Instead of worrying about a few thousand dollars in commission. They should take to court the healthcare system which charges hundreds of thousands of dollars to people.
In reality the big issue with this law suit is the violation of the Sherman antitrust law that prohibits RE companies from standardization of commissions. Most realtors belonging to these companies being sued tell the public that 6% is the “standard “ commission, and when they say that they are breaking the law. Idk about other states but here in Florida when you do a listing agreement with a seller you tell them what is your side of the commission as a listing agent and that can be a % or $ amount and you tell them they can CHOOSE what to offer a cooperating broker or buyer’s agent and that the amount offered to that agent can be anything besides zero and can also be a % or $ amount. I run a company in which we have the 1% listing commission model and the seller can choose what to offer a buyer’s agent, and for 6.5 years have had MASSIVE SUCCESS with this model. Usually sellers choose to offer somewhere between 2-3% to the buyer’s agent which reduces the commission dramatically. I get a lot of hate from the big corporations but I don’t care they don’t pay my bills, the sellers do, and they love my business model. Something to think about colleagues;)
Personally I'd really love to own real estate properties as well as REITs, I've been informed of people making as much as $30,000 from these investments and If anyone could be lenient enough to share, I'd really love clue and tips on how to maximize profit
@Dr Vlad Thanks for sharing, just looked up on google and I'm super impressed with her credentials. I dropped an email on her webpage and hope she replies soon
Sounds like the buyers would get screwed and sellers would be getting sued. I worked with a seller who, without a buyer side agent would have thought they could get away selling a home with material defects not getting disclosed.
Buyers should pay separately for buyer representation and then they will no longer get to abuse the time of buyers agents. I think all of this is great
Now that would be the change. Buyer pay for their own representation, separately. IF they have the money-maybe it should be! But Biden's gang want us to be happy, "own nothing and be happy". It is yet another way to destroy America.
The buyers are simply going to roll their fee into the price. Additional term:”2.5% commission to buyers agent Included in price.” Basically nothing changes but paperwork.
Another thing to think about. When I work as a dual facilitator I have a variable commission rate. Since I have to work with both the buyer and the seller I negotiate a little more. For example, I usually negotiate a 5-6% commission and offer half to whoever brings the buyer. However, if I procure the buyer I usually negotiate a 3.5-4% rate to work both sides of the transaction, so I don't think commissions will be cut directly in half if this case wins.
The entire premise of the MLS would be changed. To sell each other's listings- is as a must now - and a lot of fighting and devious ways to get around that.
This could make listing agents jobs that much harder. Cash strapped buyers won’t hire and agent and you are stuck dealing with an over emotional, unrepresented person.
Do these Sellers forget that a lot of times, when they sell a home, they turn around and buy another one. So they go from having all the representation to NO representation. So how soon before they start lawsuits for not having representation as a buyer and we are back to square one.. How about a move toward Flat Fee Transaction Coordinators that represent neither side. Both sides pay equally and TC acts as mediator if there are any disagreements. You can't ethically represent both sides. So we either need to have separate representation or no one gets representation. Otherwise one side gets screwed one way or the other.
In Australia what I have been told they don’t have a mls system like we do. If a any agent wants to see a property they have to call that brokerage to see what they have. It like pocket listings.
But why would that guarantee the commission paid by the seller gets cut in half ? The listing agreement can still say 5-6% it just doesn’t get split. & there would be more reason to since the listing agent’s business will likely decline due to no buyer transactions as well so there will be more need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere
This is a total nightmare! 90% of my business are Buyers and 70% of my clients are spanish speaking, my clients rely so much on me to guide them every step of the way and are grateful that I help represent them as a Buyers Agent! This lawsuit would be life changing for my business and family! Omg!! What a great way to start my day!
Appreciate this. It’s obvious your not an owner and have the responsibility of many agents. The litigation cases would go through the roof. Representation is everything in today’s world. People want to know 100% in a transaction that, in most cases, is the largest in their lives, that someone is in their corner. My 32 years, 17 as a agent, 15 as owner, allows me to have many different views of this. Thank you again for sharing.
I think this would open up the listing agent to get sued. I remember I was helping a buyer buy a Fsbo home and got an amazing deal. Later that seller was telling everyone that I took advantage of him because I didn’t let him know that he could sell his home for more money. I wasn’t representing him and he set the price. I just think it will be a lot of lawsuits. Another I don’t understand how the government will be able to say the commission will only be 3% I thought commission is completely negotiable
It’s been like this before. Buyers were called customers and not clients and real estate agents from other offices who brought buyers to the listing were sub agents of the listing broker and also worked for the seller. Change is constant. No need to fear.
IMO both sides of the transaction need regulated, ethical representation the way it is now. I don't mind buyer and seller contributing to commission costs. Also, less agents/brokerages might mean increased agent costs such as MLS, dues, desk fees, etc. Who knows, honestly.
We are not a "seller" agent. We are LISTING agents. We list the house, market the house, and sometimes bring the buyer as well. The word seller applies to the people who own the home, not to the agent in MOST cases.
