Nat Assoc of Realtors found guilty of commission collusion
 

Missouri jury finds NAR, brokerages guilty of conspiring to inflate commissions - HousingWire.

It was fun for them while it lasted, now go search for a cheaper realtor!

Huge Con Game
 

The NAR was due for this fall. They are a monopoly in a sense. 5 and 6 percent commissions on million dollar homes along with shadowing what might not benefit the realtor the most are so unfair, and certainly not egalitarian.

The savoy seller just lists their homes on Zillow and Realty.com. When they sell all they need to have is a title company or lawyer. The whole thing costs less than a couple thousand.

Their scams reflect the life insurance salesmen of the 70s or the insurance writing offices of the 80s. They got a whole lot of cash for doing nothing.

Aren't those the ethical ones................the ones who took a test and signed something??

Note that "The Properties of The Villages" is not a member of the NAR, and none of their agents are Realtors.

Ya
 

Ya, you know the ones, “We don’t work for the seller, we work for you.”

LOL

Yes. The biggest real estate scam is for a seller's agent to convince a buyer that he/she is representing the buyer. I cringe every time a see a poster refer to an agent as "my agent". In almost every real estate sale, the buyer does not have an agent.

This is long overdue.

I have always been amazed at how high US. estate agent fees are.
In UK wife and I have never paid more than 1% agent fee.
Sold last two houses ourselves just using a Conveyance agent
Cost under $850 all in.

What???? Crown don’t get their cut?

The king does not have the power he used to have

Haters always going to hate. Realtors can absolutely be buyer's agents. The commission structure was that the Seller's agent lists the property in MLS with the commission structure (such as 2.5% to seller agent, 2.5% to buyer agent). The buyer's agent should absolutely be representing the buyer's interest. Of course, they want to get a property under agreement and sold, but if they don't do a good job representing the buyer then word of mouth quickly makes that agent lose sales and not do well.

Now as far as this lawsuit it won't change anything really, except how the commission structure is presented. Currently it all comes out of the seller's proceeds. What could happen going foward is the buyer's agent charges commission to the buyer. The seller has a lower price because maybe they aren't paying 5 or 6%. It all comes out in the wash.

Realtors can't work for free. I've seen a buyer's agent take a buyer to over 70 homes over the course of 6 months. People expect that and then not pay them anything when they buy something?

The job of a realtor is to sell the home. This would mean any realtor represents the seller. You can not play (and charge) both sides of the fence.

It seems you are referring to an agent that has the listing, the buyer comes in without an agent and the Listing agent does the deal alone. In that case, the listing agent is possibly taking both sides of the commission (unless they pass along the savings). But they have an ethical duty to tell the buyer that they are representing the seller.

That's not how buyer's agent works. Now, I will admit I'm in Massachusetts and don't know what could be different in Florida. But a buyer contacts an agent and wants to see a home. If that agent is not the listing agent then he/she becomes the buyer's agent. They may or may not sign a buyer's agent contract. That agent should be advising the buyer on home value, helping with financing needs and legal needs, etc. They should be bringing the buyer to similar homes, working with inspection. They need to know the rules for FHA loans (you wouldn't believe how many realtors miss that info).

The agent I know works tirelessly, on the phone at all hours, out at appointments all day and night, 7 days/week, working with their buyers (or sellers if they have the listing). She works way more hours than my 9-5 job that's for sure.

It really aggravates me when people say they get paid for nothing. They have no idea how much work is involved.

They don't need it.
"Crown Industry" runs at a profit, and pays millions into Government coffers.
How much does a President cost to run?

And, this is how a lawsuit was won. A realtor cannot be a buyer's agent. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller at all times. A potential buyer does not need to contract with a realtor.

The flawed logic, is the Buyer's Broker doesn't get paid, unless their client buys a home ... so now who is the Agent really representing? They're representing themselves. Buyers' brokers and dual agencies, are the biggest scam ever foisted upon the home buying public.

