualified to market a house than I am. But, if they force me to pay a buyer's agent commission, I will do a FSBO.

If you do a FSBO, then you'll have to handle both the buying and the selling agents' jobs by yourself. You'll have to do your own advertising, handle all phone calls, scheduling of appointments, showing the house, dealing/negotiating with any possible interested parties, arranging for a lawyer to write up the deal if you are successful in your negotiations, help the uninformed buyer find/locate financing, arrange for all the inspections, negotiate again with the buyer if any problems crop up, and hopefully jump through all these hoops successfully in order to arrive at a closing date.

Meanwhile, you'll need to be a salesman and negotiator to soothe the buyer's nerves if/when problems/situations come up regarding the inspections, the contract, or the financing involved. It's not rocket science, but if you haven't done this type of stuff before, you'll likely be pulling your hair out and begging for help from someone long before you get to the closing.

[Robnlaura]

If you do a FSBO, then you'll have to handle both the buying and the selling agents' jobs by yourself. You'll have to do your own advertising, handle all phone calls, scheduling of appointments, showing the house, dealing/negotiating with any possible interested parties, arranging for a lawyer to write up the deal if you are successful in your negotiations, help the uninformed buyer find/locate financing, arrange for all the inspections, negotiate again with the buyer if any problems crop up, and hopefully jump through all these hoops successfully in order to arrive at a closing date.

Meanwhile, you'll need to be a salesman and negotiator to soothe the buyer's nerves if/when problems/situations come up regarding the inspections, the contract, or the financing involved. It's not rocket science, but if you haven't done this type of stuff before, you'll likely be pulling your hair out and begging for help from someone long before you get to the closing.
No pay? Let them do it themselves. Problem solved

[Shelbyh]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

This new regulation is going to be a nightmare. You forgot to mention that before you can even view a home you are interested in you need to sign an agreement to pay a certain commission to the agents, I am not comfortable signing anything unless I am making an actual offer. Think about how many homes someone looks at before buying.
I see this turning bad for realtors and people go back to for sale by owner.
Buyer’s will need to agree to pay an agent for their time for showing a home even if you don’t buy one.
This is what I gathered from listening to realtors YouTube from here in TV.

[MandoMan]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

This cuts in half the commission the seller pays, as the buyer’s agent no longer splits the commission with the seller’s agent 50/50. Great! That saves you a bundle when you sell. But if you then BUY a house, you now have to pay 3% to the buyer’s agent, whereas before the seller paid. So if you both buy and sell, you come out the same. Of course, if you have to pay for that additional 3% by taking out a larger mortgage, you pay off that amount by mortgage for many years.

[BostonTom]

You DO NOT need a buyers agent many realtors that are posting on here are in denial. You can go directly to the listing agent and make offer yourself. I would NEVER pay a buyers agent to walk me into a listing agent house make offer and paying them around 12 thousand depending on the price of the house.Also selling your home 2.5 percent to the agent is okay but there are other listing options which could save you substantial amount of money. Real estate agent trying to put their spin on it.The reality of the situation all agents work for themselves no sale no commission. They like that
saying I represent buyers or sellers BS .Soon buyers agents will become like travel agents dinosaurs. The Villages at some point will have to lower there commissions because why pay them 5 percent when MLS agents will start taking 2.5 percent to sell your house. Sellers should offer nothing to buyers agent let the listing agent split there 2.5 percent if they want. Example I bought a pre-owned house from Village sales agent like many people WITHOUT buyers agent and negotiated myself so why pay a MLS buyers agent would you pay somebody to go to a car dealership and help you buy a car. Everything the MLS agents have access to comps ECT can easily be found on Internet the same place they get there information from. But if you want to pay them to do it will cost the buyer or seller approximately 2.5 percent of sale price.

[crash]

Is this a Florida state law, or is it an MLS rule? I have never agreed to pay any commission to a buyer's agent.

But you did the commission you paid was split between the selling agent and the buyers agent. In a sense they both worked for the seller because that is who was paying them.

[Normal]

What most don’t realize is the law will help real estate and bring down prices. For years real estate was on a roller coaster ride mostly as an upward trend adding to inflation.

The main reasoning was commissions added to pricing like ponzi progression. Without those huge price increases to pay salesmen (AKA Realtors) for every transaction, prices will decline. Wait and see.

Think back to the 60s and 70s when you had life insurance salesmen striking it rich. The whole system eventually folded.

[Bay Kid]

Talk about the government screwing up a business. Here is the perfect example of government interference.

[Normal]

Talk about the government screwing up a business. Here is the perfect example of government interference.

I believe a free market is everything, but the escalating of prices because of the inclusion of flat commission fees in pricing was unsustainable. Besides, now more will soon be able to afford housing.

[seecapecod]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

Wouldn’t The Villages “Sales Agents” be exempt from this new law? They are not realtors, not members of the National Association of Realtors. As such they’d set their own commission right?

[EatthMama]

In Florida, realtors are automatically assumed to be “transaction agents”, which means they can represent both sides; seller and buyer. The post that said they can’t is incorrect. I am an MLS realtor so I know of what I speak here.
Buyers will have to sign an agreement before they are ever shown a home by a realtor. The purpose of the new law is to provide transparency as to how each agent is to be paid. The vast majority of sellers’ agents will continue to offer split compensation to pay the buyers’ agent; it just can’t be posted on MLS that way. Buyers’ agents will be more likely to show a home that is offering compensation, so it’s in the sellers’ best interest to agree to the 5-6% on the initial agreement. Close to 80% of homes sold in The Villages are sold not by the listing agent but through the buyers’ agent, so it makes sense to make it attractive on the compensation to attract other agents who will show the home.
The reality is that nothing happens until the buyer brings the money for closing. It’s just a question as to whether the buyers’ agent commission is listed on the final balance sheet on the buyers’ or sellers’ side.
Of course you can choose to try to sell your home yourself. But there is quite a lot of work, knowledge and negotiation skills that realtors bring to the table. We definitely earn whatever percentage we negotiate.

[Laker14]

the Villages Realtors (or whatever they are or call themselves) have never split commissions with buyers' agents. Never.
When you buy a home through The Villages Realty if you want representation looking out for your interests, you have always had to hire and pay that out yourself, separate from the home purchase.

[vintageogauge]

the Villages Realtors (or whatever they are or call themselves) have never split commissions with buyers' agents. Never.
When you buy a home through The Villages Realty if you want representation looking out for your interests, you have always had to hire and pay that out yourself, separate from the home purchase.

But they sure sell a lot more re-sales than the MLS agents do.

[seecapecod]

Here in MA, we don't have title companies, we have lawyers and titles.
which is why I gave my MA scenario, and have spoken with lawyers about the sale.

The seller's agent lists and markets the house.
The buyer and selling lawyers execute the deal.
The buyer provides the funding checks, the lawyers handle the money to go where the agreement states. .

Which is why I am watching to see how to structure the sale with the listing agent and how to handle any MA buyer's agents. . just not sure how it will change the process quite yet, but it will change it.

We will be in the same boat with you! Have a home in TV and on the Cape- getting ready to sell one in Western MA in the next year-

[seecapecod]

Yes. Prior to the FTC ruling, a seller agreed to a percentage of the sales price of the home due their agent (brokerage) upon closing. What many people don’t realize is that the seller’s agent had a side deal with the buyer agent, if a buyer was working with a realtor. The seller doesn’t see this arrangement on the documents they sign for representation. However, the MLS has a form that only the realtors have access to which discloses what the selling agent will pay the buyer’s agent if they bring a buyer and close the deal. We, as sellers, never see this.
Example: 5% commission on $600,000 home. Seller’s agent/brokerage receives $30,000 from seller at closing. The deal the seller’s agent made with the buyers agent may be 50% (could be less) of the $30,000 commission that the SELLER paid. So, yes, the seller paid both commissions. They just don’t realize it. This ruling is designed to prevent this such that each party pays their own agent’s fees.
If the buyer doesn’t engage the services of a realtor then the seller’s agent pockets the full fee. So, instead of agreeing to 5-6% you can now offer 2 1/2 - 3% to the listing agent and let the buyer decide if they want representation.
A previous post was spot-on. A buyer may ask a seller to pay their buyer fees but the seller can decline which may decrease the pool of offers.

The individual States have language that must be disclosed- in this case a “Co-Broke” arrangement (both sides splitting the 5-6% commission) is disclosed to all parties in the offer in MA. What may stand for FL is not necessarily the case in other States.

[Snakster66]

It's not a law. Please re-watch the old Schoolhouse Rock video.

It is a change in the "Participation Rule" of the National Association of Realtors. This was changed as the result of a class action lawsuit by some home sellers in the midwest that felt the system was rigged in that sellers were required under the old rule to pay at least something to buyers agents in order to be listed in the MLS. They argued that 'big real estate' leveraged that rule to artificially inflate prices. Now, the revised rule states that seller is not REQUIRED to compensate buyer's agent if they don't want to (to list in MLS). As such, a new form for buyer's agents has been developed so that they get paid one way or another for assisting buyers (buyer's who choose to use an agent to help them find a house). This payment will be either directly from the buyer for an agreed upon amount or percentage or from the seller if the seller CHOOSES to include buyers compensation. Or it could be a combination of the two depending on what the seller is offering.

The government was not a party in the lawsuit. The government has passed no laws regarding this. This is an industry thing.

I am not a realtor...just someone who can read.

[retiredguy123]

In Florida, realtors are automatically assumed to be “transaction agents”, which means they can represent both sides; seller and buyer. The post that said they can’t is incorrect. I am an MLS realtor so I know of what I speak here.
Buyers will have to sign an agreement before they are ever shown a home by a realtor. The purpose of the new law is to provide transparency as to how each agent is to be paid. The vast majority of sellers’ agents will continue to offer split compensation to pay the buyers’ agent; it just can’t be posted on MLS that way. Buyers’ agents will be more likely to show a home that is offering compensation, so it’s in the sellers’ best interest to agree to the 5-6% on the initial agreement. Close to 80% of homes sold in The Villages are sold not by the listing agent but through the buyers’ agent, so it makes sense to make it attractive on the compensation to attract other agents who will show the home.
The reality is that nothing happens until the buyer brings the money for closing. It’s just a question as to whether the buyers’ agent commission is listed on the final balance sheet on the buyers’ or sellers’ side.
Of course you can choose to try to sell your home yourself. But there is quite a lot of work, knowledge and negotiation skills that realtors bring to the table. We definitely earn whatever percentage we negotiate.
I don't agree. Here is the Florida law on transaction agents:

FLORIDA LAW ALLOWS REAL ESTATE LICENSEES WHO REPRESENT A BUYER OR SELLER AS A SINGLE AGENT TO CHANGE FROM A SINGLE AGENT RELATIONSHIP TO A TRANSACTION BROKERAGE RELATIONSHIP IN ORDER FOR THE LICENSEE TO ASSIST BOTH PARTIES IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION BY PROVIDING A LIMITED FORM OF REPRESENTATION TO BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER. THIS CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

It clearly states that the agent needs written consent to change to a transaction broker. There is no automatic assumption. As a seller, I would not provide the consent. What am I missing?