What I would like research on is how many of those buyer in Australia and other countries had buyer's remorse because issues were not disclosed with properties. I see a lot more listing agents & sellers in court for taking advantage of buyers.
@@abcde_pe9ct You're right we do. But I can tell you that I have come across some not so ethical agents in my years. A lot of us do the right thing but sadly a lot will also do whatever to get a closing.
95% of consumers dont understand a real estate transaction and would be doing theirselves a big disservice by not having representation. The other 5% are savvy enough probably buy or sell a house on their own but wont. Many savvy consumers have come to me and told me they dont believe in dual agency because they need someone on their side. This would basically create an industry of dual agency, which is horrible for the consumer. Unless buyers become receptive to paying their own commissions at closing, which will be difficult for many first time buyers. Either way, always be ready to evolve and you'll be fine
when he talks about lead gen companies - theres also all the RE companies that rely on buyer agents. RE CRM/Website/etc could possibly go under as well
The issue lies not in paying 6%, but in the daunting challenge of confronting such a high commission. This is primarily because no buyer's agent appears willing to act in good faith and genuinely advocate for a sale unless they receive their 3% cut. It epitomizes greed at its best, and unfortunately, it comes at the cost of the seller.
I agree with everything you said regarding the Impact, EXCEPT for this one point regarding the sites that sell and market agents to supply buyer leads. I'd love to get your opinion on this (and anyone else that has been in the business for a while and has survived different markets). MY thoughts are this- I think if this will go through, SOME leads sites will go out of business overnight, BUT the big sites like Zillow who are already became a "broker" will try to offer Sellers to list their homes with Zillow at a reduced commission and they have very deep pockets to advertise this on tv, radio etc.. They will totally misrepresent the role and benefits of having a Listing Agent and it will be NAR's SOLE JOB to educate the public on the benefits of hiring a local expert. Shits going to hit the fan and my opinion is that its not going to be as good as we'd like it to be for listing agents either.
And the full commission is justified. The listing agent will just do all of the work and not pay a buyers agent. The buyer will loose out because he will not have his own representation and if they do hire a buyers agent, the listing agent still keep her fee because it’s already negotiated.
Absolutely nothing justifies the full commission of 6% of a listing agent if a buyers agent is not involved. If anything it may force the listing agents to take less listings which in turn I see as a win because it will ensure that the services they are “selling” are actually provided. I handle closings and I can’t tell you how many times I have a realtor that once they get the contract signed they only care about when they can get their check instead of finishing the work needed to get to closing.
Impact won’t be great on listing agents? HELL NO! Every buyer’s agent in the market would turn heel and go towards listings and the entire market would be oversaturated with listing agents. Everyone will be paid way less
Maybe the MLS will go away and people can just search for homes the best way they can and maybe NAR won't be necessary since now that buyer's agents are eliminated the consumer is protected by the listing agent and maybe they'll still get 6% and maybe there won't be a need for buyer's agents or anyone to show 30+ homes to one consumer and another kind of business will come out of this where buyer's agents don't feel used and everybody profits. Maybe
I must be missing something in lawsuit, from my understanding the mls commissions is a agreement from broker to broker the split does not half to be equal. At the listing the seller and agent determine what they will offer out of the total commission to a buyer agent I have seen this to be as low as $1 which is usually an entry mls listing and what happens to those listings?
Just a thought. 4% commission charged by listing broker. 1% to a sales agent in the same office to represent the buyer in the transaction if the listing agent procures the buyer. Possibly on a rotating basis. Maybe that eliminates the anti trust component.
Nope. As a home buyer, I want to negotiate a rate with my agent. When you purchased your car, you negotiated a price with your salesman. It should be no different, for a transaction between a home buyer and his agent. Your industry's current scheme is illegal, and has allowed you to charge about double a market based rate (based on other countries real estate agent fees, that don't have a corrupt, rigged system).
So...you think all of the LISTING agents are going to be HAPPY about being turned into a BUYER'S AGENT on top of what they already do? Listing agents list homes because they enjoy doing that PART of the business. This would completely change the daily functions of every listing agent and turn them into a DUAL agent. I'm not sure Listing Agents will be happy about this? I enjoy being a Buyer's Agent. I choose it over being a "listing agent" because the type of work suits my skills better. If this happens....I and many others will leave the business and this is going to cause major ECONOMIC HAVOCK in the USA.
Well what if you worked exclusively as a designated buyers rep in your brokerage and sold your services as such? For instance, you charge a 1% commission to a listing agent to represent the buyer as a designated agent while the broker remains the dual agent. You don’t have to show the home, or take buyers looking, or set searches up. You simply construct an offer based on the buyer’s desires and guide them through the buying process once they get u/c. Does that sound idiotic? Serious question
Hi Brandon, this question has nothing to do with this actual video (great insight btw, thank you for this). Which do you believe is more of a priority with expired listings, those that have expired as recently as today or calling expireds a few weeks to a month back? Why? I ask because most often when I call an expired listing that just expired the response is either: 1. it's going on the market in a couple days / week 2. We received an offer 3. It's under contract Most often when I call an expired listing that's been expired for a few weeks or a few months it seems like RedX and their system filter out most of the properties that have actually sold. I would love to know your thoughts on this. Thank you
legally I don't believe it will stand. Representation is key for both buyer and seller. You Arnt buying a candy from the store, you are borrowing a very large sum of money to purchase. litigation is already very easy to come by in this profession. The industry seems to emphasis discloser more than ever. Taking a buyer's agent out of the picture goes against that concept in my opinion. If they did take out the buyer's agent, perhaps they would replace it with something new. Either way I can see California saying, "Eh were ok". Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't California do that with the real estate transfer tax?