Perfect Example
 

Nobody here is a hater. Just trying to help. Why pay more for something that isn’t hard to do? 70 homes shown over time would equal about 70 hours. What should a salesman make for their 70 hours? 1,000(17 dollars an hour)…2,000 (34 dollars an hour)….maybe 3,000 (51 dollars an hour) Exactly what is the homeowner charged to list? 5%? A 400k home would be a 20, 000 (340 dollars a hour) dollars loss. I challenge the possibility that many homes are even shown that many times before an offer and sale.

It’s very simple to list on Zillow etc. Just take the photos you like…about 30. Upload them and wait and see. A serious homebuyer is usually hitting the site for new listings. The potential buyer will even get emails from the site. It costs virtually nothing to do so why not? We listed our home for nearly an half million and got an offer in less than a week. The title company walked us through the process and we were closing about a month out. They printed the disclosure forms, etc., supplied the notary and even had the wire done for us. We paid around 1,400 dollars for the whole effort.

Wouldn’t you want more than 20,000 dollars for taking pictures, filling out boxes and uploading to a very friendly user website? It’s almost more work to use Facebook than it is to list a house.

Your first paragraph is totally false. The listing contract is between the listing broker and the seller. There is no buyer agent mentioned in the contract. The buyer has absolutely no contractual relationship with the broker. When you go to the closing, the entire commission is listed on the seller's side of the settlement statement and paid for by the seller. The buyer pays nothing. The buyer has no legal recourse for breach of the listing contract because the buyer never signed the contract and never agreed to pay any of the commission. That is basic contract law.

That isn't correct. It was won because basically a buyer's agent would tell the buyer, "You don't pay me anything." That is technically true, but the buyer's agent is being paid from the total commission in the MLS listing. It's really just semantics but can be seen as the buyer's agent misrepresenting that the buyer is paying their commission because it's basically part of the sale price of the home.

As I mentioned, this is why it will likely change on how the buyer's agent gets paid. But you are flat out wrong that an agent can't represent a buyer. A good buyer agent will steer a buyer away from bad deals.

70 hours huh? LOL. Try doubling that at least. Travel time, mileage, etc. But you are paying for their experience. I guarantee you that a good agent is going to save you more on the purchase than is paid in commission. You wouldn't believe the mistakes people would make.

Now, I once felt like you do. Heck back in my past life I sold 2 homes by owner. Both times I had to pay the buyer's agent. Listing on MLS doesn't get people in the door necessarily. Anyhow, until I saw how much an agent really does, first hand, I would have thought like you do. 70 hours. Still has me laughing. It's 6:33 and my wife just got in the door. She drove 45 minutes to an appointment and the buyer called her 5 minutes before and cancelled. Just part of the deal. She'll be on the phone multiple times tonight also I'm sure. I'm just saying people have no idea how hard that job is to do. You may think that one sale only took 70 hours, but you didn't count the 10 deals that didn't happen that also took 70 hours.

They will file for bankruptcy and return in another form.

7 other brokerage services, including publicly traded, have just received the same suit

10 Reasons You Don't Need to Join The National Association of Realtors


There are 1,200 local associations and boards and 54 state/territory associations across the United States. To use the REALTOR designation, you must be a member.

The mission of the NAR is "to empower REALTORS® as they preserve, protect and advance the right to real property for all." Its vision is "to be a trusted ally, guiding our members and those they serve through the ever-evolving real estate landscape."

Note that the term "agent" is a legal term that means someone is representing a client in a legal transaction for a fee. The only way a buyer can have an agent is if they sign a legally binding contract in which the buyer agrees to pay money to the agent. If the buyer just shows up and the real estate agent shows them houses, there is no client/agent relationship established. For most real estate sales in Florida, the buyer does not have an agent representing them. However, real estate agents typically do not adequately convey to the buyer that they are representing the seller, and not the buyer. That is why buyers will often assume that they have an "agent" when they don't.

I am not wrong. I don't think you understood what I was saying. The listing contract is between the seller and the listing agent, correct. But the listing agent posts the buyer's commision (co-broke) in MLS. The buyer's agent looks up a listing and knows right away what their portion of the commission will be. The buyer's agent portion is in the closing disclosure. Technically I guess you could argue that the seller/listing agent is getting all the commission and paying the buyer's agent. But again, semantics.

