Summary
The challenge for lawmakers, and those who enforce those laws, is that those reactions almost always include unintended consequences. When the Federal Court gave its final approval for NAR’s settlement of the Sitzer/Burnett case back in November, it sent shockwaves through the real estate industry.
There is no action without a reaction. That’s basic physics. This applies to all things, including government. The challenge for lawmakers, and those who enforce those laws, is that those reactions almost always include unintended consequences.
These unintended events can occur months or even years after the government takes action. They are very hard to predict.
If anyone has a good chance of seeing these unintended impacts before they occur, it’s the professionals working in the industry being regulated.
When the Federal Court gave its final approval for NAR’s settlement of the Sitzer/Burnett case back in November, it sent shockwaves through the real estate industry.
At the time, NAR’s then president Kevin Sears told Weekly Real Estate News, “The principles of transparency, competition and choice are core to the settlement agreement and empower real estate professionals and consumers to negotiate the services and compensation that work for them.”
In an effort to get ahead of the coming changes, we polled our subscriber base to find out what they expected the impacts of this settlement to be. We collected 1000 responses between March 14 and 20, 2025, from agents who had been on the job less than five years (6%), 10 or more years (79%), and everything in between (15%).
As you might expect, the vast majority (95%) saw this coming, saying they were aware of the settlement before we ran our story.
We asked how significantly respondents thought the settlement would impact their day-to-day operations. More than half thought the impacts would be very or extremely significant (66%).
Most expected the bulk of the impact to center on commission structures (53%), with only 12% expecting to see changes in listing practices. In early April, Zillow banned private listings from its platform, with Chief Industry Development Officer Errol Samuelson saying:
“When all buyers don’t have the same access to home listings — and are forced to navigate barriers, possible bias, and incomplete inventory – it undermines consumer trust and weakens the market.”
Zillow did not suggest their actions were related to the settlement. Within a week, Redfin followed suit in prohibiting private listings. Were these both unintended consequences of the NAR settlement?
Whether they are or not, the agents we surveyed were not happy with the terms of the settlement and so we don’t expect them to be thrilled by any of the downstream impacts, intended or not.
When asked, over 75% of respondents said they either somewhat disagreed (18%) or strongly disagreed (57%) with the terms of the settlement.
Even worse, most of the agents we surveyed said they believe the long-term effects on the real estate market would either be somewhat negative (42%) or very negative (42%). Only about 7% felt the impacts would be positive.
What do you think now? It’s been about 6 months. We’ve been seeing the impacts for some time. Let us know what you think in the comments, and keep your eyes open for our upcoming surveys to let your voices be heard.
I have been in the business for 55+years and this settlement is a disaster. To get clients to even think about, let alone signing an Agency Agreement before showing a house s a downright disaster.
Absolutely you are right.
Watch things change when it becomes a “buyer’s market”
I agree 1000% !!!
agree
Again more rules, more regulations which in the end will only hurt the consumers. I have been a real estate broker and member of the board since 1963. founder & president since we began in 1968. I have watched the continual increase in rules , regulations and expansion of all paperwork relating to any and all real estate transactions in the end my company has prospered however our customers and clients have never experienced a decrease or consistency in fees and costs, they have only increased. The boards decision to settle that ridiculous law suit is still questioned by many including yours truly.
I agree 100%. Clients get suspicious.
It’s hard to explain the Agency Agreement to the once you already worked with.
It is even worse when you are showing the rental property.
This NAR disaster was thrust upon the membership with no vote, no say and no way to get out of this monopoly that NAR has with the MLS.
Agree!
NAR sold us down the river.
I have been in the business for over 45 years and buyers do not want to sign anything .
Some top agents I know don’t even pull out the form till they are about to write an offer. It is a farce and has only hurt some sellers. 90% of the deals in my area are paying concessions to cover buyers agent’s.
This is like any other class action law suit
, the only winners are the attorneys.
The Buyer Agency agreement for one showing is a disaster.