The buyer ultimately “pays” for all of the commissions… they get the loan to purchase the property…which includes all of the commissions because they are included in the price of the property. Am I wrong?
I see what you’re saying but it’s not totally accurate. Commissions have nothing to do with sales price. Sellers don’t lower their price when there are no agents involved. The seller just nets less money when agents are involved as a result of the seller paying for the commissions. The buyer agrees to the sales price regardless of commissions, make sense?
@@mistywatkins7617 well, if you're a member of a MLS....you are REQUIRED to offer some kind of "share" to the Buyer's agent...even if it's only $1.00. But as we all know by tradition it's 1/2 of the total commission.
I don't feel as though this is helpful for the real estate industry or the economy. As you said, the agents will thin, and that presents problems you've already mentioned. The largest impact comes from less money in circulation. A home is usually a consumer's largest purchase by far. After that, they tend to not rack up as many expenses. So with half of the commissions not being dealt out, the economy isn't stimulated in the same way. Leading to less spending on whatever buyer agents would usually spend on and not mentioning the slow down of buyer driven brokerages spending on office expenses
I can see how it would be better for the seller but I don’t believe it’s better for the buyer like you mentioned. Especially for first time home buyers… Think about how vulnerable they now are and the likely hood of them getting cold feet goes exponentially up. I do like the fact that the barrier of entry would be higher and it would weed out a lot of agents but I also believe that what makes this industry so unique and rewarding is when you’ve achieved success and built a sustainable business knowing there’s so many other realtors that fail. Why change something that I believe the majority of people don’t have a problem with?? Thanks for the video Brandon! I was unaware of this!
The commission should never even be discussed in public. The industry really screwed up by having this topic, so front and center; here is why. First, do you know what commission % is made off you from any business you currently do business with? For example, your dentist, the furniture store you buy your furniture from, the government services, the grocery store, the gym, the attorney you hire, and the restaurants you eat at. I could keep giving examples, but the point is made. We do business with businesses we feel we get the best service, quality, and value, and if we don't believe a company is delivering that, we go to the next. We do not open a business door or call them by phone and ask what is the % of the commission they will be charging me. Because the industry has taken that to some extent away from the consumer, I believe a lot of people have been taught the amount of commission is what you should focus on when selling a home. The commission should be discussed and DECIDED between agent and seller. If the seller does not think an agent is worth the commission amount, they can find another realtor to interview; we are everywhere!!!!! Hell, just walk out your door a scream, I want to sell my house. I am sure ten agents will be there in seconds. As a seasoned agent, that is not the most crucial factor in selling real estate or any other product. There are plenty of studies that have found that most people do not buy on price regardless of what they are buying. Another topic people don't talk about is that a gross commission amount doesn't represent what an agent makes on that deal. They do not have an employer paying for their business supplies, vehicles, insurance, gas, taxes, marketing materials, and other items and systems that cost money to run your business. We even have broker fees! This part of the commission conversation is never talked about, it's just what gross commission they made from the sale.
Say what you want but paying $50,000 for the sale of an average Toronto home that will sell in a matter of days is far too much money. This industry needs a huge shake up and flat rate brokerages Will soon be the way to go much like Questrade it to the financial world.The amount of money paid to sell home simply cannot be justified
It has never made sense to me for the seller to pay the buyer's agent a commission to negotiate against them. If buyers want representation, they could just simply hire their own agent. The reason why the commission is the way it is currently is because NAR and the local MLSs benefit to have a large population of agents paying them money. This really has nothing to do with the benefit of the consumer.
@@LoveyB90 I think that a good idea would be to simply pay for the time or per house shown and representation. Does not need to be thousands and thousands of dollars. The entire house hunting process can be more efficient. When buyers pay nothing out of their pocket to see homes, they want to see EVERYTHING. When paying, they will narrow it down and truly pick what fits their criteria and what they can afford
Wouldn't an easy solution be to have a compensation disclosure on the listing agreement, like they do here in MN, which states how the sellers commission is going to be shared with a cooperating buyers broker, if applicable? Do other states not have this disclosure so sellers are surprised when they see the CD at closing?
A huge factor I feel needs more focus on this is the high possibility that less buyer's agents will also mean less buyers. If there are less buyers than the home price will drop and the overall net will drop. Thus worse for the sellers as well. If you reversed this to those countries with basically no buyer's agents I believe there is an argument that the homes in those countries would sell for a lot more if they had this system over there and had more buyer's agents. It is rare for a house with only one offer to sale for as much as if it had two or more.
