The U.S. foreclosure rate held steady in July for the 17th consecutive month in July at 0.3% while the serious delinquency rate (90 days or more late) dropped to a 23-year low at 1%, according to new data from CoreLogic.
During July, 2.7% of all mortgages were in some stage of delinquency, down by 0.3% from one year earlier but also up by a mild 0.1% from June.
Idaho was the only state to see an annual uptick in its overall mortgage delinquency rate during July, albeit at a scant 0.1 percentage point. The states with the largest year-over-year delinquency declines were Alaska (0.9 percentage points) along with New York, Oklahoma and West Virginia (all 0.7 percentage points).
“Overall U.S. mortgage delinquencies remained near a record low in July, with the share of homes entering that status or progressing to later stages either unchanged or lower,” said Molly Boesel, principal economist for CoreLogic. “Since most borrowers have substantial amounts of home equity, those who have locked in low mortgage rates that do enter later stages of delinquency will most likely not experience foreclosures. And while home equity gains have slowed from their former rapid pace, CoreLogic projects that home price growth will pick up over the next year. Borrowers should continue to build equity over the coming months, even if at a more moderate rate.”
;
I have licensed in California since 1989 and my first involvement with a company was in fact Remax where I paid a flat fee aka: desk fee to be allowed to do what I wanted and negotiate how I wanted so long as reviewed by the broker that the terms Etc of the contracts were complied with under real estate laws, etc. By 1996 I had my own company as a licensed broker and I’m still an active license broker to this day I also am a lawyer and a licensed contractor since 1992. Meaning I’ve got a few years of experience under my belt in the real estate industry on a plethora of levels.
Although I don’t know all the details of the Remax class action suits but it seems to me the issue does NOT correlate to the numerous seemingly misfocused comments.
Although there are certainly exclusive buyer broker agreements that are just that for the buyers to pay their own broker however the byline of the article (the specifically narrowed focus, e.g., to the Seller’s financial exposure)
Having said that, the listing contract- which is exclusively with/from the sellers-, e.g., between the seller and their listing agent often at five or six percent of the selling price, e.g., CONTRACTED SELLING AGENT COMMISSION, emphasis on CONTRACTED. The listing agent can decide to OFFER a portion, usually half of THIER CONTRACTED COMMISSION, to solicited buyer’s agents to show they are listings as otherwise buyer’s agents have no incentive to do so they have to pay their bills send their kids to college pay car payments Etc like everybody else the thousands of licensed agents out there utilizing the multiple listing service won’t be bothered showing properties where they have no hope of getting a commission unless they have an exclusive buyer broker agreement with their own buyer to pay their fee. There are a variety of agreements that can be reached with the seller for example a seller may say specifically I’m going to contract with you listing agent for 6% but I definitely want you as part of that to Market and offer 3% to the buyer’s side they could also say things such as this I’m only going to offer you 3% in the listing contract if you decide to give a portion of that to buyers agents so be it but my maximum is 3%. They can further specify things such as this the commission the listing commission will be 6% with 3% offered to the buying side in marketing, but in the event YOU my listing agent find the buyer which requires and triggers another legal agreement that both buyer and seller sign agreeing that the listing agent will be dual ending the transaction meaning representing both buyer and seller because it gets very sticky about what can be said and what cannot be said to each of the other parties when only one agent is representing both called “dual agency”) a seller might specify in the contract in that such occasion the commission CONTRACT might specify in that eventuality that, unapproval of a dual agency that by the way is not required for either side to agree to, the total commission will be reduced from the full 6% to say 5%. Because more often than not it is a different agent that represents the buyer hence the reason listing agents offer commissions to the buying side from their contract important statement again, THEIR CONTRACT with the seller.
The brief overview of what these lawsuits consisted of implies that Remax conspired with NAR setting an ILLEGAL NON-NEGOTIABLE COMMISSION FLOOR thereby robbing sellers of WHAT IS LEGALLY REQUIRED, E.G., “NEGOTIATED COMMISSION”
This is basic contract law not about whether Jill the buyer paid the commission or Joe the seller paid the commission but that the sellers listing contracted commissions WERE ILLEGALLY MANDATED BY ReMax and NAR conspiracy/restraint of trade.
…my two cents from reading the byline.