[NorineBerlinski]

I am astounded at how many of us in our 50,60s and 70s Are unaware at the process of buying a house…
I am a landlord in Michigan and I am NOT a realtor. I have sold at least 10 homes myself by paying $250 and listing it in the MLS through a broker. The process is not difficult. It is easy and we can all do it on our own.
1. In the past, we paid 6% commission. The contract you signed when you listed your home actually stated 3% went to the sellers broker and 3% went to the buyers broker. Some people on this thread seem to think the sellers broker paid the buyers broker. This is not the case and never was the case. YOU paid the buyers realtor!
2. It was always unfair that the seller had to pay the buyers broker 3% and that is why the law has changed. There is actually a website you can complete some forms online and get that 3% back, or some of it through this class action lawsuit. I have completed this form to see if I qualify to get some of the commission I have paid to buyers agents. just google real estate class action lawsuit and it should pop up.
3. The new law that goes into effect on or around August 17 says that when completing the MLS forms you can no longer state the commission you are paying the buyers agent. Therefore, most sellers are going to pay 0%. Buyers will be responsible for paying their own realtor to show them homes! It should’ve always been this way!
4. Someone posted above that it was so difficult to list a home yourself. Here is the truth: you list a house for $250 through a broker you don’t have to pay 6% commission which equates to $30,000 on a $500,000 house. This is quite a savings for the seller. You Or the buyer choose a title company, most of them charge around the same amount of money. They will give you a for sale by owner packet with all the forms necessary to complete. Basically, it’s just the purchase agreement and sellers disclosure. That’s it for the seller! Easy, right? I realize you have to negotiate with the buyer for the sale price of your home. Aren’t you already familiar with negotiating by this time in your life? You’ve negotiated the sale of homes before, you’ve negotiated sales of cars and things on Facebook marketplace. It’s not any more difficult than that. The buyer gets their own financing and schedules their own inspections.
4. Marketing your home yourself: Just getting it into the MLS is enough. If you want, you could put a sign on the front lawn. You can buy them at Home Depot. If you want to do an open house, you can advertise that in the MLS. I have done them. They are easy.
You put a lockbox on the front door. They are $30 at Home Depot.
You download an app where buyers Realtor’ schedule showings.
The title company takes care of all the closing paperwork. You do not need to hire a lawyer.

Let’s not get bullied into paying the buyers realtor 3% again. That is the buyers responsibility to pay their own realtor for showing them homes.

Be prepared! I just spoke to a realtor in Michigan yesterday. She told me she plans on working as a buyers agent and calling the seller and telling them if they won’t pay her 3% commission she’ll refuse to show the house to her buyer! I told her if that’s the case, I would tell her just to move on… she told me I would be limiting the amount of buyers willing to see my house to a small pool. Wrong wrong wrong. Don’t be bullied people! Don’t cave, it is not the sellers responsibility to pay the buyers realtor, and it never has been. Things have been set right through this class action lawsuit. It took more than 50 years for this to happen. Don’t lose your nerve, if a buyer likes your house, they will view the inside and pay their own realtor.
Buyers may ask for “concessions“ when they make an offer to purchase. They may ask for a set dollar amount or 2 or 3% - don’t pay this, it’s the buyers responsibility to pay their own realtor!!

[BrianL99]

In Florida, realtors are automatically assumed to be “transaction agents”, which means they can represent both sides; seller and buyer. The post that said they can’t is incorrect.

Of course you can choose to try to sell your home yourself. But there is quite a lot of work, knowledge and negotiation skills that realtors bring to the table. We definitely earn whatever percentage we negotiate.


Both of which above facts, appear to be lost of the majority of posters on TOTV.

Selling your own home, without a broker, is a fool's errand. That may change in the future to some extent, but not significantly.

As you correctly point out, the vast majority of real estate transactions if Florida, both parties are "represented" by "transactional agents", who have no fiduciary responsibility to either party (only to themselves). Folks seem to have a hard time getting this relationship straight in their head, but as you point out, it is fact.

Personally, I think Florida law has always put the consumer at a disadvantage, but that's just the way it was structured.

I also think you're right, when you suggest not much is likely to change anytime soon. The FTC ruling is a muddled bunch of bs in my opinion and the NAR should be embarrassed for not doing a better job at representing their membership through the years. Once "dual agency" entered the market place, it all turned to crap and this is payback.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I am astounded at how many of us in our 50,60s and 70s Are unaware at the process of buying a house…


Not everyone buys and sells houses not manages real estate.

I might be astounded at how many people like you don't understand stock market dynamics because you have an IRA/401K as an investor. . doesn't everybody understand the efficient portfolio theory?

Most people don't buy and sell homes very often in a lifetime, unless in the industry. between my CoachK and I, 4 in 45 years. . 20 years ago in MA and 5 years ago in FL

[retiredguy123]

Both of which above facts, appear to be lost of the majority of posters on TOTV.

Selling your own home, without a broker, is a fool's errand. That may change in the future to some extent, but significantly.

As you correctly point out, the vast majority of real estate transactions if Florida, both parties are "represented" by "transactional agents", who have no fiduciary responsibility to either party (only to themselves). Folks seem to have a hard time getting this relationship straight in their head, but as you point out, it is fact.

Personally, I think Florida law has always put the consumer at a disadvantage, but that's just the way it was structured.

I also think you're right, when you suggest not much is likely to change anytime soon. The FTC ruling is a muddled bunch of bs in my opinion and the NAR should be embarrassed for not doing a better job at representing their membership through the years. Once "dual agency" entered the market place, it all turned to crap and this is payback.
Did you read Post No. 43? The Florida law requires the seller to provide written consent for an agent to act as a transaction agent. It is not automatically assumed.

[Marine1974]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?
I would never use a realtor to sell my home.

[Sierrahh]

The law was passed federally. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Agents who are good at representing their clients, may not be so willing to reduce their fee.

I am not a residential real estate agent.

I do know it is very expensive to run an efficient and effective real estate business. Lower fees equal lower services, i e advertising, networking, negotiations, etc., Sellers who are willing to pay agents what they are worth, will find that they get their homes sold faster and at the price they want.

Is this a Florida state law, or is it an MLS rule? I have never agreed to pay any commission to a buyer's agent.

[ken.yotz]

Several years ago in Illinois a realtor started her own company and undercut other realtors on commission. The other realtors responded by not showing her listings by discouraging prospective buyers who wanted to see her listings. Usually it is easy to find a reason: too much traffic, too close to businesses, poorer schools, etc.

[msilagy]

As I was told some time ago VLS agents get 1% for selling a used home and 1.5% for selling new homes. Both agents get this commission from the villages.

[Glowing Horizon]

This is the buyer information sheet from NAR. We will be able to have open houses without the form signed for touring an open house. However to answer specific questions and price negotiations we will have to have a form signed. No REALTOR will be able to show you a home without a from signed. It does not ask for financial information.


NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF
REALTORS®
HOMEBUYERS:
HERE'S WHAT THE NAR SETTLEMENT MEANS FOR YOU
Buying a home is one of the largest financial transactions most people will ever undertake. Agents who are REALTORS® are a trusted source of advice and stand ready to help you navigate your homebuying journey and make the choices that work best for you. NAR's recent settlement has led to several changes that benefit homebuyers, and we wanted to clearly lay them out for you.
Here is what the settlement means for homebuyers:
• You will sign a written agreement with your agent before touring a home.
• Before signing this agreement, you should ensure it reflects the terms you have negotiated with your agent and that you understand exactly what services and value will be provided, and for how much.
• The buyer agreement must include four components concerning compensation:
a. A specific and conspicuous disclosure of the amount or rate of compensation the real estate agent will receive or how this amount will be determined.
b. Compensation that is objective (e.g., $0, X flat fee, X percent, X hourly rate)-and not open-ended (e.g., cannot be "buyer broker compensation shall be whatever the amount the seller is offering to the buyer").
c. A term that prohibits the agent from receiving compensation for brokerage services from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to in the agreement with the buyer, and,
d. A conspicuous statement that broker fees and commissions are fully negotiable and not set by law.
• Written agreements apply to both in-person and live virtual home tours.
• You do not need a written agreement if you are just speaking to an agent at an open house or asking them about their services.
• The seller may agree to offer compensation to your agent. This practice is permitted but the offer cannot be shared on a Multiple Listing Service (MLS) — MLSs are local marketplaces used by both buyer brokers and listing brokers to share information about properties for sale.
REALTORS are members of the National Association of REALTORS"

Since the MLS cannot state how much the seller will pay to the agent, how is a buyer informed? Does a buyer sign a separate agreement for each property shown to them since the amount of the seller’s contribution to the agent varies?

[Glowing Horizon]

Several years ago in Illinois a realtor started her own company and undercut other realtors on commission. The other realtors responded by not showing her listings by discouraging prospective buyers who wanted to see her listings. Usually it is easy to find a reason: too much traffic, too close to businesses, poorer schools, etc.

Or the Realtor simply excludes those homes from the info provided to the prospective buyer. Withholding information is very influential.

[Pairadocs]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?

Your questions are interesting; suppose this is one of those "only time will tell" situations. Common sense would predict more individuals than not would choose an agent with whom they can negotiate. It may also prompt a few more to explore the possibility of hiring their own attorney and handling the advertising, home showings, etc. etc. themselves. Some would find this overwhelming, but others would probably enjoy the autonomy of being able to choose who they show around their home, when, and how often. I can only speak to our personal experience living in various states during our career years. We DEFINITELY took advantage of interviewing sales reps from various agencies, negotiated on terms such as commission fees, limits on time notifications for "showings", and so on. Personally it was very valuable for a seller to have some control, to us it seemed to be a more democratic process. Could a seller loose a possible sale if they negotiated something like only weekend showings, or definite no less than 24 hour notice , of course, but again, seems the home's owner should be able to control such things ? After all, do we go to auto dealer and just accept whatever price they offer us ? If you call a plumber or electrician for a substantial job (or even a small one), do you just accept the price the first individual gives you for the job, or do you consult others ? If an agent (or auto sales person, plumber, landscaper, roofer, etc. ) does NOT want to negotiate, then that should also be their right !

[Pairadocs]

What most don’t realize is the law will help real estate and bring down prices. For years real estate was on a roller coaster ride mostly as an upward trend adding to inflation.

The main reasoning was commissions added to pricing like ponzi progression. Without those huge price increases to pay salesmen (AKA Realtors) for every transaction, prices will decline. Wait and see.

Think back to the 60s and 70s when you had life insurance salesmen striking it rich. The whole system eventually folded.

Agree. Many other examples of similar "schemes" or systems of doing business have also collapsed or faded away through out history when the public began to understand their foundation(s) thoroughly.

[Pairadocs]

expected to be yes. . .

It would certainly seem so under those circumstances. Why in the world would it mean the person at the open house, making their own offer, "owe" money to anyone else ? Seems common sense that the agent having the open house would get paid for their time by the person who hired them to have the open house, advertise it, etc. ! ! ? ? Don't understand why the person who went to the open house, liked it very much, and made an offer would have to pay anyone ? If the offer is accepted, seems anyone who is entitled to be "paid", would get a "cut" of the money when the transaction is actually "closed" (?)

[tmonferdini]

Does this effect a purchase of a new build in the villages? I was under the impression that their commission was already "built in" to the cost of the new house. So if I have a VLS realtor and I buy a new build, they get their commission off of the sale of that house? There are no other people/ entities they split with?

[Jayhawk]

Does this effect a purchase of a new build in the villages? I was under the impression that their commission was already "built in" to the cost of the new house. So if I have a VLS realtor and I buy a new build, they get their commission off of the sale of that house? There are no other people/ entities they split with?

VLS are sales agents and are not subject to NAR laws.

[BrianL99]

But they sure sell a lot more re-sales than the MLS agents do.

According to whom? Themselves?

The actual statistics I've seen, would certainly dispute that contention.

[Plinker]

Here is my plan when I buy my next home. In addition to being the buyer, I am also going to be my buyer’s agent. Then, when I put in an offer, I will write into the purchase contract that my buyer’s agent (me) requires a 3% fee to be paid by the seller for finding a buyer (me). What a wonderful bonus for me upon closing. Why not?

[BrianL99]

The law was passed federally. It will be interesting to see how it all plays out. Agents who are good at representing their clients, may not be so willing to reduce their fee.