Agree! I only have one 50 years as a licensee. The existence of NAR, State and local Boards is unlikely to exist in 5 years. Think Kodak, Sears and other entities that were King of the hill and refused to adapt to the new world. It’s a paradigm shift.
It makes it more difficult for the buyer. I also makes it more difficult for sellers. If they are not willing to pay both sides and buyers cannot pay their side the seller will lose the buyer
This is the biggest impact. I am currently dealing with this and it is causing stress on both sides.
Not true. it means the buyer has to pay for his own services. if he cannot afford it, he needs to look at lower priced houses. The NAR took advantage of sellers for decades with its business model.
Ah, but the buyer has ALWAYS paid for the commissions, in essence, because the buyer provides the transaction funds, be it all cash or through financing of some sort.
Exactly!!
[email protected]
I am a real estate agent and a mortgage loan originator. We have the expression buyer pays all. It’s a fact. If you are a realtor who understands what you’re doing, we’re on both sides of the aisle. For an agent to say NAR has been taking advantage of the sellers. I don’t get it. You never represent a buyer. You never went to closing and read the settlement papers. If we cannot explain what we’re doing in this field of course someone else will come with their assumptions and decide our future and that’s going on now.
If a buyer is paying for their down payment and closing costs 90% do not have the money to also pay an agent. It has nothing to do with price point. I’ve been an agent 23 years. The last 6 months have been stressful for everyone involved.
Zillow and their lawyers orchestrated this so they could take over the industry, which is hysterical, because the only industry they are in is extortion. They have not been to one house.
I have paid my dues to NAR for 51 years! Until we were thrown under the bus with this lawsuit I was proud to wear that NAR pin. It’s in the jewelry box with other things I will never wear…and if there was an alternative I would leave NAR in a nano second. NAR has never ran, owned or micro managed an MLS until now. Could it be because they hired a CEO who has never had a license?
Change is good, but hard for most to adapt, and adopt. That’s too bad, as there is a lot of good already coming out of this settlement. First is transparency. Buyer agents rarely had that convo with their buyer or anyone. And the notion that the seller can’t negotiate a commission that’s coming from their pocket is unreasonable beyond belief. I mean, why should a seller be held to paying anything without negotiating. Life is a negotiation.
Next are the quality, and deeper, convos with buyers today. It’s enjoyable to carve out 15-20 minutes to explain how real estate is done today. Things change and folks need to stay current. Even my seasoned customers enjoy the convo – mainly because it never took place in the past. So they find to “buyer presentation” convo engaging and refreshing.
I’m saddened by agents who are having a hard time with this change. It sure didn’t take much to get their license (expense or education) and now all they do is complain. Shame on them. Lets weed them out!
John,
Great comments!
The seller and buyer commissions must be decoupled.
Sellers negotiate a fee to sell – buyers negotiate a fee to buy.
Intimidating your seller to offer a properly high buyer agent fee “or no one will show your property” is NOT a marketing skill. It is blackmail and bribery.
Place the buyer agent compensation your buyer agreed to pay you in the offer to purchase. Have some faith in yourself! Do not call the listing agent to ask the amount of the “bribe”.
Why the 20% of the agents who do 80% of the transactions do not support raising the bar of entry with this change requiring full disclosure and transparency is surprising.
The consumer has hundreds of ways to search for properties now that did not exist before. Agents that figure out how to operate in this environment will survive. Those that don’t – will get “weeded out “.
Path Forward, a cute way to hide your real identity. Explaining to a seller that an offer of compensation is bribery means you don’t understand much about real estate. How much extra thousands of dollars do you think first time homebuyers have to pay their agents? My guess is your no agent at all. The consumer has no more ways to search for properties than they did a year ago. Your comment is completely off base and without merit.
More transparent now, what planet are you on? And maybe you never had conversations on how real estate worked with your buyers, but plenty of us did. There’s nothing wrong with an MLS that states co-ops, that was completely out in the open. How many of your buyers have paid you already out of their pocket? I’m assuming most the way you are talking.