This may be different than in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts when a buyer works with an agent they sign an agency disclosure that shows they are representing the buyer. The agent may or may not sign a contract with the buyer. If there is no contract the buyer can simply stop working with them. In addition if the are a "Realtor" there is a code of ethics that the agent must be loyal and obedient etc to their client (buyer or seller).

See Post No. 22. This is not semantics at all. There is no buyer agent in the legal sense, and the only legally binding contract that exists is between the broker and the seller. The buyer has no legal recourse, and is never responsible to pay a commission.

What you are stating is unethical. I hope you are not a realtor. If you came to me while I was interested in purchasing a home, I would report you. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller(s). Period! If you steer me away from bad deals, I owe you nothing. Tomorrow, another agent can show me a home and I am free to buy from whom I wish. I may even tell the seller of the home that you are steering people away. A realtors job is to sell the home. He or she is not an in between.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was unethical? It's literally in the Realtor code of ethics to represent your buyer if you are a buyer agent. If you want to see a home and your buyer's agent says, here's the comps, this house is overpriced by 50K, how it that unethical.

You are saying, if you are a buyer and you come to me and want to see a house, and I tell you the house is way overpriced, you are going to report me? Well good luck with your home buying. LOL.

Unless something has changed fairly recently, there's not much difference between Massachusetts and Florida. The biggest difference, is "dual agency" is not allowed in Florida, but something called being a "transaction broker" is allowed. Same horse, different color.

In Florida, a licensed agent cannot represent the buyer and the seller in the sales phase. It is unethical and illegal. In some cases, they can become a transaction agent, but only after a sales contract has been executed.

Again, maybe different in Florida? In Massachusetts there can be a buyer's agent contract that states the agent is representing the buyer and it also discloses the commission being paid.

When I mention semantics, I mean how it's paid. If the house is 500K and the commission is 50K (for easy math) you could pay 50K at closing to the listing agent who then gives the buyer's agent 25K. Or you could pay each agent 25K at closing from the proceeds. Or the seller could give the listing agent 25K, the buyer could give the buyer agent 25K and the house could close at 450K. My point, it all comes out in the wash. That's why I say the lawsuit results change nothing but the semantics...

A buyer's agent should not be telling the buyer that it cost them nothing to be represented. There is a cost, and it can be buried in the commission structure. That is why the lawsuit was won. So in the future it won't necessarily save the buyer money (or make the seller more) because the agents will both want to get paid. They just have to disclose it differently.

You are being paid a possible commission to sell a home FROM THE SELLER. Therefore, A realtor always represents the seller. He or she is the one paying you to sell the home.

Example: you go to a car dealership. A sales rep helps you but you decide to look around. Does he try to convince you that you are now obligated to buy only from him? Does he try to control you through manipulation? No!

A realtor is nothing more than a representative who sells homes. That fact that you believe this is not the case, is unethical.

Yeah, here you are talking about dual agency, right? Same agent, buyer and seller side? In Massachusetts that can be done but it's tricky. First the buyer and seller have to agree to the dual agency. Then the agent can facilitate the transaction, but they can't offer guidance on the negotiations. For instance, when I said a buyer agent can tell you the house is overpriced. A dual agent couldn't do that since they are representing both the buyer and seller.

I think you missed a big part of my posts or you just don't understand how this works. And again, maybe different in Massachusetts. The commission paid to the buyer agent is disclosed by the Listing agent in MLS. They have what they call a cooperative agreement. This is common practice here. We are talking about 2 different agents, just to be clear. The seller agent knows they are paying the buyer's agent commission. Of course, this is done to get buyers to view the home.

Let me give you an example of how it works in Massachusetts...

A buyer calls an agent and says I'd like to see 64 Tucson trail. The agent says, okay that is not my listing. I would be acting as your agent and representing you. I can set up a showing for tomorrow at 3 PM. They go to the house, the buyer agent opens it with a lock box code. The seller agent may or may not accompany. The buyer agent signs an agency disclosure with the buyer (or a contract if they want). The buyer agent advises the buyer on making an offer, etc and helps throughout the transaction. The MLS Listing shows a Co-Broker Commission. It literally says "Buyers Agent X%". Generally they all know the co-broke commission already for an area. It's fairly standard but not required to be.