I am not a residential real estate agent.



Please, show me where I can find the new "Federal Law"?

[candacev]

I don't agree. Here is the Florida law on transaction agents:

FLORIDA LAW ALLOWS REAL ESTATE LICENSEES WHO REPRESENT A BUYER OR SELLER AS A SINGLE AGENT TO CHANGE FROM A SINGLE AGENT RELATIONSHIP TO A TRANSACTION BROKERAGE RELATIONSHIP IN ORDER FOR THE LICENSEE TO ASSIST BOTH PARTIES IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION BY PROVIDING A LIMITED FORM OF REPRESENTATION TO BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER. THIS CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

It clearly states that the agent needs written consent to change to a transaction broker. There is no automatic assumption. As a seller, I would not provide the consent. What am I missing?
We are presumed transaction brokers in Florida

[BrianL99]

We are presumed transaction brokers in Florida

Please don't correct posters by using facts. This is TOTV, facts don't matter.

[retiredguy123]

Please don't correct posters by using facts. This is TOTV, facts don't matter.
I'm confused by your post. The law is clear that, to be a transaction agent, the agent needs to have prior written consent to change to a transaction agent. You can presume anything you want, but if you don't have the prior written consent of the seller, you are not a transaction agent. That is a fact stated in the law.

[Bonanza]

It's about representation. Under Florida law, an agent cannot represent both the buyer and the seller. When I sign a listing agreement, it is clear that any licensed agent who shows my house is representing me, the seller. If an agent has a written agreement to represent the buyer, they cannot show my house because they are acting as an illegal dual agent. At closing, the entire commission is paid by me on the seller's side of the closing statement. If it turns out that an agent showing my house has a buyer's agent agreement, they are violating both the listing contract and Florida law. I am willing to pay an agent to represent me in selling a house, but, I will not agree to pay any commission to a buyer's agent. I expect agents to treat buyers and sellers fairly, but, I expect them to act in my best interest to get the best price, since they are representing me, the seller.

In my 40 years in real estate, I have NEVER known any Realtor who was strictly/only a buyer's agent. As with most Realtors, I have always been a transaction broker and I assume you know that means I have to treat (both) a buyer and seller fairly. So, am I to understand that you would not let someone in a like (my) position show/sell your house and get paid by you?

[retiredguy123]

In my 40 years in real estate, I have NEVER known any Realtor who was strictly/only a buyer's agent. As with most Realtors, I have always been a transaction broker and I assume you know that means I have to treat (both) a buyer and seller fairly. So, am I to understand that you would not let someone in a like (my) position show/sell your house and get paid by you?
No, I wouldn't. I am willing to pay a selling agent to market and to sell my house. But, I would never pay an agent, who represents a buyer, any money at all. I would rather sell my house as a FSBO. But, I agree that all agents should treat buyers and sellers fairly. I think that is their duty as a licensed agent. But, under Florida law, an agent cannot act as a transaction broker without the prior written consent of the seller.

[Bonanza]

I would prefer to pay a seller/listing agent to represent me only because I think they are better qualified to market a house than I am. But, if they force me to pay a buyer's agent commission, I will do a FSBO.

You can't "do" a FSBO once you are contracted with a Realtor!

[Bonanza]

As I understand it, the buyer's and seller's agents don't get paid to do anything but to negotiate and execute a sales contract. Everything after that is the responsibility of the title company. They have lawyers on staff to make sure the title is clean and is transferred legally. When you sell a house as a FSBO, the title company will provide a FSBO package that has all of the forms needed to execute a sales contract, and they will take over from there.

You are all wet! The buyer and selling agent do much more than negotiate an offer and execute a contract for sale. They are also responsible for making mortgage arrangements, making inspection arrangements and being there, double checking on insurance, getting repairs taken care of, and the final walk-through. These are a few things agents do! Most homeowners don't know how to do these things and if you place a call to find out any information, as the homeowner, they won't talk to you!

[retiredguy123]

You can't "do" a FSBO once you are contracted with a Realtor!
False premise. Whenever I have discussed a listing contract with a broker, I have made it clear that the broker would be representing me, and that there would be no commission paid to a buyer's agent. This had to be written into the listing contract. If they didn't agree to it, then I would not sign a listing contract. I would hire another broker.

[Bonanza]

If you do a FSBO, then you'll have to handle both the buying and the selling agents' jobs by yourself. You'll have to do your own advertising, handle all phone calls, scheduling of appointments, showing the house, dealing/negotiating with any possible interested parties, arranging for a lawyer to write up the deal if you are successful in your negotiations, help the uninformed buyer find/locate financing, arrange for all the inspections, negotiate again with the buyer if any problems crop up, and hopefully jump through all these hoops successfully in order to arrive at a closing date.

Meanwhile, you'll need to be a salesman and negotiator to soothe the buyer's nerves if/when problems/situations come up regarding the inspections, the contract, or the financing involved. It's not rocket science, but if you haven't done this type of stuff before, you'll likely be pulling your hair out and begging for help from someone long before you get to the closing.

Thank you, C.C. Rider. I responded to Retired Guy and similarly said what you've said here, but did not see your post here first.
After reading some of the things he's said, I'd kill myself if I had to work with him!

[retiredguy123]

You are all wet! The buyer and selling agent do much more than negotiate an offer and execute a contract for sale. They are also responsible for making mortgage arrangements, making inspection arrangements and being there, double checking on insurance, getting repairs taken care of, and the final walk-through. These are a few things agents do! Most homeowners don't know how to do these things and if you place a call to find out any information, as the homeowner, they won't talk to you!
Hogwash. None of those things are part of the listing contract. I know how to do all of them anyway. The only reason for me to hire an agent is for their sales and marketing skills. Otherwise, I have no reason to hire a broker. I have bought and sold many houses without using a broker.

[Bonanza]

But they sure sell a lot more re-sales than the MLS agents do.

That's false because the MLS Realtors cannot sell Villages' listed homes. The Villages will not cooperate with MLS Realtors, i.e., they will not pay them!

Years ago that was not the case. The Villages were MLS Realtors and then they got greedy and wanted the entire commission for themselves. They withdrew from the NAR (National Assn. of Realtors) and subsequently, do not have to abide by their Code of Ethics.

[BrianL99]

In my 40 years in real estate, I have NEVER known any Realtor who was strictly/only a buyer's agent.

You've apparently lead a very sheltered life in the real estate business, as many states and situations, mandate a fiduciary relationship with one party or the other.

[Snakster66]

False premise. Whenever I have discussed a listing contract with a broker, I have made it clear that the broker would be representing me, and that there would be no commission paid to a buyer's agent. This had to be written into the listing contract. If they didn't agree to it, then I would not sign a listing contract. I would hire another broker.

Since the new rule removes the requirement to pay anything to a buyer agent (as a seller), then you should be all for it. Not really sure what your beef is.

[GizmoWhiskers]

I don't use a buyer agent. I call the listing agent and use an inspector. A buyer agent in most cases is just a middle man. If you know how to read a contract and sign on a dotted line you are fine. The buyer agent works for the buyer so beware. My first purchase in 1990 taught me the process. 8 houses later who needs a buyers agent to show them a house? I have had some horrible selling agents which is the flip side and ****es me off that they made a dime for no effort. The need for any agent to be listed on the mls is the scam of selling a home in the first place. A necessary evil for at least 3 houses of the 7 I have sold. When they are great selling agents they deserve their pay. My last one did zero to sell my house. She vacationed and the buyer found the house.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Since the new rule removes the requirement to pay anything to a buyer agent (as a seller), then you should be all for it. Not really sure what your beef is.

The new rule does not remove the requirement to pay a buyer agent. That's misrepresenting/over simplifying the new rules.

The new rule requires that the buyer's agent have a written legal agreement, and have it visible at transaction to settle the commission at closing.
The new rule requires that the selling agent's commission and any buyer's agent commission be stated in the selling agent's agreement for settlement at close.

The new rule prohibits buyer/seller agent agreements to be hidden on the MLS site and not visible to neither the seller nor the buyer at closing. The new agreement also prohibits the publishing of commissions available by the seller to eliminate the buyer's agent from steering buyers to higher commission sellers for the buyer's agent commission interest.

The goal of the new rule is to eliminate the inherent conflicts of interest of the current MLS practices, and to put all compensation rules into legal documents for transparency and payment at settlement, for the benefits of the consumer (the buyers and sellers)

[ron32162]

Are you sure. 90% of Florida listing contracts the seller signs say you are working with a transaction Broker. That's just a fancy way of saying (duel agent) but legal. Entire commissions are ALWAYS paid to the listing Broker Its not something you can direct. If it is put in the MLS the broker pays the selling side a % of the commission of what you agreed to pay the listing Broker or it can not be placed in the MLS.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Are you sure.

me, not sure because I am not a lawyer, not a real estate agent, just another TOTV meme poster

but a FL realtor does a nice job of explaining the implementation / execution of the new rules / NAR agreement.

New MLS Rules to Take Effect Aug. 8 - Dayton REALTORS(R) (https://daytonrealtors.org/news/new-mls-rules-to-take-effect-aug-8/)

YMMV

[Bay Kid]

I believe a free market is everything, but the escalating of prices because of the inclusion of flat commission fees in pricing was unsustainable. Besides, now more will soon be able to afford housing.

Commission fees are not the reason for higher prices. Homes will not be more affordable because of this government interference.

[candacev]

Since the MLS cannot state how much the seller will pay to the agent, how is a buyer informed? Does a buyer sign a separate agreement for each property shown to them since the amount of the seller’s contribution to the agent varies?
The listing agent will provide the buyer's agent that information, whether the seller is willing to compensate or not and how much. Bottom line is agents are going to have to answer their phones and email

[candacev]

I'm confused by your post. The law is clear that, to be a transaction agent, the agent needs to have prior written consent to change to a transaction agent. You can presume anything you want, but if you don't have the prior written consent of the seller, you are not a transaction agent. That is a fact stated in the law.
Please see Florida Statute that is in post 62

[Normal]

Commission fees are not the reason for higher prices. Homes will not be more affordable because of this government interference.

If commissions are tacked on to a price tag for a home, how does that not increase the cost of purchase, or the comp price for a neighborhood? If a seller wants 400 K for a house and they charge 424 K for a house, the new comparison is 424 K. The increase would be 6% additional in “value” to satisfy the exorbitant amount charged by an agent.

[retiredguy123]

Please see Florida Statute that is in post 62
I did read Post No. 62. The same law states that the agent needs the "prior written consent" before they can act as a transaction agent. It even includes a consent form for the seller to sign. As a seller, I don't provide the written consent. An agent can "presume" to be a transaction agent, but without the seller's consent, they cannot act as a transaction agent. Are you reading something else???

[candacev]

I did read Post No. 62. The same law states that the agent needs the "prior written consent" before they can act as a transaction agent. It even includes a consent form for the seller to sign. As a seller, I don't provide the written consent. An agent can "presume" to be a transaction agent, but without the seller's consent, they cannot act as a transaction agent. Are you reading something else???
In Florida, we are Transaction brokers unless we transition to a single agent or non representation. Chapter 475 of Florida Statutes. What you are quoting used to be the case but that statute was changed at least 15 years ago.

[BrianL99]

Seeing as the TOTV is full of such experts on the NAR settlement and how it's going to impact real estate commissions, how about this?

What's to prevent Sally Love Real Estate (one of the larger brokers in TV), from adopting a policy of offering a minimum of a 2.5% "Buyer's Broker Commission" upon the sale of any home they List? I think that's how I'd do it, if I still owned a real estate office.

As long as they don't post that information on the MLS they are in compliance. [for those of you who are going to disagree that approach is compliant, I've attached a screen shot from the NAR site.]