The seller had the right to negotiate the commission being paid upfront with the listing agent. The house will sell no matter what if it’s priced accordingly and the buyer is willing to pay the price. The commission did not dictate the sale of the house, the price and value of the house did. Terrible settlement
You hit the nail on the head, Al. NEVER did commission come into the price/value of a home when I represented the seller or the buyer. The home was valued for what it was worth and the commission amount had nothing at all to do with it. Many agents I’ve talked to say the same thing. NAR seems to be the only one with that thought process.
Unfortunately homes these days are way over-valued and the buyers are stepping back because of that. Who wants to get stuck paying a mortgage on a house that a few years ago was selling for half the price.
Kevin Sears sent an email recently telling all of us that we are “trending well” after the settlement. I would have answered your email, Mr. Sears, but you do not allow answers.
Mr. Sears, I have been selling real estate for 36 years and feel betrayed. You offer no training and no solutions on how to deal with this disastrous outcome. We, realtors, have always been transparent, morally correct, and fair to all parties, all while the likes of Zillow, etc., would market our hard-earned listings, steal our pictures, and our buyers. Now it’s ten times harder. The realtor’s name, which was already diluted when you gave it away to move.com and realtor.com, is now further eroded. NAR, you were created for us. You take our dues and do zero for us. Agree with the comments above.
Amen. Amen!
Yay Lisa!
Yes, Lisa! Spot on!!!
I have been in the business since 1977 and totally Agree! If you are a Realtor in California, who pays the commission has always been negotiable and is very clear in our listing agreement.
Well put Lisa – exactly my thoughts since this happened.
Agree!
The NAR was supposed to fight for us. They collect dues from so many of us and all they did was bend over and settle. A few people benefited greatly, and the rest of us and the industry, was thrown into the toilet. The industry in Fl. was running like a top. It was not broke, and now we are…thanks NAR
I am in total agreement with you.
The law firms figured out how to make a fast book that’s the bottom line and the rest is BS Same with Louisiana’s lack of courage to have tort reforms relative to automobile accidents and related insurance increases. Every other television commercial is a freaking attorney.
I think the buyers will be more negatively impacted by the settlement than the sellers or agents. The sellers may save a few dollars in some cases on commissions, but did they get the best service agent to represent them? Good agents will always get paid what they are worth.
In truth, didn’t NAR do little to fight the situation which held little merit – transparency has always been a key element in interactions between buyers and sellers and the awareness of compensation from sellers was no secret or dis-service to sellers. Wasn’t it factored into the dynamics in play?
In retrospect, didn’t NAR throw the agents under the bus and repeatedly run them/us
over …
With a steam roller… !
It is BAD for the industry. Short term and long term. Commissions are coming down. Extra work for less pay. Agents have to spend time finding out what if any commission is offered to a buyer’s agent. Agents have to spend time explaining to buyers why they have to sign an agreement before a property can be shown. We have had to explain agency relationships to buyers for my entire 30+ year career as soon as we could. Changing the rules for an entire industry because of a few inexperienced or unethical or uninformed agent’s actions is ridiculous. Properly explaining the VALUE of a buyer’s agent to a seller would have solved the problem and likely avoided the lawsuit entirely from my perspective.
Right on!
Didn’t the sellers know what they committing to when they signed the listing agreement?
THE MAJOR PROBLEM IN REAL ESTATE IS THAT INTEREST RATES ARE TO HIGH, AND ALL THE OTHER FACTORS DON’T MAKE A LOT OF DIFFERENCE. SELLERS WERE PAYING A LOT OF MONEY TO SELL THERE PROPERTY WITH LOW INTEREST RATES DURING THE SETTLEMENT TIME FRAME. REALTORS NEED TO DO ABOUT 100 THINGS FOR A SUCCESSFUL SALE, AND SHOULD BE PART COMPENSATED UP FRONT, WEATHER THE PROPERTY SELLS OR NOT BECAUSE THERE ARE EXPENSES AND TIME INVOLVED PERIOD.