I could see buyer brokers pushing buyer paid commissions so the buyer has the representation that should have. Many buyers don't truly understand that if they don't formally engage the agent "representing" them the agent's fiduciary responsibility is to the Seller since that is who is paying them ultimately.
No way this passes in the US. Buyers agents do so much for our clients to make sure they don’t get in a bad situation. Especially in this market imagine having to pay a buyers agent out of pocket to see houses and writing offers? 3 offers declined and every buyer is going to be out of some money and start getting discouraged. Not to mention this would take out literally 50% of business making a lot of people have to find a new career
Even though the common thing to do here is to have the seller pay the buyers agent through the commission split, in the actual case are they not considering the fact that the seller can negotiate if they want to pay the buyers agent or not from the beginning of negotiating the contracts?
Incredible Insight, you're truly brilliant. I'm not sure how I Feel about this. I don't believe it will go quite that far, but do believe there will be some drastic changes. With the majority of my business coming from Buyers, and only recently transitioning back to listing.. I may need your course
mmm what they should focus is not to add the commission on the sale price.. that's so illegal from the government part.. charging taxes on commission sales + taxes.. and without knowing it we, brokers, are government house increase protectors =P
Been 2.9-3.9% on first 400k then 2% after that forever here in New Zealand. Not many buyers agents around and the few that are get paid from the listing agent's fee. Agents that put in the work do well as always. Buyers definitely disadvantaged in the transaction compared to the seller. First home buyers against 30+ years experience. Great for sellers. There are some companies charging only 1.25% - but you can imagine the kind of job they do.
@@danielhouse1053 I hear what your saying mate, however if your agent can't even negotiate their commission - do you really want them negotiating the sale of your biggest asset? Just a thought:)
I’m curious why you think that buyer agents will disappear overnight? Wouldn’t then the buyer agent just negotiate their commission with the buyer? Just because the sell side doesn’t pay their commission doesn’t necessarily mean that there wouldn’t be a buyer agent correct?
Wouldn't it be the same thing? The seller needs a home to live (somewhere). They will eventually be buyers who will choose to pay a buyer's agent. They will still pay the 6% by the end of the transactions
@@nicolasstanley8622 EXACTLY! It’s always been too easy to get into Real Estate. Too many people doing it part time and without real commitment. So many ignorant agents who do not know how to operate a business.
Sigh....how in the world does everyone forget that what they are advocating for is EXACTLY why we have the system we have now?? Literally, buyers were being taken advantage of because they just went to the listing agent and got hosed. Sheer lunacy....
BA’s advertise to get buyers. Plus, buyers get advice and guidance on the home purchase. This will put a ton of pressure on sellers and LA’s on disclosure. It will increase level of suits against sellers and LA’s. I can’t see how this have any merits. Seller agrees contractually to the deal.
The only way this works is to have the inspection included on every home with that 3% to seller agent. Otherwise there will be a lot of homes that are in disrepair being sold as great homes
If I'm doing both sides I'm doing twice the work and I'm taking the full commission. Flip side, if theres only one agent, then the seller better take another 3% off the price. Why should the seller net more, if they're so concerned about the buyers?
As we also have no inspection, yes the listing agent has to be aware that he is paid by the sellers but have obligations towards the seller and the buyers. He is responsible for both sides in the transaction.
I can’t stand when buyer agents promote their services and tell their buyers/clients “it costs you nothing to hire me, because it’s coming out of the sellers side”…🙄🙄 These are the same agents that’s when getting a listing tell their “teams” before it hits market to try to hurry up and keep it in house…THAT IS NOT HELPING YOUR SELLER…THAT IS TRYING TO HELP YOURSELF!!! Let’s be honest, there are some really good and ethical agents and agencies.. but most only care about getting paid and nothing else. I hope there’s radical change and it thins the heard
The radical change that needs to happen is a fair rate for real estate services when selling your home. With Toronto prices hovering around $1 million how can paying $50,000 for a couple of days work be justified. This whole system needs an overhaul, people are paying way too much money
I disagree. I think the decision to remove buyer's agents will hurt everyone. How would buyer's find properties without access to the MLS through a buyer's agent? Who is out there telling buyers it's a good time to buy and providing education to the buyer side? Less eyeballs on properties = fewer offers. Fewer offers = lower offers. Lower offers = declining home prices and/or stagnating real estate values & longer timelines to sell homes. Many mortgage lenders rely heavily upon referrals from buyer agents. Removing buyer agents from the equation would kill many mortgage lending institutions, especially non-depository mortgage banking companies. Fewer options to choose from = higher odds of a monopoly and higher costs to consumers. Less buyer agents means consumers will only work with the banks that have the largest advertising budgets since banks would have to get in front of buyers somehow. Higher advertising budgets and less word of mouth through trusted advisors would result in increased costs and worse service to buyers. Huge mistake if buyer agents are cut out of the deal.
This is the perfect time for brandon to sell his services. If nar losses people will have to pivot and buy your product which to your defense is solid as fuck.
