Please see Florida Statute that is in post 62

Incorrect
 

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.

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.

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".

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

Statutes & Constitution
:View Statutes
:

Online Sunshine

Please show where I am wrong?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Correct.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!

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.

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.

Just eliminate agents
 

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

That isn't True
 

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.

Agent
 

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.

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.