I feel completely betrayed by the unforgivable lapse in representation. NAR is basically a trade union. What happened to getting the best attorneys to represent those of us who have always followed the rules and been transparent, ethical and fair???!!! What a cluster.
What happened to disclosure on the part of NAR to the membership and collecting opinions on how to proceed with the feeble sham of a lawsuit prior to capitulation. The outcome was preposterous and again, unforgivable. Broker’s license over 40 years.
The settlement was a disaster and asking buyers you’ve never met to sign a Buyer Broker Agreement makes no sense! Wish we had an option to jump ship on NAR! Not sure who or what they represent – but not my brand of Real Estate!
I’m sending all my clients to Homes.com. No more Zillow, no more realtor.com. What a great app— and their CEO seems to be one of the few that understand that agents , who supply the data and images to the syndicates at their own expense, should have control over their data. The app even has data layers that can be turned on and off for buyers to see details of the community that is important to them.
Why should the seller care one iota about what the MLS “split” is? NAR got played by a smart group of attorneys that knew the association would avoid all legal publicity . As a result we have been left with a confused clientele and each of us having to explain a very complex situation now in every transaction wherein we sound like neophytes to our clients. They have broken a perfect business model and fomented distrust amongst all our members. The remaining members should consider action towards the incompetent “leaders and legal team” that folded like a circus tent and caused this unnecessary catastrophe.
I totally agree with youI’m
Mike- Your take is 100% correct. NAR should have sued Zillow (and CoStar/LoopNet) for intellectual property theft right at the beginning of Zillow’s reign of terror in our industry. Our weak NAR leadership folded, period. Did not fight it all the way to SCOTUS (if needed) like it should have. I’ve been a commercial REALTOR in PA for 40 years and have, since day one, always explained the commission split to each of my clients. Never had one complaint about fees.
agree. attorneys took advantage of the wording in NAR bylaws.
our leaders got sold on fear. fear of costly defense lawyer fees.
settlement was too high. weakens the association favors the online platforms. they have fewer rules.
shameful.
I’ve been an Agent in SW Michigan for 27 years. I don’t see the new law has changed much at all, really. Commission and Commission Splits were always a “fill in the blank” on listing and selling documents. They still are today. Not putting the commission on the MLS has only made it a bit inconvenient for buyer’s agents. Now I can call listing agents to find out the compensation offered. I have not had a seller’s agent refuse to tell me a compensation offered yet.
Prior to 2006, commissions were “typically around” 7%, “with typically around a 3.5% / 3.5% split”. These figures were not carved in stone. Sellers were always able to offer any compensation they chose. Since 2006 commissions were “typically around 6% with typically around a 3% / 3%” split”. Sellers were free to choose any compensation they chose to offer prior to 08/17/2024 and they still are today. Today, we don’t know the compensation offered “until we ask the listing agent” so it’s more inconvenient for buyer’s agents.
When the law went into effect on 08/17/24, I called listing agents to learn the compensation offered. After a couple weeks I realized, as I predicted, almost nothing changed. It seems sellers “are typically choosing to list competitively with around 6% listing commission, with around a 3% / 3% compensation split”. Sellers still want to get their homes sold and see the value of their seller agents and also paying buyer’s agents to bring them buyer’s offers. I’ve stopped calling listing agents to learn compensation offered.
Now we have to sign a buyer to a buyer agency contract, to show them homes. Most of us were doing this anyway, prior to 08/17/24 or should have been. Today, if a buyer is hesitant about signing a buyer agency contract, I sign them to a 1 day contract. It’s been no problem. When I look at homes a second time with them, it’s easy to sign a typical buyer agent agreement with them.
From 2006 to 08/17/24, I was typically working for “3%ish on average” and since 08/17/24 I’ve been working for “3%ish on average”. I think it was all a worthless waste of time and our money. That being said, I don’t see it has cost me 1 house sale or cost me any $$. It’s just more inconvenient today for no benefit at all to buyers nor sellers, that I see. I know that SW Michigan may not a reflection of what’s going on throughout the country. This is just my story today. The new law is not nearly as much of a problem as interest rates.