This is intresting. As a UK agent this is very much the normal thing for us. Listing agent does it all or employs a "accompanied viewing person" ( someone who opens a door to show the home and that's it) No buyers agents. But..... buying agents are starting to get some momentum over here in the UK. Not a huge amount but enough to see a change coming. I wonder if this lawsuit is successful it would put a stop to it growing over here. Chin up though guys. It could be worse, here in the UK average fees are 1.18%.
Hi Chris, how does that work in terms of writing the offer when an unrepresented buyer approaches the listing/seller's agent to buy a property? Does listing/seller's agent help buyer write the offer or is the buyer expected to write it themselves? How does the buyer negotiate for repairs, etc., once under contract?
@@daleshin I'm not sure on your offer process, but here we take an offer verbally from buyer, then negotiate on vendors behalf for best possible price/situation. Once agreed financial checks are conducted on buyer and both parties (seller/buyer) instruct conveyancers/solicitors to deal with the legal paperwork and checks. Should any negotiations take place for repairs, that is dealt by the agent. It's a laborious task with the time from buyer offer to handing over keys taking on average of 18 weeks. Lower commissions and longer trasaction times are a problem in the UK
I hope they have jobs planned for the millions of agents put out of business. I'm sure all the middle aged agents can just go work at Walmart. And for everyone saying start listing, really? So if everyone starts going after listings, how long do you think it will take for those new listing agents to start offering 1% listing fee to beat out those asking for 3%
As a home buyer I'm perfectly capable of driving myself to a home I'm interested in, and opening the door (if given a code). I'm also perfectly capable of communicating my offer price to the seller's agent. The seller's agent can stick that offer in a standardized contract. Done. I just saved myself 3% of $800,000? ($24,000). It ain't rocket science. First time home buyers may very well want to hire an agent. With today's corrupt scheme, however, the buyer can't negotiate a price with his agent. This is all a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
Your commission wasn’t cut in 1/2. You split 6% with the buying agent. So either way you’re still at 3% if you negotiate that. The seller should not have to pay a buying agent that doesn’t work for them.
I think teams could still survive. What if you have this - listing agent paid commission - showing specialist paid like an employee - transaction coordinator paid as employee Seperately in same brokerage: You have buyers rep that acts as designated agent for 1% commission. Job would essentially be only activities involved in representing the buyer’s best interest. No marketing; they get business more B to B rather than direct to consumer. Could become a referral based strategy for new business much like referring a lender or property inspector. Just spitballing.
This shouldn't have to change for the LA. We can still charge 5%/6% to the seller for our services of marketing to sell and procure a buyer. LA will just be keeping more of the commission.
As a home seller, I won't accept your 5%/6%. I'll find a LA that accepts my offer of 2.5%. Buyer's agents will no longer have an excuse to not show my home, since they will have already negotiated a fee with the buyer. Your current corrupt scheme is a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Your fees will drop by 50%, post lawsuit win. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
Even if this Federal lawsuit goes against the real estate side, it will ultimately end up at the Supreme Court and frankly, that seems like a relatively safe place for the real estate side to win. I don't understand why someone would think that removing an actual buyer-specific agent would automatically reduce a 6% commission to 3%. Now that the listing agent has to do way more work, you think they will be doing that work at a discount? I don't think so. I have a bigger problem with dual agency than the commission structure. Try going before a judge when they ask you who you represented and answering "both sides equally" and see if the judge goes for that line of bullshit. Dual agency is a way bigger liability than a lot of people talk about and removing buyer agents from the marketplace would turn most transactions into either dual-agency transactions OR, homebuyers now get screwed when the listing agent defaults to representing his true fiduciary responsibility; the seller. Let the buyer beware I guess
You're not understanding your industry's conspiracy against American homeowners. The following video does a good job of explaining it. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
@@danielhouse1053 Yes, with a lawsuit win, the residential real estate world will go through a major disruption (long overdue). Future generations will look back at this illegal scheme and say, 'that was bat shit crazy'. College students will learn about this monopoly breakup, along with the breakup of Standard Oil.
My question is, won’t the listing agent have to waste 30+ hours on showings per week? Some of my listings get 30-40 appointments right now with how crazy the market is. The buyers agents take them and schedule through ShowingTime. And that’s only on 1 listing imagine having 5 listings at once! Maybe we would have the homeowners do showings and we would only do open houses? I’ve only been in RE for a year so all I know is our current structure lol.
Is this were to happen, the value of open houses would come back which solves the points you’re making. Listing agents could hold their listings open a few times a week to get all the buyers through vs showing the house to one buyer at a time.
tbh..I think as a listing agent n this new scenario I may need a little bit more than what I am getting now.. if I have to show up at every one of my listings for every showing and also every inspection I may need to be compensated a bit higher since I will be doing more ..it will probably cut down on amount of listings you can have due to time constraints between showing my listings and being present for all inspections
This is literally your job already to do that….that is my expectation as a seller that you do this because of the amount I am already paying for your commission. This is why people get upset and say realtors are a scam because some are in for a quick buck and give the few a bad name
My perspective is that of course it’s better for the consumer in so many ways and there is the discrepancy, this is how you know it’s really about what’s coming next.
