[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]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

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]

Originally Posted by Plinker

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

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]

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

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:

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

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.

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

NAR killed the golden goose, by being greedy.

Originally Posted by SoCalGal

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]

Originally Posted by BrianL99

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]

Originally Posted by candacev

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]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

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]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

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?