Edit to add, your car sales had me confused. But you definitely misunderstand. In your scenario there is no buyers agent.
Let's say I'm a buyers agent for cars (pretend with me for a moment that this exists). I have a deal with all the car dealers in the area that they will pay me half the commission if my buyer purchases a car. So I take my buyer to Mercedes. We talk to the sale agent at Mercedes but leave and go to BMW. We talk to them but decide to go to Village Golf Cars and buy a new Yamaha Quiet Tech Drive 2, EFI with LED lights, hard valance, and blue tooth speakers. My buyer buys the car. The Yamaha sales agent bet $500 and they pay me $250 for bringing in the buyer. It's kind of like a finders fee.

I don't know about Massachusetts, but in Florida, what you are describing would be illegal. A licensed agent cannot represent the buyer and the seller in the selling phase. After a sales contract is executed, an agent can sometimes act as a transaction agent to facilitate the closing. But, when showing and selling a house, the agent represents the seller only, if the agent intends to collect a commission from the seller per a listing contract.

Yes, it is different in Florida. If it is listed in the contract as allowed by Massachusetts law, there is nothing unethical. Knowing this, I probably will never buy a house in Massachusetts. I am not going to pay someone to do something I can do myself. How hard is it to look at MLS listings to find what you like.

Yes, just found out Florida does prohibit dual agency (same agent on both sides). It is okay in the scenario in Massachusetts, provided they don't touch the negotiations.

As far as the buyer agent thing, yeah you can do it yourself. If you are educated enough. I always thought I knew plenty. But damn, there are a lot of things that can go sideways. But, at least for now, you are gonna pay the full commission whether you have a buyer's agent or not. The listing may say 5% and if there's no buyer's agent the listing agent gets it all. Some listing agents will work with you on this if there's not buyer's agent and provide a discount.

Question though, are you saying there is no buyer agents in Florida (Separate from the listing agent)?

WRONG

WRONG

REALTOR® is a Registered Trademark.

No "real estate representative" is a REALTOR®

Not all Real Estate Brokers are REALTOR®

A Real Estate Broker (or a REALTOR® [who by definition is a Broker]) can represent a Seller or a Buyer. In all but 8 states, they can also represent both a Buyer and a Seller at the same time.

Don't let facts get in the way of your typing.

I agree. A licensed real estate agent in Florida could never tell a potential buyer that they are representing them if they are showing a house that has a listing contract where the agent expects to collect money from the seller at the closing. The only way that would be legal would be if the agent told the seller that they represent the buyer and that they will not accept any commission money from the seller at the closing.

Are you talking about 1 agent serving both buyer and seller. Then you are correct. But there are buyer's agency in Florida. It seems from what I'm finding they are paid the same way as in Massachusetts...

Average Florida Real Estate Commissions
Florida realtor commission is usually 5% to 6% of the home’s selling price. For example, if a home sells for $500,000, a real estate agent might get $25,000 when the sale closes.

Experienced agents will typically collect a full 6% commission, but younger, less experienced agents might receive less than that.

From the link...

"However, real estate agents often don’t get all of this commission. If there are two agents with the buyer and seller, the commission splits. An agent that works for a brokerage will have to pay them for assistance."

Florida Realtor Commission Guide (2023) | PropertyClub

The Selling Broker - Listing Broker relationship is exactly the same in Florida, as it is in Massachusetts. The only difference, is "dual agency" is not allowed in Florida.

The Seller's Broker sets the Commission Rate and sets the "cooperating broker's" (Buyer's Broker) fee. It doesn't have to be split 50/50. The typical Selling Commission in Florida (as in MA) is 5%. It's very unusual for anyone to pay 6% or 4%, but it happens. It happened in my case (actually, 3%).

The Commission on the resale I bought in The Villages 2 years ago, was a total of 3%. 1.5% to the Listing Broker, 1.5% to the Selling Broker (my Buyer's Broker).

The Brokers involved, were Re/MAX Premier Realty and NextHome Sally Love Realty.

... & before all the crazies jump in and claim that's nonsense, here's a Screen Shot of the actual HUD Settlement Statement.