Zillow would take over, they would market heavy and just list homes and anyone trying to buy it will be very hard and the obstacles they would have to go through would be more than they have to now. Also if this is the case and it goes through wouldn’t the buyer agents be doing similar to wholesalers selling to their Investors? This is the end of the American dream period If this goes through it won’t happen immediately but for sure it will cut down on homebuyers. Your videos are great Brandon keep up the good work! #ReverseSelling
I believe this will increase the listing commission and make it more expensive. If people have been paying 6% for both buying and selling why won't it increase from 3% for just Listing? I believe there will be more unintended consequences that will explode.
What's next lender turns to buyer's agent? Consumer protection? I mean aren't home values 3ish % higher because the market pays 3ish % to buyers agents? This would have little effect on sellers yet so much effect to millions of workers. Millions of businesses. Millions of buyers. What, a 10-20 % increase in your homes value last year wasn't enough, let's just move time forward a year and give you an extra 3% as if you were even able to get that extra 3% buy selling yourself. NO BUYERS AGENT could mean worse buyer's. These buyer's agents bring ready willing and able buyers the second the home is listed. Wouldn't it naturally make sense to give out a bounty for a buyer. Bring me someone to pay us hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'll give you a few thousand.
It's a scam... as a new agent you quickly see NAR etc is a racket. They have clauses in their broker contracts demanding that all their agents have to be members (illegal I think). Also, how can two agents lock horns in battle for the best possible outcome if they high five at conferences and gatherings?
Can someone,anyone please tell me how paying 50,000 dollars for selling the average home in toronto is justified? Im serious...anyone? Who’s wages have gone up the same as an agents in the last 20 years? Big changes are needed for this corrupt system.
Watch this video next to get more details on the case: czcams.com/video/TqB0-puAauQ/video.html
This would be appealed though...
@@josephrice29 czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
Instead of worrying about a few thousand dollars in commission.
They should take to court the healthcare system which charges hundreds of thousands of dollars to people.
most underrated comment of the year goes to...
Us politicians are way too corrupt I wish
I couldn’t agree more.
OMG, this is so true! It is ridiculous the outrageous price of health care.
Anyone can make a lawsuit, Biden and the gang are picking up on it as another way to destroy America
In reality the big issue with this law suit is the violation of the Sherman antitrust law that prohibits RE companies from standardization of commissions. Most realtors belonging to these companies being sued tell the public that 6% is the “standard “ commission, and when they say that they are breaking the law. Idk about other states but here in Florida when you do a listing agreement with a seller you tell them what is your side of the commission as a listing agent and that can be a % or $ amount and you tell them they can CHOOSE what to offer a cooperating broker or buyer’s agent and that the amount offered to that agent can be anything besides zero and can also be a % or $ amount. I run a company in which we have the 1% listing commission model and the seller can choose what to offer a buyer’s agent, and for 6.5 years have had MASSIVE SUCCESS with this model. Usually sellers choose to offer somewhere between 2-3% to the buyer’s agent which reduces the commission dramatically. I get a lot of hate from the big corporations but I don’t care they don’t pay my bills, the sellers do, and they love my business model. Something to think about colleagues;)
Personally I'd really love to own real estate properties as well as REITs, I've been informed of people making as much as $30,000 from these investments and If anyone could be lenient enough to share, I'd really love clue and tips on how to maximize profit
@Dr Vlad wow! do you think you can give me some advice on how to invest in a healthy way as you are doing? please
@Dr Vlad Thanks for sharing, just looked up on google and I'm super impressed with her credentials. I dropped an email on her webpage and hope she replies soon
Sounds like the buyers would get screwed and sellers would be getting sued. I worked with a seller who, without a buyer side agent would have thought they could get away selling a home with material defects not getting disclosed.
Buyers will get screwed LOL
Buyers should pay separately for buyer representation and then they will no longer get to abuse the time of buyers agents. I think all of this is great
The abuse it don't they
@@mrduckman225 they sure do. They will be much more selective when they can’t see every single house just for fun
Now that would be the change. Buyer pay for their own representation, separately. IF they have the money-maybe it should be! But Biden's gang want us to be happy, "own nothing and be happy". It is yet another way to destroy America.
If this happens
Every single sale can be argued as unfair advantage
Like going to court without an attorney that has fiduciary Responsibility to you..
The buyers are simply going to roll their fee into the price. Additional term:”2.5% commission to buyers agent Included in price.” Basically nothing changes but paperwork.
Another thing to think about. When I work as a dual facilitator I have a variable commission rate. Since I have to work with both the buyer and the seller I negotiate a little more. For example, I usually negotiate a 5-6% commission and offer half to whoever brings the buyer. However, if I procure the buyer I usually negotiate a 3.5-4% rate to work both sides of the transaction, so I don't think commissions will be cut directly in half if this case wins.
Yeah how about the countless hours wasted with the real estate agent when the deal doesn’t close do they get paid then
I feel like listing agents should have to charge more then if we have to do open houses for weeks on end and do dual agency for every transaction.