BTW, one thing that everyone is forgetting about this settlement, is it won't be approved by the Court until November, 2024. Until November, we're in a sort of "trial run".

[retiredguy123]

In Florida, we are Transaction brokers unless we transition to a single agent or non representation. Chapter 475 of Florida Statutes. What you are quoting used to be the case but that statute was changed at least 15 years ago.
I am reading from the 2024 Florida statutes. Here is the link.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0475/Sections/0475.278.html)

Please show where I am wrong?

[Plinker]

Seeing as the TOTV is full of such experts on the NAR settlement and how it's going to impact real estate commissions, how about this?

What's to prevent Sally Love Real Estate (one of the larger brokers in TV), from adopting a policy of offering a minimum of a 2.5% "Buyer's Broker Commission" upon the sale of any home they List? I think that's how I'd do it, if I still owned a real estate office.

As long as they don't post that information on the MLS they are in compliance. [for those of you who are going to disagree that approach is compliant, I've attached a screen shot from the NAR site.]

BTW, one thing that everyone is forgetting about this settlement, is it won't be approved by the Court until November, 2024. Until November, we're in a sort of "trial run".

Here is the issue I believe many sellers would have under the new ruling with hiring a broker that offers a buyer’s commission. The seller would be required to sign a contract with such a broker that would demand a 5-6% commission in order to pay the buyer’s agent. This is the way it has been done for decades and is what got the FTC involved.
I would never hire such a brokerage firm. I would never agree to a transactional agreement as I want my agent to work solely in my best interests. I believe that there will be an abundance of selling agents that will agree to a 2 1/2% commission. The buyers can choose for themselves if they want an agent, and pay for it. Again, time will tell.


I have attached an article that explains why the realtors are unhappy about the new ruling, yet suggests an upside. As you might have guessed, it all comes down to money. Imagine how unhappy the Pony Express was when the railroads started delivering mail. As a business owner (now retired), I learned very quickly that you either adapt to a changing environment or you perish.

Real estate agents are fleeing the field. Is that good for homebuyers? - The Washington Post

[candacev]

I am reading from the 2024 Florida statutes. Here is the link.

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine (http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0400-0499/0475/Sections/0475.278.html)

Please show where I am wrong?
1b on the statute

[retiredguy123]

1b on the statute
1b only says that an agent is "presumed" to be a transaction agent, not that they are one.

Did you read the paragraph entitled "CONSENT TO TRANSITION TO TRANSACTION BROKER"? It says that an agent cannot change to a transaction agent without "prior written consent". As a seller, I am not required to provide my consent.

[candacev]

1b only says that an agent is "presumed" to be a transaction agent, not that they are one.

Did you read the paragraph entitled "CONSENT TO TRANSITION TO TRANSACTION BROKER"? It says that an agent cannot change to a transaction agent without "prior written consent". As a seller, I am not required to provide my consent.
Did you read it is presumed an agent is a transaction broker unless they transition to be a single agent or non rep? Agree or disagree it really doesn’t matter. That’s what the statute says and that is what we are governed by. If you wish for a brokerage to represent you as a single agent then that brokerage cannot work with a buyer because dual agency is not allowed in Florida. Hence why we are presumed transaction brokers. All these new rules are VERY FLUID at this point and we are all trying to navigate the changes. Ultimately our job is to help buyers and sellers and make the transaction work for both parties to the transaction.

[retiredguy123]

Did you read it is presumed an agent is a transaction broker unless they transition to be a single agent or non rep? Agree or disagree it really doesn’t matter. That’s what the statute says and that is what we are governed by. If you wish for a brokerage to represent you as a single agent then that brokerage cannot work with a buyer because dual agency is not allowed in Florida. Hence why we are presumed transaction brokers. All these new rules are VERY FLUID at this point and we are all trying to navigate the changes. Ultimately our job is to help buyers and sellers and make the transaction work for both parties to the transaction.
I don't want my agent to represent buyers, so I will not provide consent for them to be a transaction agent. And, the statute clearly states that they cannot act as a transaction agent without my written consent. I don't know what you mean by "working with a buyer" but they can sell my house without "representing" the buyer. If the buyer wants an agent, they can hire their own.

[BostonTom]

There is NO requirement to have or pay a buyers agent PERIOD. Contact the listing agent yourself and you make the offer. All these agents posting on this site and making YouTube videos to put there spin on it to maintain there commissions. They haven't accepted the reality of what really is going to happen. Once people figure this out there will be very few buyer's agents. Example How many first time home buyers or people getting VA loans have the 10 to 15 thousand on average to pay a buyers agent and do you think the seller who is paying their sellers agent 2.5% is going to actually make up the difference.

[BrianL99]

There is NO requirement to have or pay a buyers agent PERIOD. Contact the listing agent yourself and you make the offer. All these agents posting on this site and making YouTube videos to put there spin on it to maintain there commissions. They haven't accepted the reality of what really is going to happen. Once people figure this out there will be very few buyer's agents. Example How many first time home buyers or people getting VA loans have the 10 to 15 thousand on average to pay a buyers agent and do you think the seller who is paying their sellers agent 2.5% is going to actually make up the difference.

I think it's going to go the other way.

I think "Seller's Agents" will become glorified clerks (which is just about what they are these days) and they will take a Listing for a "flat rate" + 2.5% Commission to the buyer's broker.

It seems clear to me, that one side or the other (Selling Agent or Buyer's Agent) is going to rendered nearly obsolete.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

I think it's going to go the other way.

I think "Seller's Agents" will become glorified clerks (which is just about what they are these days) and they will take a Listing for a "flat rate" + 2.5% Commission to the buyer's broker.

It seems clear to me, that one side or the other (Selling Agent or Buyer's Agent) is going to rendered nearly obsolete.

thanks BrianL for all the knowledge from actually running a brokerage.

I am wagering that the technology bros want to eliminate the Selling agent and the MLS platform and make the real estate sales platform an open platform fight between Zillow, redfin, and anyone else with listings by owner. The owners will do all the self marketing of pictures and descriptions. The buyer's agent starts going through the listings and works the showing for the potential buyer with the owner. Since the buyer and/or the buyer's lawyer wants a clean title and keys, in exchange for the money, the buyer drives the closing.

But that is just my intuition and experience with the technology world

And just for yucks, i was working at a datacom lan/wan company with a programmer who was developing a real estate sales platform for the internet in 1995. . just like what is used today, but the internet just wasn't fast enough for the video quality at that time.

[SoCalGal]

I have never agreed to pay any commission to a buyer's agent.

You sure have. You agreed to pay X percent to the listing agent and the listing agent split it with the buyer's agent.

Nothing will change. Commissions have always been negotiable. No one works for free. The only change might be that buyers will go directly to the listing agent, who may then agree to take less. However, there aren't many listing agents that will take the risk of dual representation at a cut-rate price. Also, the rule requires that a buyer cannot tour the property without first signing a Buyer's Broker Agreement. The whole thing is crazy. It was a money grab. The National Association of Realtors was out-lawyered.

[SoCalGal]

The entire commission is paid by me at closing, and all of the money goes to the listing broker.

... who then split it with the buyer's agent.

[SoCalGal]

This is why the FTC got involved.

The FTC got involved only to vet the settlement agreement between NAR and the class plaintiff.

This class action was strictly a money grab. The class counsel is a law firm that specializes in class action lawsuits against large entities. They have a high win ratio. NAR was out-lawyered. The whole thing is really not more than that.

[SoCalGal]

It didn't help me at all in Ohio. The whole thing is a scam.

Yup. You summed it up in less than 25 words.

[SoCalGal]

The new listing agreement that is out has more choices for the seller:

A: seller pays x% to listing agent and listing agent split with buyer's agent (what it has been)
B: seller pays x% to listing agent and seller pays x% to buyer's agent
C: seller pays x% to listing agent and 0 to buyer's agent

This whole scammy class action was predicated on the fact that previously, these choices were not fully explained to the seller--which is why one poster here didn't even realize he paid the buyer's agent commission--even though these choices existed. Nothing will change; only that the seller's choices are more clearly delineated to him/her.

[SoCalGal]

At closing, the entire commission is paid by me on the seller's side of the closing statement.

Both the buyer's agent and the listing agent's commission must be fully disclosed on the final settlement statement. If you pull out one of your past settlement statements, you'll notice that the buyer's agent commission is fully disclosed there. It did not happen that the commission you agreed to pay the listing agent was disclosed in the seller's column as going solely to the listing agent.

[SoCalGal]

Example How many first-time home buyers or people getting VA loans have the $10-15,000 on average to pay a buyer's agent. Do you think the seller who is paying their seller's agent 2.5% is going to actually make up the difference?

Yes. Which is why this new arrangement will barely change anything. No one works for free. If a buyer's agent calls the listing agent and the listing agent says, "The seller won't pay a buy-side commission," the buyer will simply tour other listings that will pay his/her agent.

Why is this? Well, there are very few buyers who will want to deal with multiple listing agents. They want one agent who will assist them with identifying houses they may wish to tour and then make an offer.

BTW, there's already a get-around. The new MLS cannot contain a column for "BAC" [buyer's agent commission], so the listing agent will merely price the listing as (for example) "$150,125 (meaning 1.25% BAC) or $150,250 (meaning, 2.5% BAC) or $150,300 (meaning, 3% BAC). Thus, they're signaling the BAC without the BAC column.

[SoCalGal]

I agree with your post 100%. However, with respect, the new law is about how seller and buyer realtor commissions will be paid and not about representation.

Correct.

[SoCalGal]

The goal of the new rule is to eliminate the inherent conflicts of interest of the current MLS practices, and to put all compensation rules into legal documents for transparency and payment at settlement, for the benefits of the consumer (the buyers and sellers)

The class action was totally about the lack of transparency that existed for decades in some states and nothing else.

The California Association of Realtors always had transparency. Nothing was under the table. The new rule is nothing more than a money grab to catch those state Associations that did not have transparency; then rope everyone else in under the umbrella of NAR's deep pockets for a gigantic payout.

[BrianL99]

thanks BrianL for all the knowledge from actually running a brokerage.

I am wagering that the technology bros want to eliminate the Selling agent and the MLS platform and make the real estate sales platform an open platform fight between Zillow, redfin, and anyone else with listings by owner. The owners will do all the self marketing of pictures and descriptions. The buyer's agent starts going through the listings and works the showing for the potential buyer with the owner. Since the buyer and/or the buyer's lawyer wants a clean title and keys, in exchange for the money, the buyer drives the closing.




"Sales people" are likely to never completely disappear from the American scene. There will always be people who are willing to lead the horse to water, for a fee. This is why I believe the "Listing Broker" is doomed to extinction.

I can foresee a scenario where their are "Listing Agents" that go take pictures, help stage homes if necessary, help prepare disclosure agreements and then manage the online visibility of a listing. In fact, that's primarily what Listing Brokers do these days. The "Broker" is out soliciting business, while the Broker's assistants are doing all the heavy lifting on the selling side. Let's face it, they're not writing "real estate ads" like the old days. In most markets, "Open Houses" are out of style and everyone knows what's on the market, 5 minutes after it shows up online. Listing brokers have little or nothing to do and quite honestly, are vastly over-paid these days.

On the other side of the equation, the "Selling Broker" does all the heavy lifting. Has to babysit the buyer, educate the buyer, show 20 houses, help arrange financing and sometimes insurance and other facets of the sale. The Selling Broker does the hard work and it's time intensive. I think they're entitled to the lion's share of any commission involved.

I think you're going to see total commissions settle in the 3%-3.5% range and the Selling Broker will get most of it.

The internet and the real time availability of information is taking over businesses we never thought would become "personless". Tesla has sold 4,500,000 cars, without ever paying a sales commission. Who would have thought? Carvana is selling vehicles from vending machines and some of those cars, cost more than homes did 15 years ago. Whoever thought women would buy clothes, without trying them on? Online women's fashions are now the norm.