NAR Members had NO input, no discussions, no vote when the Sell Out “Settlement” was done. Why would ANY Professional Organization ever not involve their members when it affects their entire careers?! The Buyers suffer, the Buyers Agents suffer, the Sellers and Listing Agents don’t care. Such a travesty!
I agree with Brian 100 % and also with all the others that have illustrated the Disaster and Betrayal NAR is guilty of creating to us realtors with the acceptance of the settlement.
HOW DARE THEY???? They sold us out, everything was working fine and smooth and they had no backbone and unnecessarily complicated matters !!
Nothing was broken to fix!!!
Gangster crooks messing with our livelihood and our INCOME!!!! NAR EQUALS
Spineless Coward Traitors!!!
…..All because a tech start-up guy, (Sitzer), wanted to do his Real Estate tech start-up, and needed the cash to get started. NAR caved/was played.
Being a R.E. Broker for so many years, I have yet to meet and agent or a broker that is NOT resentful toward this “Forced” membership in the NAR, State and local associations.
Everyone stated they are only belonging there to gain access to MLS.
Even after the big article in the New York Times on Nov.18, 2024 and then commented on it in the Real Estate Daily on Now. 19th about the corruption and money spending at NAR, nothing is done. I heard someone saying real estate brokers are like a sheeple, they just pay, pay, pay and don’t dare to say a word.
When do we get the Freedom from NAR? We already have a State Licensing Agency for licensing and regulations, why do we need NAR?
In the age of Internet and computers, when we ask people to sign the Agency Agreement, they look at us as we are crazies, asking us what kind of scam are we trying to pull on them!
This is really bad. Buyers barely have money for downpayment and closing costs. Now adding the commission to deal with is bad. The buyer’s agent has to ask the listing agent if the seller is willing to pay commission, if not, then the buyer goes to another house. LOL
This could have been settled in 2019 when the suit was first introduced. I have to say, and being in the biz since 1985, I have no problem with the transparency. Buyers and sellers are not stupid and they need to know their costs. However, I also think that the this is a subtle form of redlining to those buyers (FHA & VA recipients) who can not afford paying Realtor fees.
Nonetheless, the agents that can weather the storm of change are those that are master negotiators, representing their clients in their best light.
As far as NAR, unless you’re part of their inside club, you are on the outside allowing them to do what they want for themselves, not for their members. It is indicative of what all politics are these days.
I was on the leadership committee several years ago, very active, but not a yes-man. I questioned or came up with ideas that were out of the norm, because I cared about our profession, it was shunned and I was subtly ousted. I still teach pre-licensing and CE as I want to pay it forward for my mentors, but I will never hold back to let future agents and also, those going for their Brokers license as well, what our business truly is.
There has been leadership changes in NAR recently because they finally can see beyond their noses as we as their constitutes are not letting leadership get away with what they had. Nonetheless, NAR is threatened by Zillow, et al, and better keep up as they are being left behind.
Do you sign a buyer agency agreement with a car salesman? an appliance salesman? an insurance salesman? They all earn commission. Courts should not have authority over common sense, as we are learning every day.
Steven
All of the salespersons you listed above are paid by the companies that are providing the product that the consumer is buying and every consumer understands that the salesperson is an “selling agent” for that company. They do not represent you!
You want an agent to represent you to buy their product, refrigerator, car, insurance – you are free to hire one at a rate you are willing to pay them.
A selling agent setting your buyers agent fee – with no opportunity for you as the buyer to negotiate that fee – no matter what the product is – as happens in real estate is so wrong.
Wrong again Path Forward, you could always negotiate a buyer co-op, and I have before the settlement as well as after the settlement. Making a buyer sign a showing agreement or a buyer broker agreement to show one property is dumb, again, more evidence this is a troll and not a “real” real estate agent.