Hell yeah your right
I agree
I only like the part about being actually paid for your work
Hahahahahahahahahahahah. Thanks for the laugh
In case you needed more reasons to be a listing agent 🏡 This is your sign to focus on getting more listings! 💪🏼
The entire premise of the MLS would be changed. To sell each other's listings- is as a must now - and a lot of fighting and devious ways to get around that.
This could make listing agents jobs that much harder. Cash strapped buyers won’t hire and agent and you are stuck dealing with an over emotional, unrepresented person.
Do these Sellers forget that a lot of times, when they sell a home, they turn around and buy another one. So they go from having all the representation to NO representation. So how soon before they start lawsuits for not having representation as a buyer and we are back to square one..
How about a move toward Flat Fee Transaction Coordinators that represent neither side. Both sides pay equally and TC acts as mediator if there are any disagreements.
You can't ethically represent both sides. So we either need to have separate representation or no one gets representation. Otherwise one side gets screwed one way or the other.
In Australia what I have been told they don’t have a mls system like we do. If a any agent wants to see a property they have to call that brokerage to see what they have. It like pocket listings.
But why would that guarantee the commission paid by the seller gets cut in half ? The listing agreement can still say 5-6% it just doesn’t get split. & there would be more reason to since the listing agent’s business will likely decline due to no buyer transactions as well so there will be more need to make up the lost revenue elsewhere
This is a total nightmare! 90% of my business are Buyers and 70% of my clients are spanish speaking, my clients rely so much on me to guide them every step of the way and are grateful that I help represent them as a Buyers Agent! This lawsuit would be life changing for my business and family! Omg!! What a great way to start my day!
Nothing has been decided so no reason to stress about something that hasn’t happened. This case will be in court for years before anything happens.
You're in a great place, save your money and learn to list before it's to late. Now is the time to list properties
Start picking up the phone and be a listing agent
In Australia we usually do around 3% or less on every deal…
Appreciate this. It’s obvious your not an owner and have the responsibility of many agents. The litigation cases would go through the roof. Representation is everything in today’s world. People want to know 100% in a transaction that, in most cases, is the largest in their lives, that someone is in their corner. My 32 years, 17 as a agent, 15 as owner, allows me to have many different views of this. Thank you again for sharing.
I think this would open up the listing agent to get sued. I remember I was helping a buyer buy a Fsbo home and got an amazing deal. Later that seller was telling everyone that I took advantage of him because I didn’t let him know that he could sell his home for more money. I wasn’t representing him and he set the price. I just think it will be a lot of lawsuits. Another I don’t understand how the government will be able to say the commission will only be 3% I thought commission is completely negotiable
Wouldn’t it be more competitive on the listing side now?
It’s been like this before. Buyers were called customers and not clients and real estate agents from other offices who brought buyers to the listing were sub agents of the listing broker and also worked for the seller. Change is constant. No need to fear.
IMO both sides of the transaction need regulated, ethical representation the way it is now. I don't mind buyer and seller contributing to commission costs. Also, less agents/brokerages might mean increased agent costs such as MLS, dues, desk fees, etc. Who knows, honestly.
We are not a "seller" agent. We are LISTING agents. We list the house, market the house, and sometimes bring the buyer as well. The word seller applies to the people who own the home, not to the agent in MOST cases.
What I would like research on is how many of those buyer in Australia and other countries had buyer's remorse because issues were not disclosed with properties. I see a lot more listing agents & sellers in court for taking advantage of buyers.
You’re spot on! Like I mentioned in the video, this would be WAY worse for buyers!
Not really because we have an obligation towards both sides legally
I'd like to know how many countries they're licensed in.
@@abcde_pe9ct You're right we do. But I can tell you that I have come across some not so ethical agents in my years. A lot of us do the right thing but sadly a lot will also do whatever to get a closing.
@@BrandonMulrenin You are not understanding the corruption and conspiracy. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
95% of consumers dont understand a real estate transaction and would be doing theirselves a big disservice by not having representation. The other 5% are savvy enough probably buy or sell a house on their own but wont. Many savvy consumers have come to me and told me they dont believe in dual agency because they need someone on their side.
This would basically create an industry of dual agency, which is horrible for the consumer. Unless buyers become receptive to paying their own commissions at closing, which will be difficult for many first time buyers.
Either way, always be ready to evolve and you'll be fine
when he talks about lead gen companies - theres also all the RE companies that rely on buyer agents. RE CRM/Website/etc could possibly go under as well
The issue lies not in paying 6%, but in the daunting challenge of confronting such a high commission. This is primarily because no buyer's agent appears willing to act in good faith and genuinely advocate for a sale unless they receive their 3% cut. It epitomizes greed at its best, and unfortunately, it comes at the cost of the seller.
But are they really paying they buyers agent? Or is the listing broker sharing their compensation with another broker that brings a buyer.
Commissions shouldn't be 6%, US real estate agents are a rip off, we do both sides in Australia and total cost is 1-3%
This would be very one-sided buyers needs their own representation.