I think the Listing/Marketing is going to become a nearly automated "clerk's job" and Selling Brokers are going to become "Sales Consultants" for a fee and probably operate the Title Company, in the next office over.

[SoCalGal]

But I would never pay an agent, who represents a buyer, any money at all.

Yet you have. I don't know how many real estate transactions you've had in your lifetime, but I guarantee that if the listing agent didn't acquire the buyer, s/he paid the buyer's agent from the commission you agreed to pay him/her.

[SoCalGal]

Please, show me where I can find the new "Federal Law"?

You won't find it because it doesn't exist. The FTC is involved only to make sure that the settlement agreement actually does benefit someone or doesn't NOT benefit anyone.

[SoCalGal]

Commission fees are not the reason for higher prices. Homes will not be more affordable because of this government interference.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

[SoCalGal]

Please see Florida Statute that is in post 62

The FTC is tasked with ensuring that the class action settlement is not in conflict with any state laws. Florida may provide the incentive for the parties to return to the settlement table.

[BrianL99]

The FTC is tasked with ensuring that the class action settlement is not in conflict with any state laws. Florida may provide the incentive for the parties to return to the settlement table.


You won't find it because it doesn't exist. The FTC is involved only to make sure that the settlement agreement actually does benefit someone or doesn't NOT benefit anyone.


I think you're confused about the FTC's role and powers.

No one has left the table yet. The proposed "settlement" isn't a settlement, unless and until it's approved by the Judge ... who won't be looking at it until November.

[Normal]

The day is coming where agents won’t really be needed anymore. Everything can be done on line. Title companies can email and do docu sign for disclosures etc. The only real need for agents will be when someone is buying a home by proxy.

[BrianL99]

Title companies can email and do docu sign for disclosures etc. The only real need for agents will be when someone is buying a home by proxy.

That's been going on for years. I've probably closed 10-12 properties in the last 5 years and only physically showed up at a closing, once.

I haven't seen a real estate broker show up at a closing, in 5 years. No need.

[Plinker]

"Sales people" are likely to never completely disappear from the American scene. There will always be people who are willing to lead the horse to water, for a fee. This is why I believe the "Listing Broker" is doomed to extinction.

I can foresee a scenario where their are "Listing Agents" that go take pictures, help stage homes if necessary, help prepare disclosure agreements and then manage the online visibility of a listing. In fact, that's primarily what Listing Brokers do these days. The "Broker" is out soliciting business, while the Broker's assistants are doing all the heavy lifting on the selling side. Let's face it, they're not writing "real estate ads" like the old days. In most markets, "Open Houses" are out of style and everyone knows what's on the market, 5 minutes after it shows up online. Listing brokers have little or nothing to do and quite honestly, are vastly over-paid these days.

On the other side of the equation, the "Selling Broker" does all the heavy lifting. Has to babysit the buyer, educate the buyer, show 20 houses, help arrange financing and sometimes insurance and other facets of the sale. The Selling Broker does the hard work and it's time intensive. I think they're entitled to the lion's share of any commission involved.

I think you're going to see total commissions settle in the 3%-3.5% range and the Selling Broker will get most of it.

The internet and the real time availability of information is taking over businesses we never thought would become "personless". Tesla has sold 4,500,000 cars, without ever paying a sales commission. Who would have thought? Carvana is selling vehicles from vending machines and some of those cars, cost more than homes did 15 years ago. Whoever thought women would buy clothes, without trying them on? Online women's fashions are now the norm.

I think the Listing/Marketing is going to become a nearly automated "clerk's job" and Selling Brokers are going to become "Sales Consultants" for a fee and probably operate the Title Company, in the next office over.

Good post. I agree that total commissions will likely settle in the 3 - 3.5 range. The agents that cling to the 5 - 6 range may find it difficult to solicit business if they don’t change their mindset. As I said before, evolve your business model or perish.

[Plinker]

Yes. Which is why this new arrangement will barely change anything. No one works for free. If a buyer's agent calls the listing agent and the listing agent says, "The seller won't pay a buy-side commission," the buyer will simply tour other listings that will pay his/her agent.

Why is this? Well, there are very few buyers who will want to deal with multiple listing agents. They want one agent who will assist them with identifying houses they may wish to tour and then make an offer.

BTW, there's already a get-around. The new MLS cannot contain a column for "BAC" [buyer's agent commission], so the listing agent will merely price the listing as (for example) "$150,125 (meaning 1.25% BAC) or $150,250 (meaning, 2.5% BAC) or $150,300 (meaning, 3% BAC). Thus, they're signaling the BAC without the BAC column.

If the new ruling is finalized, would you refuse to accept a listing if the seller offers you 3% and makes it clear they will not pay any buyer agent fees?

[massachusettskid]

Florida law allows for transactional brocade which means if the selling agent has both sides of the transaction he then becomes a neutral party to both the seller and buyer. They can not divulge information from seller to buyer or buyer to seller.

[massachusettskid]

True but VLS agents are GOVERNED by Florida Law as they have Florida Real Estate Licences issued by DBPR

[jmac1031]

THE LAW EVERYONE HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT IS NOT A LAW WRITTEN BY ANY LAW MAKER IN ANY STATE! IT IS THE RESULT OF A COURT RULING NEGOIATED BY THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS ON BEHALF OF THEIR MEMBERS AS THE RESULT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT! IT WAS THE AGREEMENT MADE SO INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WOULD NOT BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE PENALTIES. The NAR settlement came about following a federal class-action antitrust lawsuit, Burnett v. National Association of Realtors et al., initiated in Kansas City, Missouri.
NAR's $418M SETTLEMENT.

[Bonanza]

You've apparently lead a very sheltered life in the real estate business, as many states and situations, mandate a fiduciary relationship with one party or the other.

No, I've not led a sheltered life at all. All the agents I have worked with in my career have been transaction brokers.

So much for your knowledge regarding mandating a fiduciary relationship with anyone!
:wave:

[Bay Kid]

If commissions are tacked on to a price tag for a home, how does that not increase the cost of purchase, or the comp price for a neighborhood? If a seller wants 400 K for a house and they charge 424 K for a house, the new comparison is 424 K. The increase would be 6% additional in “value” to satisfy the exorbitant amount charged by an agent.

Agents do not tack on a commission. They give a seller a cma which will have a range of value for the home. The seller picks the value they desire and a commission is negotiated at the time of listing. The buyer agent split is included and understood at this time. Most sellers want their agent to find the buyer. There is much upfront cost, advertising, etc. Contrary to what most people believe most agents only make a modest living.

[Normal]

Agents do not tack on a commission. They give a seller a cma which will have a range of value for the home. The seller picks the value they desire and a commission is negotiated at the time of listing. The buyer agent split is included and understood at this time. Most sellers want their agent to find the buyer. There is much upfront cost, advertising, etc. Contrary to what most people believe most agents only make a modest living.

The agent, may make a modest living, but the real estate “AGENCY “ does very well for itself. Flat rates instead of percentages would be more fair for everyone. Not 60k for selling a million dollar home in a month.

[Plinker]

No, I've not led a sheltered life at all. All the agents I have worked with in my career have been transaction brokers.

So much for your knowledge regarding mandating a fiduciary relationship with anyone!
:wave:

If the new ruling is finalized, would you refuse to accept a listing if the seller offers you 3% and makes it clear they will not pay any buyer agent fees?
I asked this question to another agent posting but no response was forthcoming.

[candacev]

If the new ruling is finalized, would you refuse to accept a listing if the seller offers you 3% and makes it clear they will not pay any buyer agent fees?
I would not take a listing if the seller is adamant that they will not pay a buyer's agent. Why? I think you will find that at least 80% of buyers do not have the excess funds to pay compensation on top of down payment, closing costs etc. Think about a VA buyer that is entitled to insured 100% financing with no down payment required. This will limit who can buy the property. Why would I spend at least $1000 up front of my personal money in marketing, photos etc if I know that the buyer pool is automatically reduced? Our buyer broker agreements will give the buyer the choice of if they want to see a home or not if that property is not offering buyer agent compensation. It certainly will be interesting to see how this all plays out. By the way, the local MLS here is requiring the buyer broker agreements now as of Aug 7th. Nevertheless, this is our new reality.

[BostonTom]

Required really people will just start going to open houses or contacting the listing agent. No buyers are going to pay buyers agents 2.5. Do you really think that the seller is going to pay the 5% or 6% when they can pay 2.5. there will be plenty of agents willing to accept the 2.5%. and complete the transaction. The consumers are in the driver seat they have options. Realtors care about what is best for them the commission not what's best for other realtors. There will be a MLS realtor within the Villages who will start listing house at 2.5 percent running open houses accepting offers right from the buyers which will put the other realtors in a position were they will have to do the same if they want to stay in the business.

[BrianL99]

By the way, the local MLS here is requiring the buyer broker agreements now as of Aug 7th. Nevertheless, this is our new reality.

Write this down, so you can refer back to it, in 3-5 years.

NAR and their MLS is a dinosaur and this settlement is going to put them out of business. Already, many of the largest brokerage offices in the USA have signed settlement agreements and changed their structure, so Brokers are no longer require to belong to NAR and be REALTORS®.

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.

[candacev]

Write this down, so you can refer back to it, in 3-5 years.

NAR and their MLS is a dinosaur and this settlement is going to put them out of business. Already, many of the largest brokerage offices in the USA have signed settlement agreements and changed their structure, so Brokers are no longer require to belong to NAR and be REALTORS®.

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.
Agreed

[candacev]

Required really people will just start going to open houses or contacting the listing agent. No buyers are going to pay buyers agents 2.5. Do you really think that the seller is going to pay the 5% or 6% when they can pay 2.5. there will be plenty of agents willing to accept the 2.5%. and complete the transaction. The consumers are in the driver seat they have options. Realtors care about what is best for them the commission not what's best for other realtors. There will be a MLS realtor within the Villages who will start listing house at 2.5 percent running open houses accepting offers right from the buyers which will put the other realtors in a position were they will have to do the same if they want to stay in the business.
Agents will be able to have open houses and people will be able to tour. However, once the discussion starts about price or the negotiating, that buyer will have to sign a Buyer's Broker agreement. Example: My listing agreement with the seller as a transaction broker in Florida is x%. The seller agrees that if another agent brings a buyer I am able to split that compensation however the seller and I agree to in our listing agreement. The buyer's brokerage agreement in that case would say lets say whatever 1/2 of what that x% is. The buyer's brokerage agreement states that we are transaction brokers as well. I work for the transaction to make the transaction work for both parties. That is the goal. Yes, I would receive the total x% because I am not splitting it with another broker since the buyer was procured from the open house I am hosting. The buyer would not be paying it, because I am disclosing to that buyer that the seller has agreed in our listing agreement. This is the same way it has worked for a very long time. It really is not changing. It is just being more transparent.

[retiredguy123]

Agents will be able to have open houses and people will be able to tour. However, once the discussion starts about price or the negotiating, that buyer will have to sign a Buyer's Broker agreement. Example: My listing agreement with the seller as a transaction broker in Florida is x%. The seller agrees that if another agent brings a buyer I am able to split that compensation however the seller and I agree to in our listing agreement. The buyer's brokerage agreement in that case would say lets say whatever 1/2 of what that x% is. The buyer's brokerage agreement states that we are transaction brokers as well. I work for the transaction to make the transaction work for both parties. That is the goal. Yes, I would receive the total x% because I am not splitting it with another broker since the buyer was procured from the open house I am hosting. The buyer would not be paying it, because I am disclosing to that buyer that the seller has agreed in our listing agreement. This is the same way it has worked for a very long time. It really is not changing. It is just being more transparent.
Huh? If I go to an open house, and I make a cash offer to buy it, the only thing I will sign is a sales contract to buy the house for that price. Period. I don't care what the seller and the agent agree to between themselves.