Good example
NAR caved and lacks a spine. This is much ado about nothing other than a handful of mid westerners with little faith in thier own sales ability. Who was not able to ever say we charge x % and move from there? The addtional need to sign before a showing is equivalent to signing a prenup.
I am a retired CPA and a 30-yr real estate broker. These are the facts.: 1. The Listing agreement sets the total commission. 2. Money flows from seller’s side of the settlement sheet. 3. Economic reality: the buyer still funds it.
Bottom line: Who ultimately bears the cost? Virtually always the buyer, whether through the home price (old system) or by paying their agent directly (new system).
As long as I have been in real estate the commission and split have always been negotiable and the seller realizes that the co-op is an inducement to buyers’ agents to show the property. Either way, the buyer is the only one bringing any money to the table!
Bad attempt at fixing something that was not really broken!
William,
I appreciate how you laid out the economic reality of who pays the cost related to the typical real estate transaction in three short very easy to understand points.
As you have correctly stated the buyer is the party bringing the money and ultimately “bears the costs”.
However – because the listing agent sets the total Commision (negotiated with the seller -old system) the buyer NEVER got to negotiate the fee THEY actually are paying to their own buyers agent.
The “Old” system is broken.
The sellers got their day in court for being forced to increase the sale price of their properties (to offer an appropriately higher buyer agent fee to incentivize agents to show their properties).
With the dollar amount of real estate transactions and the commissions paid across the US – and – the financial success the attorneys had with the class action law suite brought by the sellers – a class action lawsuit presented by buyers (as you rightly point out, the buyer IS the one ultimately paying) could very well be next.
If realtors do not de-couple the commission structure themselves, it could be very financially painful for NAR a second time.
Attorneys will do what they do.
Blood is now in the water.
Contrary to all the comments out there posted by agents that “NAR threw us all under the bus” – you, as a member of NAR do not get to vote on a trial settlement of 1.8 billion.
Continuing to call the listing agent to ask “what is your seller offering” and not negotiating your fee as a buyers agent with your buyer could end badly.
Submit your buyers agent fee with your offer……
No, I’m not a troll.
Licensed real estate agent since 1980.
Being licensed since 1980 doesn’t increase your intelligence, the reality is you’re part of the minority in this equation which is clear from the feedback you continue to receive via this thread. While I have not had issues, 99% of my clients have communicated to me that they preferred the process pre-lawsuit PERIOD!!! Ultimately, they all feel less impacted by commissions all around and prefer to COLLECT less money at a closing, rather than shell out more money while purchasing end of story. The agents in this thread all have every right to be turned off by the NAR, just another bureaucracy whose fees continues to balloon and increase while providing absolutely nothing useful beneficial to us as agents, on the contrary to add insult to injury they in turn sell our information for even more profit to a multitude of other companies so that I can have the privilege of having my mobile phone inundated with solicitation calls for every product under the sun!! Extremely beneficial for sure, in reality the lawsuit simply reinforced what most of us had concluded years ago, just another worthless tax and additional expense we’re required to pay in order to earn a living….SMH
The NAR settlement has reduced transparency, not improved it. It
has damaged the contract to buy and sell real estate in many, if not all, regions of the US ( a contract should be between a buyer and seller, and now the agent is inserted into the contract). Sure, there may be a statement that agent compensation is NOT part of the contract… yet there it is, and it becomes a point of negotiation before a contract is signed. The only good that may come from this is lower commissions (be honest, our commission structure has been shameful for decades… since automation, less work for the agent, same usury fees. Buyers literally pre screen all the homes and give US a list… not like pre-internet). The entire industry should be flat fee, just like most reputable industries. The other good could be the end of NAR and the rise of legitimate competitors to their defacto monopoly.
As a full time working agent in Northern California the settlement has benefited our more expensive property owners a little, but made life much more difficult for our first time home buyers. Too much regulation for regulations own sake.
