NAR commission lawsuit settles
 

I wonder if VLS will need to make any changes since they were not a party to my knowledge.

Realtor Group Strikes $418 Million Deal to End Suits Over Commissions

Re: VLS

Do they charge the 5-6 % commission that NAR realtors charge to sellers?

I suspect not, because VLS is a closed loop. They don't cooperate with brokers outside their owned offices.

When I read the original court decision, it sounded like it only applied to "cooperating brokers", presumably from different agencies.

Still, the lawsuit involves commissions. I would think VLS could not force a seller to pay buyer agents' commissions. They could convey themselves as each agent working under the same umbrella. The commissions would be a set rate. I do not believe buyers would list their properties with VLS if commissions were higher than MLS.

Many people now understand a buyer's agent is not necessary. Convenient? Yes. But moving forward, not many will want to pay for their services. It is possible to search MLS listings yourself, do some drivebys, then contact the listing agent to show you the interior. Unless you are worried about inspections and the paperwork, a buyers agent is not worth paying. IMO, only out-of-town deals need a buyers agent. The agent does all the footwork their client cannot because they live in another state.

There is no such thing as a "Buyer's Agent" in the VLS world.

if one VLS agent has the listing and another sells the home, don't they both get paid? I just assume that is how it works. I never worked with VLS. They do not allow negotiation. If both agents do not get paid, then VLS may have to reduce their set commissions to compete with MLS.

Will result in less agents. Not a bad thing

It doesn't matter, it's a closed loop. All the "Salespeople" are working for the same "Broker" in who's name the listing is. VLS agents are not functioning as Brokers, they function as sales representatives.

VLS makes up their own rules and pays their employees, however they wish to pay them. I'm sure there's some sort of bonus/commission structure, but it's all blind to the public, as all work for essentially the same entity.

IMO, VLS making up their own rules in regards to preowned homes is coming to an end. Many buyers interested in the Villages are legal savvy. VLS will be confronted with a copy cat lawsuit if they continue the status quo. Again, the MLS lawsuit was about unfair practice of commissions. I do not see how VLS will escape.

When a Villages' employee sells a new home owned by the developer, they are a sales rep. When they are contracted to sell a preowned home it is completely different. The developer does not own the property. The Villages' employee is working for and being paid by the seller. They are acting as an agent and Florida law must be followed. Commissions paid are not secret. They are agreed upon in the contract, are included in a required good faith estimate, and itemized on the closing documents.

I've never bought a pre-owned home from a VLS Salesperson, but I believe that to be incorrect.

I believe the "Commission" on a VLS sale, as it appears on the HUD closing statement, is a "one line item" that shows only the total commission, that is paid to the VLS "Broker of Record". I doubt it is itemized, to show any sort of division of commission between different sales people.

Someone who's actually bought from a VLS agent would probably know that for sure.

The lawsuit has nothing to do with VLS. They don't deal with buyer's agents. How they deal with one VLS agent finding another VLS agent's listing I have no idea.

This lawsuit will complicate the buyer agent process. There will be no more buyer agent commission listed in an MLS listing. A buyer will have to sign a contract with their agent and the buyer will have to either pay the agent out of pocket or they will have to put in their offer some sort of compensation to the buyer agent.

This just makes the whole thing more complicated. Also, while it may benefit a seller, it hurts a buyer that may have now pay more. Probably going to see more offers with "cash back at closing" to cover the buyer paying their agent.

If VLS does not reduce their commission to 3% on pre owned homes, their listings will plummet. If the average pre owned home sells for $400,000 and VLS sells 3500 pre owned homes annually, this adds up to $84,000,000 in commissions at 6%. This law is long overdue and prevents double-dipping where the selling brokerage keeps the entire 6%, if they represent both sides of the transaction.
Consider the savings: A $400,000 home generates a $24,000 commission at 6%. I have never had a problem negotiating a 5% commission and this law will now allow me to pay only 2 1/2% to the listing agent. This would reduce the selling agent commission on a $400,000 home to $10,000 allowing the seller to pocket an extra $15,000.
I agree with the post that the seller may be asked to provide cash back to the buyer to compensate their agent but the seller has the option to agree, refuse or raise the price of the home by the cash-back amount.

The real problem, lawyers.

The real impact on our market will be when competitors reduce their commissions on their sales. The Villages Real Estate agency will only reduce their commission when they see their sales drop significantly. Interestingly, I sold a house we had in New Port Richey about 5 years ago and only paid 2% commission. The house sold within a week for cash.

It is interesting to see how this plays out in the long run. There’s lots of things that could happen. Buyer agent may offer a flat fee rather than commission.

The VLS thing is interesting too. If they now charge 6% commission on resales and MLS agents lower their commission to 3% then that would definitely incentivize VLS needing to compete.

How the MLS buyers agents get paid going forward will be interesting. No one works for free.

Correct. They don’t work for free and thus...may drive some (agents) from the profession

I’m not sure how this settlement benefits anyone.

In the real estate transactions I have had, the commission was 5%. I paid 5% whether the buyer had an agent or not.

When I was the buyer, I had an agent because it cost me nothing and was a huge convenience. But I am not going to pay a buyer’s agent thousands because I can do it myself and their service is not worth me paying over $10,000 on top of the price of the house.

It will be interesting to see how this shakes out but I don’t see who the winners are here. It doesn’t seem to be realtors for sure, or buyers, and sellers only benefit if the commission significantly drops.

There may be more to this than I can discern from reading the news articles.

You say it cost you nothing, but you paid the buyer's agent by paying for the house. The seller included the 5% in the price and their agent paid your agent from those proceeds. So it was all built in to the house price.

Going forward, will selling agents decrease their commission because they aren't paying a buyer's agent? Maybe, and maybe they will tell the sellers to plan on paying a buyers agent if the offer requires that. Maybe the seller agent lowers the commiss. to 3% and the buyer's agent is on their own. The buyer may have to offer less if they can't afford to pay their agent. If they don't have cash they will ask for cash back at closing. Lots of ways this could pan out and I think this result only makes everything more complicated.

At least in CT, I agreed to pay a 5% commission when I listed the house. It was standard, really not negotiable in most cases. If the buyer didn’t have an agent, the listing agent kept the entire commission. If there was a buyer’s agent, they split the commission. This all tended to balance itself out as most agents are agents for some buyers and agents for some sellers. A lot of realtors won’t let the seller’s and buyer’s agent come from the same agency as there is some kind of special rues around this.


I do not have a fluent understanding of all of this or the new rules that are going into play, so it will be interesting to see how this plays out, but one thing is for sure, if commissions come down, there is less money to be made and some realtors and agencies may not fare as well as before.

You're definitely correct. It will be interesting to see how it plays out for the buyer's agents. There does seem consensus on a few news stories on this that it will result in fewer agents. Can't be sure that will happen but certainly how they work commissions will change in some way.

A little levity here (since some readers will always frown on a bit of light hearted humor), But should all this happen can you imagine a person selling only one house every OTHER month trying to live on only 60K a year, or an agent who averages one per month trying to get by on 120K ?