[Plinker]

I would not take a listing if the seller is adamant that they will not pay a buyer's agent. Why? I think you will find that at least 80% of buyers do not have the excess funds to pay compensation on top of down payment, closing costs etc. Think about a VA buyer that is entitled to insured 100% financing with no down payment required. This will limit who can buy the property. Why would I spend at least $1000 up front of my personal money in marketing, photos etc if I know that the buyer pool is automatically reduced? Our buyer broker agreements will give the buyer the choice of if they want to see a home or not if that property is not offering buyer agent compensation. It certainly will be interesting to see how this all plays out. By the way, the local MLS here is requiring the buyer broker agreements now as of Aug 7th. Nevertheless, this is our new reality.

I applaud you for defining the demographic of clients you will represent. You have every right to make this decision to exclude home sellers that choose not to pay a buyer’s commission. You are correct that there will be clients that are unable to come up with the funds to pay their buyer agent and will require the seller to pay them.

Many financial planners exclude clients that do not meet their minimums. It is common to find planners that demand at least one million dollars under management or far more. Perhaps there will end up being two types of selling agents.

The first type of selling agent would concentrate on buyers that do not have the funds to pay the buyer agent fee. This would appeal to first-time buyers and others that have yet to accumulate assets. This agent would charge 5-6% to the seller. The second type of agent would market their services to all home buyers and sellers regardless of financial status. These agents would custom tailor their fees to accommodate anyone who walks in the door, regardless if they be a seller or a buyer. I agree with other posts that there will be an abundance of selling agents that will agree to 2.5 if the seller refuses to pay the buyer agent fee.

It may not be long before agents realize that fee flexibility is the key to survival and prosperity.

[retiredguy123]

I would not take a listing if the seller is adamant that they will not pay a buyer's agent. Why? I think you will find that at least 80% of buyers do not have the excess funds to pay compensation on top of down payment, closing costs etc. Think about a VA buyer that is entitled to insured 100% financing with no down payment required. This will limit who can buy the property. Why would I spend at least $1000 up front of my personal money in marketing, photos etc if I know that the buyer pool is automatically reduced? Our buyer broker agreements will give the buyer the choice of if they want to see a home or not if that property is not offering buyer agent compensation. It certainly will be interesting to see how this all plays out. By the way, the local MLS here is requiring the buyer broker agreements now as of Aug 7th. Nevertheless, this is our new reality.
You would never get a listing from me.

[candacev]

Huh? If I go to an open house, and I make a cash offer to buy it, the only thing I will sign is a sales contract to buy the house for that price. Period. I don't care what the seller and the agent agree to between themselves.
You will have to sign a buyers broker agreement or that agent will be heavily fined

[candacev]

I applaud you for defining the demographic of clients you will represent. You have every right to make this decision to exclude home sellers that choose not to pay a buyer’s commission. You are correct that there will be clients that are unable to come up with the funds to pay their buyer agent and will require the seller to pay them.

Many financial planners exclude clients that do not meet their minimums. It is common to find planners that demand at least one million dollars under management or far more. Perhaps there will end up being two types of selling agents.

The first type of selling agent would concentrate on buyers that do not have the funds to pay the buyer agent fee. This would appeal to first-time buyers and others that have yet to accumulate assets. This agent would charge 5-6% to the seller. The second type of agent would market their services to all home buyers and sellers regardless of financial status. These agents would custom tailor their fees to accommodate anyone who walks in the door, regardless if they be a seller or a buyer. I agree with other posts that there will be an abundance of selling agents that will agree to 2.5 if the seller refuses to pay the buyer agent fee.

It may not be long before agents realize that fee flexibility is the key to survival and prosperity.
Yes I agree there will be many that change their business plans.

[retiredguy123]

You will have to sign a buyers broker agreement or that agent will be heavily fined
Why would I care if the agent is fined? But, I would probably sign it as long as my offer terms and price didn't change. I certainly wouldn't increase my offer to pay an agent. Here is my offer, take it or leave it. If you are suggesting that I need to increase my offer to pay an agent, that will never work in the competitive marketplace.

[candacev]

Why would I care if the agent is fined? But, I would probably sign it as long as my offer terms and price didn't change. I certainly wouldn't increase my offer to pay an agent. Here is my offer, take it or leave it. If you are suggesting that I need to increase my offer to pay an agent, that will never work in the competitive marketplace.
Unfortunately this will be our new normal. It will take a while to work out all the logistics, I am sure. But yes, the fines are ridiculous for not adhering to the new rules. And yes, by signing would not make any difference on what you are offering and willing to pay no big deal. I think many are looking at it like things are going to cost them more, but in reality, it is not. Just like any big change, until all the gears are well oiled, we will all have an adjustment period.

[Bay Kid]

The agent, may make a modest living, but the real estate “AGENCY “ does very well for itself. Flat rates instead of percentages would be more fair for everyone. Not 60k for selling a million dollar home in a month.

Agent splits in a company are negotiated when they come to work for a company. A small company has many expenses and they only get 10 to 30% of the commission. They usually split the commissions with other companies. Agents and the company have lots of money and time invested into selling a home. There are times you must sell the property several times even to get paid. Sometimes you can work for a year on a property and never get paid. If you are lucky you will have an easy sale every now and then.

Don't forget all the times they give a home value to a seller only for the property to be listed with another company.

Flat tax rates would be good though.

[BrianL99]

Is there no emoji for "word salad" ?

[Blueblaze]

I don't see how signing an agreement with a salesman before I've seen the product benefits me in the least. It just looks like, once again, the big guy with the money and connections (the realtor's union) gets to rig the system to his benefit.

I have never signed an exclusive agreement with a realtor in my life. They don't like to admit it, but Realtor commissions have always been negotiable. I've had a realtor make up the difference between my firm offer and the seller's, out of their absurd commission, a couple of times. They're part of the deal, and if they're hungry enough, they'll chip in to make the deal work. They ought to do it more often than they do.

If I hire an agent beforehand, he ought to be my employee, working for a flat fee, not a cut of the deal. I built multi-million dollar software systems for my employers over a 40-year career that made my employers millions, but nobody ever offered me a percentage. The guy who sold it sure as hell got his cut. I have never understood why sales is treated like some rare talent, as if the ability to lie with a straight face was unusual among humans.

[Normal]

The buyer doesn’t really need an agent in today’s market. Reality today is more like the Mr. And Mrs. looking on line at The Zillow website and talking. They pick 3 or 4 they like and go from there.

[BrianL99]

I built multi-million dollar software systems for my employers over a 40-year career that made my employers millions, but nobody ever offered me a percentage. The guy who sold it sure as hell got his cut. I have never understood why sales is treated like some rare talent, as if the ability to lie with a straight face was unusual among humans.


Because without the marketing department & salespeople, your ability to build whatever, has no value and you don't have a job.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

I don't know why there's so much brouhaha over this. I've never paid more than 5% commission when selling a property I owned. I have never paid ANYTHING to an agent when buying a property.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care who ends up with the money, once the house is closed on. I pay my 5% and my listing agent can do whatever he/she wants with it.

[SoCalGal]

They just don’t realize it. This ruling is designed to prevent this such that each party pays their own agent’s fees.

No; the purpose of the class action agreement is to force transparency into the transaction. Some sellers--such as "retiredguy" in this thread--still thinks he didn't pay the buyer's agent. He thinks this because there was no transparency. Under the new rules, now there is.

[SoCalGal]

I think you're confused about the FTC's role and powers

I am not confused. The FTC has played a significant role in the broader context of NAR's class action lawsuit and related antitrust issues. Historically, the FTC, along with the DOJ (Dept of Justice), has been involved in scrutinizing and challenging the practices of NAR, particularly concerning real estate commissions and the operation of MLS (Multiple Listing Service). This scrutiny dates back to at least the 1940s, as the FTC has been concerned with the interdependence of brokers facilitated by the MLS, which is seen as a mechanism that maintains this interdependence.

In recent years, the FTC's involvement has continued as part of a broader governmental effort to address antitrust concerns in the real estate industry. The FTC, alongside the DOJ, has been involved in legal actions and investigations aimed at challenging the practices that allegedly inflate buyer-broker commissions and, consequently, the total commissions paid by home sellers. These actions are part of an ongoing effort to promote competition and protect consumers in the real estate market--which is what I said.

[SoCalGal]

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.

Correction: NAR killed the golden goose, by not being transparent.

[SoCalGal]

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care who ends up with the money, once the house is closed on. I pay my 5% and my listing agent can do whatever he/she wants with it.

Yabbut, the class action mandates transparency, and the only way to get that is to bring more disclosures into the transaction.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Yabbut, the class action mandates transparency, and the only way to get that is to bring more disclosures into the transaction.

I don't care who ends up with my 5%. They can hide the information, dump the entire 5% in the ocean, take out a public notice in the New York Times, rent a sky-writer to fly the information over Miami Beach if that's what floats their boat. Someone takes 5% off the top of whatever I get from the buyer when I sell my house, and I'm done with the deal.

[BrianL99]

I am not confused. The FTC has played a significant role in the broader context of NAR's class action lawsuit and related antitrust issues. Historically, the FTC, along with the DOJ (Dept of Justice), has been involved in scrutinizing and challenging the practices of NAR, particularly concerning real estate commissions and the operation of MLS (Multiple Listing Service). This scrutiny dates back to at least the 1940s, as the FTC has been concerned with the interdependence of brokers facilitated by the MLS, which is seen as a mechanism that maintains this interdependence.

In recent years, the FTC's involvement has continued as part of a broader governmental effort to address antitrust concerns in the real estate industry. The FTC, alongside the DOJ, has been involved in legal actions and investigations aimed at challenging the practices that allegedly inflate buyer-broker commissions and, consequently, the total commissions paid by home sellers. These actions are part of an ongoing effort to promote competition and protect consumers in the real estate market--which is what I said.

Sorry, that is not what you said.. This is what you said:

You won't find it because it doesn't exist. The FTC is involved only to make sure that the settlement agreement actually does benefit someone or doesn't NOT benefit anyone.

The FTC is tasked with ensuring that the class action settlement is not in conflict with any state laws. Florida may provide the incentive for the parties to return to the settlement table.

[BrianL99]

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.


Correction: NAR killed the golden goose, by not being transparent.


No one cares about "transparency". The more sophisticated and consumer-friendly states, mandated transparency in the real estate business years ago.

NAR has maintained a virtual monopoly in the real estate listing business and attempted to stifle competition, in order to maintain exorbitant commission structures. That's what this is all about.

NAR admits "no wrong doing". They admit to lack of transparency and vehemently deny any attempt to "fix pricing" to keep commissions artificially high.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.

Perfect example of trying to win at capitalism:

The monopoly is the checkmate of capitalism, where greed through no competitive pricing can be exploited.

Anti trust laws (name left over from the 1920's and 30's when trusts became the monopolies) aim to prevent that resulting in oligopolies of today. AT&T is now one of several cell phone and cable companies . . broken up and then disrupted by technology.

Sorry not sorry you got sued and busted.. Technology and disruptors look to exploit these mostly regional monopolies by being more creative or round up a gaggle of lawyers for a class action suit. The buyers agent agreement is the NAR trying to maintain employment for their members. .

end of business/economics 100

not sure how this settlement will all end up at the end. . . my posts have all been from trying to interpret the potential implementation/execution of the current agreement. Beyond that, no idea, though its a mentally fun exercise in long term strategy

[Normal]

Most can argue that the old percentage of sale equation favored realtors and their windfalls when selling homes. Things should eventually go to a flat rate commission of 5 or 10K. It certainly doesn’t cost more than that to sell a home.