If every sales professional would not accept a listing unless the seller would pay enough commission to cover the buyers agent’s commission, then sellers around the country would have no choice. Plain and simple. But, I realize that some/most listing agents don’t care as long as they get paid…I find that very selfish of the ones that do this.
40 years, 1000s of transactions, and the basic tenets of this “settlement” were adhjucated in the historic Edina Realty suit decades ago. Many of us ( also one of 5 largest companies in the country at the time of Edina Realty suit) were incorporating agency/compensation disclosures prior to this suit and the subsequent adaptations made soon after by most of the country! Effectively, this latest action only generated 100s of millions in legal fees and obfuscated the rights and expectations for both buyers and sellers. The vast majority of sales occur near median price and has always been a challenge for buyers to amass funds to close, move, furnish, and have a cushion. The expectation that representation fees are an additional burden ( often equaling down payment) serves neither buyer or seller. If the goal was to further shrink home ownership, mission accomplished! We now have seen a preponderance of corporate purchasers ( some records indicate 25%+) converting to rentals at much higher than ownership costs without the benefits of tax treatment, historic equity gain, and a fixed payment and right of continued occupancy. Meanwhile an extraordinary level of confusion prevails and buyers, especially, are unwilling to sign any form of paperwork ( even non contractual disclosures) and agents have added obstacles to even make a showing appointment ( to know not only their remuneration, but also how a buyer may be impacted) with the resulting non, or nominal compensation listings having far fewer showings ( other than wholesale buyers and aforementioned corporations). Debating who has paid the brokerage fees is pointless. Homes sell for where there is a meeting of minds between buyers and sellers ( normally defined as “market value”) and buyers and sellers net proceeds or acquisition costs are fee related in the exact same way as all closing costs, deferred maintenance or repair items. They all limit the potential buyer pool while ultimately coming from the proceeds of a market value purchase. The NAR has become a self serving bureaucracy spending dues revenue like the most inefficient of government’s sometimes wasteful ( and self serving) spending. When the largest on line presences generate most of their profits by selling leads generated by lister content and then NAR sells Realtor.com, it becomes clear they don’t represent agents or consumers. Where the lister is supposed to be prominent in display, it is often not the case and instead there is far more prominent “area expert” ( a designation earned by payment). Transparency and disclosure are defining aspects of the Realtor Code of Ethics, Standards of Practice and most Commerce Department laws. This latest action fails to accomplish this.
Our MLS disassociated itself from NAR in 2014. We decoupled commissions then. We have been getting an agency agreement signed before showing homes for 20+ years due to being in South Carolina. We are an agency state. The settlement changed to nothing for us. It’s really all how you present it to the consumer. It’s really not a bad deal. It is the new normal. We need to just move on.
I have been selling real estate for 15 years in Southern California. My family has been in real estate for over 40 years. I have watched NAR/MLS sell realtors out for decades. First it was the syndication to Zillow, Realtor.com etc. Then we implemented “Coming Soon” status which was supposed to give realtors a jump on all the other platforms…. well that lasted about 3 weeks. Now we cannot even list in the MLS the already negotiated compensation!
It seems that all we ever do is put on bright smiling faces and keep finding ways to work around the messes that greedy people keep making for us. NAR is useless. Wonder what would happen if we just paid our local board and state dues and eliminated paying any dues to NAR!
NAR just needs to be decoupled.
Zillow, Redfin and sites like Flyhomes are all gearing up to sell and finance homes directly with the public. When buyers learn they need to sign a contract with you to see a home, and agree to your commission, they are going to prefer to go direct online. So thanks NAR for putting buyer agents out of business. Listing agents are threatened as well since these sites will offer all services.
This settlement reduced transparency to home buyers. It makes no sense to essentially hide buyer brokerage compensation from agents and their clients. The extra level of explanation to buyers and sellers and phone calls to co-op agents to verify buyer brokerage on behalf of buyers is confusing to clients. Previously listing buyer brokerage compensation was more efficient and transparent. My clients do not approve of “hiding” compensation that they may be required to pay.