[Plinker]

Agents will be able to have open houses and people will be able to tour. However, once the discussion starts about price or the negotiating, that buyer will have to sign a Buyer's Broker agreement. Example: My listing agreement with the seller as a transaction broker in Florida is x%. The seller agrees that if another agent brings a buyer I am able to split that compensation however the seller and I agree to in our listing agreement. The buyer's brokerage agreement in that case would say lets say whatever 1/2 of what that x% is. The buyer's brokerage agreement states that we are transaction brokers as well. I work for the transaction to make the transaction work for both parties. That is the goal. Yes, I would receive the total x% because I am not splitting it with another broker since the buyer was procured from the open house I am hosting. The buyer would not be paying it, because I am disclosing to that buyer that the seller has agreed in our listing agreement. This is the same way it has worked for a very long time. It really is not changing. It is just being more transparent.

Wait. Let me get this straight. If I make a cash offer without a buyer agent then I am forced to sign a contract with you, the seller agent, as my buyer agent? Are you saying that no home can be closed without both seller and buyer agent contracts?
The work you provide me is minimal and you get the entire commission known as double dipping?
Here is my solution. If I were selling my home using the conventional seller/broker split at 5% (2.5 each),
if the buyer initiated the purchase without a buyer agent, then your commission reverts to 2.5% and I get the half you did nothing to earn.
Or, I would hire a buyer agent that exclusively represents me and they would get the 2.5.
Another solution is to ban transactional realtor status.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Perfect example of trying to win at capitalism:

The monopoly is the checkmate of capitalism, where greed through no competitive pricing can be exploited.

Anti trust laws (name left over from the 1920's and 30's when trusts became the monopolies) aim to prevent that resulting in oligopolies of today. AT&T is now one of several cell phone and cable companies . . broken up and then disrupted by technology.

Sorry not sorry you got sued and busted.. Technology and disruptors look to exploit these mostly regional monopolies by being more creative or round up a gaggle of lawyers for a class action suit. The buyers agent agreement is the NAR trying to maintain employment for their members. .

end of business/economics 100

not sure how this settlement will all end up at the end. . . my posts have all been from trying to interpret the potential implementation/execution of the current agreement. Beyond that, no idea, though its a mentally fun exercise in long term strategy

Another potential checkmate against monopolies: have an entire government department dedicated to acquisitions.

Any corporation that starts buying up the competition (or pushing the competition out of business) could risk a government takeover. The Gov't wouldn't be obligated to actually buy them all, but they would have that option.

The Bell System worked great, because the entire country worked on a single system. It cooperated with itself. When they were forced to split off, some companies had trouble getting colocs from the bank. When DSL rolled out, companies would fight over real estate at the central offices, or one company would get the bid and push all the other ones out. If it was all the Bell System, it would've happened much sooner, much more efficiently.

And then there was the Southwestern Bell war, when SWB started buying out other companies, including the ORIGINAL phone company in this country, Southern New England Telephone (where I worked while all this was happening). They influenced our union to sell out to the Teamsters, who then just completely ruined the union and gutted our retirement plans and upward mobility opportunities within the company. Then SWB shut down entire departments, moving them from Connecticut to Texas - and only offering to move the department heads if they wanted to leave Connecticut with no contract and no union protection at all.

Then, once SWB was fully ensconced in the state, they sold to AT&T, which gutted it further, forcing employees who were doing tech work to push for sales on the phone if they wanted to keep their 401Ks intact. And then the final insult - AT&T sold its internet service to Frontier, who came in and created an absolute disaster. It took me the better part of 6 MONTHS to get internet service, when the service I had with SNET was perfectly fine. People all over the state had this problem - because Frontier doesn't "play nice" with other telecommunications companies.

We would've been better off if one company owned the whole shebang. And since it's a utility, the government could've had as much oversight and regulation of prices as they wanted. Or they could've just taken ownership of it themselves.

In short, the idea of the government running a monopoly could actually work, IF it was a threat to the world of commerce - a consequence of having a monopoly in the first place. To prevent monopolies, make it be not in a company's best interest to become one.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

In short, the idea of the government running a monopoly could actually work, IF it was a threat to the world of commerce - a consequence of having a monopoly in the first place. To prevent monopolies, make it be not in a company's best interest to become one.

The problem with that solution is the current problem with the USPS. The government and beaurocrats don't like change or having to keep up with change, like the legal system relying on precedent. The government is also acting as the employer of last resort to keep the economy going. Similar to the great depression when the government created work programs, which was paid from the 70% tax rate of the monopoly trusts.

The government is horrible at managing utilities as well. I understand the electrical utility regulatory model, and it was created in the 1930's, way before new technologies were created, and the new ones are currently unregulated. Utilities have gone bankrupt based upon regulatory oversight and mandates.

Your solution is the government version of the data com ethernet standards committee, which I had the pleasure of working with one of its members back in my early 1990s data com finance career. The commercial industry standards method allows competition to drive out inefficiencies to commodity status, which is why CISCO is laying off thousands and changing its direction from low margin, low growth to other products and services. That benefits the consumer, but limits the growth life cycle of corporations. .

so lets bring this back to the developer, amenity fees and the CDD model, monopolistic qualities or government inefficient model?

[BrianL99]

The problem with that solution is the current problem with the USPS.


You're suggesting the USPS doesn't operate like a well-oiled machine, because of government involvement?

Who would believe that? Government is the solution, not the problem ... everyone knows that!

[Blueblaze]

Because without the marketing department & salespeople, your ability to build whatever, has no value and you don't have a job.

Right. Nobody would have ever built the computer you're typing on without a professional liar collecting a percentage of the price. And nobody would have produced the egg you ate this morning without a highly trained salesman to tell you that you'll die if you don't eat something.

The value that salesmen add is just the sheen of BS covering the actual value of any product. I spent years in college and apprenticeship before I wrote the GIS system my company sold to the Swiss post office for millions. I got a $200 "bonus" and a pat on the back for my efforts. The salesman who sold it got 5% of the sale. He had a 2-year degree from the local junior college and his previous job was selling used cars. But he was a nice guy with a gift for gab. What a rare talent!

Meanwhile Taylor Swift makes about 3% of anything she produces, and that's astronomical among recording artists. The salesmen get the rest. And everyone thinks that's normal.

I'm not saying that the world doesn't need salesmen. I'm saying that the reason salesmen get such obscene compensation for what they consider work has nothing to do with value. They get it because so many people are dumb enough to fall for a good grift. In my world, it was usually because the CEO came out of the Sales department and talked himself into the job, after the engineer who started the company cashed out. Is "Windows 11" a greater value than "Window 7", which does the exact same thing BETTER, on 1/3rd the hardware requirement? Is it a coincidence that Win 7 was the last OS produced when Gates was still running things?

I'm sorry if I've offended the salesmen reading this. I don't fault salesmen for taking the money. I fault people for letting them rig the system with stupid laws that make it possible. And I really don't like it when a salesman tries to pretend that selling a computer system has more "value" than building one.

[BrianL99]

Right. Nobody would have ever built the computer you're typing on without a professional liar collecting a percentage of the price. And nobody would have produced the egg you ate this morning without a highly trained salesman to tell you that you'll die if you don't eat something.

The value that salesmen add is just the sheen of BS covering the actual value of any product. I spent years in college and apprenticeship before I wrote the GIS system my company sold to the Swiss post office for millions. I got a $200 "bonus" and a pat on the back for my efforts. The salesman who sold it got 5% of the sale. He had a 2-year degree from the local junior college and his previous job was selling used cars. But he was a nice guy with a gift for gab. What a rare talent!

Meanwhile Taylor Swift makes about 3% of anything she produces, and that's astronomical among recording artists. The salesmen get the rest. And everyone thinks that's normal.

I'm not saying that the world doesn't need salesmen. I'm saying that the reason salesmen get such obscene compensation for what they consider work has nothing to do with value. They get it because so many people are dumb enough to fall for a good grift. In my world, it was usually because the CEO came out of the Sales department and talked himself into the job, after the engineer who started the company cashed out. Is "Windows 11" a greater value than "Window 7", which does the exact same thing BETTER, on 1/3rd the hardware requirement? Is it a coincidence that Win 7 was the last OS produced when Gates was still running things?

I'm sorry if I've offended the salesmen reading this. I don't fault salesmen for taking the money. I fault people for letting them rig the system with stupid laws that make it possible. And I really don't like it when a salesman tries to pretend that selling a computer system has more "value" than building one.

It's obvious you're unhappy the you chose the wrong side of the pay program. You got paid to write software and your pay didn't depend on the company selling it and making a lot of money. If they had to throw it away because no one wanted to buy it ... you still got your pay.

The Sales person, like entrepreneurs, take the gamble that they can actually perform and produce at their job and they're willing to not get paid, if they don't.

No risk, no gain.

[Blueblaze]

It's obvious you're unhappy the you chose the wrong side of the pay program. You got paid to write software and your pay didn't depend on the company selling it and making a lot of money. If they had to throw it away because no one wanted to buy it ... you still got your pay.

The Sales person, like entrepreneurs, take the gamble that they can actually perform and produce at their job and they're willing to not get paid, if they don't.

No risk, no gain.

I'm not unhappy that I chose to contribute to society rather than merely profit from it, but to say I didn't risk anything for the privilege says more about you than me. The mobster who collects "protection" money from all the legitimate businesses on his block probably feels pretty smug about his choices, too. I'll even agree with you that a guy who takes a percentage instead of a salary, ought to get enough to make it worth his while. But 5% of a house or software system (or 97% of a song!) is absurd. You only get that deal when the game is just as rigged as that protection racket.

[BrianL99]

I'm not unhappy that I chose to contribute to society rather than merely profit from it, but to say I didn't risk anything for the privilege says more about you than me. The mobster who collects "protection" money from all the legitimate businesses on his block probably feels pretty smug about his choices, too. I'll even agree with you that a guy who takes a percentage instead of a salary, ought to get enough to make it worth his while. But 5% of a house or software system (or 97% of a song!) is absurd. You only get that deal when the game is just as rigged as that protection racket.

Life sure is unfair, huh?

I'm not sure writing software is a huge contribution to society, but if that's what you have to work with, go for it.



Meanwhile Taylor Swift makes about 3% of anything she produces, and that's astronomical among recording artists.


I'm not sure Taylor Swift is a great example of someone being under-paid. According to MarketWatch, she earned upwards of $345,000,000 last year. Not bad work if you can get it. To say nothing of her contributions to society.

marketwatch.com (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/taylor-swift-is-on-track-to-earn-332-million-this-year-c092d155)

[LeRoySmith]

Right. Nobody would have ever built the computer you're typing on without a professional liar collecting a percentage of the price. And nobody would have produced the egg you ate this morning without a highly trained salesman to tell you that you'll die if you don't eat something.

The value that salesmen add is just the sheen of BS covering the actual value of any product. I spent years in college and apprenticeship before I wrote the GIS system my company sold to the Swiss post office for millions. I got a $200 "bonus" and a pat on the back for my efforts. The salesman who sold it got 5% of the sale. He had a 2-year degree from the local junior college and his previous job was selling used cars. But he was a nice guy with a gift for gab. What a rare talent!

Meanwhile Taylor Swift makes about 3% of anything she produces, and that's astronomical among recording artists. The salesmen get the rest. And everyone thinks that's normal.

I'm not saying that the world doesn't need salesmen. I'm saying that the reason salesmen get such obscene compensation for what they consider work has nothing to do with value. They get it because so many people are dumb enough to fall for a good grift. In my world, it was usually because the CEO came out of the Sales department and talked himself into the job, after the engineer who started the company cashed out. Is "Windows 11" a greater value than "Window 7", which does the exact same thing BETTER, on 1/3rd the hardware requirement? Is it a coincidence that Win 7 was the last OS produced when Gates was still running things?

I'm sorry if I've offended the salesmen reading this. I don't fault salesmen for taking the money. I fault people for letting them rig the system with stupid laws that make it possible. And I really don't like it when a salesman tries to pretend that selling a computer system has more "value" than building one.

It's safe to say that some people produce a product or service that makes the world a better place. Others profit off of the former in various ways, some add value others not so much. In some cases, whatever the method, the profits far out weigh the added benefit.

The world isn't a fair place and leaches got to eat too.

[Bassdeer]

You're suggesting the USPS doesn't operate like a well-oiled machine, because of government involvement?

Who would believe that? Government is the solution, not the problem ... everyone knows that!
I'm guessing this is sarcasm? But I didn't see a lol after so maybe your serious.

[JMintzer]

I'm guessing this is sarcasm? But I didn't see a lol after so maybe your serious.

https://media.tenor.com/tuadOY7Y2lQAAAAM/sarcasm-haha.gif

[kingofbeer]

On August 17th a new real estate law will go into effect which will no longer allow realtors hired by the home seller to list the commission the seller will pay to the buyers realtor. In short, the seller will negotiate the commission with their realtor and the buyer will negotiate their end of the commission with the buyer’s realtor. Seller and buyer pay their own fees. The savings could be huge.
Instead of the seller paying a 5-6% commission to be split between seller and buyer agent, the seller could negotiate a 2 1/2 - 3% commission with their realtor. On a $500,000 home the seller would pay $25,000 - $30,000 under the old law and “only” $12,500 - $15,000 under the new law. Double this for a $1,000,000 listing, etc.
I spoke with a Village Realtor concerning pre owned homes and was told they are maintaining the 5-6 % commissions.
Will this cause Villagers to choose MLS if selling their home? Will FSBO sellers now be more willing to hire a realtor? How do you think this will play out?
As a buyer, I will deal directly with the seller's agent --- the seller's agent will need to take 3% or less.

[Normal]

As a buyer, I will deal directly with the seller's agent --- the seller's agent will need to take 3% or less.

Totally agree. Why even have a buyer’s agent unless the purchaser desires a remote purchase? This 3% or 6% on a million dollar home is ludicrous. The title company does more work than real estate agents. It’s time to eliminate the middle man with his or her hands out.

[Two Bills]

As a buyer, I will deal directly with the seller's agent --- the seller's agent will need to take 3% or less.

As a buyer, I wouldn't give them a cent.
They are acting for the seller.
Their job is to pass on your offer to the seller, and if acceptable, sort the paper work.
Your costs should be your own survey, and someone to sort your legal requirements, and make sure the agreement is what you want. Not what seller wants.
All this double-dipping by agents is why people get screwed, fees are crazy, and legislation is passed to protect the Estate Agents monopoly.
Agents getting 5%+ is ridiculous.

[candacev]

Wait. Let me get this straight. If I make a cash offer without a buyer agent then I am forced to sign a contract with you, the seller agent, as my buyer agent? Are you saying that no home can be closed without both seller and buyer agent contracts?
The work you provide me is minimal and you get the entire commission known as double dipping?
Here is my solution. If I were selling my home using the conventional seller/broker split at 5% (2.5 each),
if the buyer initiated the purchase without a buyer agent, then your commission reverts to 2.5% and I get the half you did nothing to earn.
Or, I would hire a buyer agent that exclusively represents me and they would get the 2.5.
Another solution is to ban transactional realtor status.
Quick answer: Seller is paying listing brokerage x%. Regardless of whether the buyer was procured by listing brokerage or another brokerage they are still paying that x%. Seller has the choice of whether or not they agree to let listing broker split that x% or not. It is in their best interest to do so in my opinion. If they are not willing to, then their house is just going to sell for less because whatever the buyer offers is going to take into consideration what they may have to pay the agent that they are working with. Therefore the split % is still coming from the seller

[Normal]

Quick answer: Seller is paying listing brokerage x%. Regardless of whether the buyer was procured by listing brokerage or another brokerage they are still paying that x%. Seller has the choice of whether or not they agree to let listing broker split that x% or not. It is in their best interest to do so in my opinion. If they are not willing to, then their house is just going to sell for less because whatever the buyer offers is going to take into consideration what they may have to pay the agent that they are working with. Therefore the split % is still coming from the seller

Or just put it on the MLS for 100 bucks and let the title company do everything else for 1,500 dollars.

[BrianL99]

Or just put it on the MLS for 100 bucks and let the title company do everything else for 1,500 dollars.

Perfect solution.

Sell a $500,000 home and spend $100 to do it.

Ever heard the phrase, "you get what you pay for" ?

[Lea N]

[QUOTE=NorineBerlinski;2356897]
2. It was always unfair that the seller had to pay the buyers broker 3% and that is why the law has changed. There is actually a website you can complete some forms online and get that 3% back, or some of it through this class action lawsuit. I have completed this form to see if I qualify to get some of the commission I have paid to buyers agents. just google real estate class action lawsuit and it should pop up.always been this way!

I googled this and read that this applies to sales as far back as ten years ago, in Florida at least. If this is true it wouldn't work for us because the houses we sold were prior to 2014.

[retiredguy123]

I am amazed that some people think that the seller's commission is just a "tacked on" fee to the sale of a house. When I sell a house, I expect the listing agent to earn that commission in the form of a higher price for the house. That is why I never agree to pay a commission to a buyer's agent. They are not working for me to maximize the price. If I thought the commission was just an add-on fee, I would never sign a listing contract. To me, a buyer's agent is worthless.

[justjim]

You're suggesting the USPS doesn't operate like a well-oiled machine, because of government involvement?

Who would believe that? Government is the solution, not the problem ... everyone knows that!

The USPS has tried for years to make changes to get efficient. For example, wanting to close some rural post offices by consolidation, etc. etc. Their budget is controlled by Congress. Need I say more.

There is an ol’ saying in the world of sales. “Nothing really ever happens until somebody sells something”. When you think about it, there is really a lot of truth in that.

[LeRoySmith]

Yes, I don’t see a reason to pay for seller realtors and their suits, lunches and nice cars. That’s all dressing on a pig, a pig that needs to die away.

Amen.

It cost me $750 to get a 600k house listed on MLS in Dallas. Sold in a week with no additional fees.

[Plinker]

Quick answer: Seller is paying listing brokerage x%. Regardless of whether the buyer was procured by listing brokerage or another brokerage they are still paying that x%. Seller has the choice of whether or not they agree to let listing broker split that x% or not. It is in their best interest to do so in my opinion. If they are not willing to, then their house is just going to sell for less because whatever the buyer offers is going to take into consideration what they may have to pay the agent that they are working with. Therefore the split % is still coming from the seller

My point is this. If I hired you to sell my home, the contract would pay you a 5% commission if and only if the buyer had a buyer’s agent. However, if no buyer’s agent is involved in the transaction then your commission drops to 2.5%.
You end up with the same amount of money as if a split-commission was involved. Such a contract would not limit the pool of buyers. Problem solved! This is how to prevent double dipping of commissions.
Would you agree to such a contract if I listed my home with you?

[Boomer]

What a mess this will be.

If I am reading things right, there will not be standard contract language for buyers to sign, meaning that there can be many different versions of what a buyer is signing on to pay — and for how long the commitment to that agent will be.

A lot of dust needs to settle on this. Buyers better be extremely careful what they sign. Looks to me like you could end up “married” to an agent you just met in the driveway, signed, and then find out you do not like or trust that agent.

I admit I am not actually clear on any of this. All I really know is if you are buying and/or selling at this time, you better educate yourself on what all this means and be very, very careful before signing anything.

Boomer

[justjim]

As a buyer, I will deal directly with the seller's agent --- the seller's agent will need to take 3% or less.

Good luck with that especially negotiating with the Villages Developer who is the only seller of new houses.

MLS Realtors all have a bottom line when it comes to their commission too. For Sale by Owner you can negotiate the price but the “closing Agent”, the lawyer if you get one, and certainly the government tax stamps etc. are set fees and good luck negotiating those.

[MightyDog]

I am amazed that some people think that the seller's commission is just a "tacked on" fee to the sale of a house. When I sell a house, I expect the listing agent to earn that commission in the form of a higher price for the house. That is why I never agree to pay a commission to a buyer's agent. They are not working for me to maximize the price. If I thought the commission was just an add-on fee, I would never sign a listing contract. To me, a buyer's agent is worthless.

The basic reality involves simple probability. A selling/listing agent only has so many (maybe none) clients interested in looking at a new property they listed. But, there is a vast pool of potential buyers who are using their own agent to help them find a home. That is mostly where your buyer potential comes from.

If a seller stipulated to their listing agent that they want to pay $0 fee to a buyers agent, then, except for a low supply/high demand market, their supply of interested buyers would shrink to almost none. That's just reality and has been for a long time.

The seller could wait for someone like me who doesn't use buy-side agents but, that could take a long time and the listing will go stale and get looked-past (yes, that's a real thing and generally involves price reductions to become relevant again).

I am closing on my place in the Midwest this Wed. It's a high demand area so, I listed myself on Zillow and am a marketing pro so, it was a good listing. Stated I'd deal directly or pay a buyers agent. Got an offer from buyer using an agent within a week and will be paying the agent 1.5%. (Low because this is a clean, easy deal with little time involved for the agent.) Frankly, it saved me some headaches from handling all of that in addition to the enormous amount of work in a big move like this.

If I felt like waiting awhile, I would have a gotten a buyer on their own but, this guy who's buying really wanted it and is paying the highest price I think this property could attain currently. So, it all worked out for me.

[Normal]

The basic reality involves simple probability. A selling/listing agent only has so many (maybe none) clients interested in looking at a new property they listed. But, there is a vast pool of potential buyers who are using their own agent to help them find a home. That is mostly where your buyer potential comes from.

If a seller stipulated to their listing agent that they want to pay $0 fee to a buyers agent, then, except for a low supply/high demand market, their supply of interested buyers would shrink to almost none. That's just reality and has been for a long time.

The seller could wait for someone like me who doesn't use buy-side agents but, that could take a long time and the listing will go stale and get looked-past (yes, that's a real thing and generally involves price reductions to become relevant again).

I am closing on my place in the Midwest this Wed. It's a high demand area so, I listed myself on Zillow and am a marketing pro so, it was a good listing. Stated I'd deal directly or pay a buyers agent. Got an offer from buyer using an agent within a week and will be paying the agent 1.5%. (Low because this is a clean, easy deal with little time involved for the agent.) Frankly, it saved me some headaches from handling all of that in addition to the enormous amount of work in a big move like this.

If I felt like waiting awhile, I would have a gotten a buyer on their own but, this guy who's buying really wanted it and is paying the highest price I think this property could attain currently. So, it all worked out for me.

Zillow is the virtual real estate vehicle. The latest stats show 75% of all buyers go to Zillow.

[MightyDog]

Zillow is the virtual real estate vehicle. The latest stats show 75% of all buyers go to Zillow.
That doesn't mean they don't use a buyers agent.

It may mean that they LOOK and source possible properties on Zillow, Trulia, Realtor dot com and elsewhere. But then, still use an agent to help them thru the process.

I know few people who have the confidence to do it on their own. They just haven't transacted many properties so, haven't built enough of a knowledge base and they also look at it like --- well, the seller pays the agents, so why wouldn't I use one?

[LeRoySmith]

Zillow is the virtual real estate vehicle. The latest stats show 75% of all buyers go to Zillow.

I suspect this change in real estate is similar to what happened to travel agents when the internet started to make their job less necessary.