I agree with everything you said regarding the Impact, EXCEPT for this one point regarding the sites that sell and market agents to supply buyer leads. I'd love to get your opinion on this (and anyone else that has been in the business for a while and has survived different markets). MY thoughts are this- I think if this will go through, SOME leads sites will go out of business overnight, BUT the big sites like Zillow who are already became a "broker" will try to offer Sellers to list their homes with Zillow at a reduced commission and they have very deep pockets to advertise this on tv, radio etc.. They will totally misrepresent the role and benefits of having a Listing Agent and it will be NAR's SOLE JOB to educate the public on the benefits of hiring a local expert. Shits going to hit the fan and my opinion is that its not going to be as good as we'd like it to be for listing agents either.
facts
NAR betrayed their agents. Zillow only came to be such a competitor bc NAR helped them by selling them brokers listings and pocketing the money. IMHO
Zillow already gives listings not just buyer leads.
or they DID
I feel like if the seller doesn't want to pay buyers, put the house up for sale by owner
in Australia 6% is unrealistic. we are paying around 2 - 2.5%
You bring up some great points I had not thought about. This lawsuit and potential industry change does not concern me anymore. Thank you.
Makes me wonder will listing agents keep the commission at 6% because their workload will double.
I hope so lol
And the full commission is justified. The listing agent will just do all of the work and not pay a buyers agent. The buyer will loose out because he will not have his own representation and if they do hire a buyers agent, the listing agent still keep her fee because it’s already negotiated.
@@Smitty_34 sounds good to me
@@Smitty_34 Please tell me what it is that an agent does that justifies paying $50,000 for the sale of the average Toronto home. I’m curious
Absolutely nothing justifies the full commission of 6% of a listing agent if a buyers agent is not involved. If anything it may force the listing agents to take less listings which in turn I see as a win because it will ensure that the services they are “selling” are actually provided. I handle closings and I can’t tell you how many times I have a realtor that once they get the contract signed they only care about when they can get their check instead of finishing the work needed to get to closing.
Impact won’t be great on listing agents? HELL NO! Every buyer’s agent in the market would turn heel and go towards listings and the entire market would be oversaturated with listing agents. Everyone will be paid way less
Agreed
Maybe the MLS will go away and people can just search for homes the best way they can and maybe NAR won't be necessary since now that buyer's agents are eliminated the consumer is protected by the listing agent and maybe they'll still get 6% and maybe there won't be a need for buyer's agents or anyone to show 30+ homes to one consumer and another kind of business will come out of this where buyer's agents don't feel used and everybody profits. Maybe
What?
@@pacer547 sorry. Mad sarcasm
I must be missing something in lawsuit, from my understanding the mls commissions is a agreement from broker to broker the split does not half to be equal. At the listing the seller and agent determine what they will offer out of the total commission to a buyer agent I have seen this to be as low as $1 which is usually an entry mls listing and what happens to those listings?
So this basically would force dual agency?
Just a thought. 4% commission charged by listing broker. 1% to a sales agent in the same office to represent the buyer in the transaction if the listing agent procures the buyer. Possibly on a rotating basis. Maybe that eliminates the anti trust component.
Nope. As a home buyer, I want to negotiate a rate with my agent. When you purchased your car, you negotiated a price with your salesman. It should be no different, for a transaction between a home buyer and his agent. Your industry's current scheme is illegal, and has allowed you to charge about double a market based rate (based on other countries real estate agent fees, that don't have a corrupt, rigged system).
What’s the point of the MLS anymore if there’s no buyer agents , if you haft to be licensed to look 😅
So...you think all of the LISTING agents are going to be HAPPY about being turned into a BUYER'S AGENT on top of what they already do? Listing agents list homes because they enjoy doing that PART of the business. This would completely change the daily functions of every listing agent and turn them into a DUAL agent. I'm not sure Listing Agents will be happy about this? I enjoy being a Buyer's Agent. I choose it over being a "listing agent" because the type of work suits my skills better. If this happens....I and many others will leave the business and this is going to cause major ECONOMIC HAVOCK in the USA.
Well what if you worked exclusively as a designated buyers rep in your brokerage and sold your services as such?
For instance, you charge a 1% commission to a listing agent to represent the buyer as a designated agent while the broker remains the dual agent. You don’t have to show the home, or take buyers looking, or set searches up. You simply construct an offer based on the buyer’s desires and guide them through the buying process once they get u/c. Does that sound idiotic? Serious question
Let’s say this goes through what would your advice be for new realtors this year ? I appreciate any feedback !
Focus 100% on listings!
Hi Brandon, this question has nothing to do with this actual video (great insight btw, thank you for this). Which do you believe is more of a priority with expired listings, those that have expired as recently as today or calling expireds a few weeks to a month back? Why?
I ask because most often when I call an expired listing that just expired the response is either:
1. it's going on the market in a couple days / week
2. We received an offer
3. It's under contract
Most often when I call an expired listing that's been expired for a few weeks or a few months it seems like RedX and their system filter out most of the properties that have actually sold. I would love to know your thoughts on this. Thank you
legally I don't believe it will stand. Representation is key for both buyer and seller. You Arnt buying a candy from the store, you are borrowing a very large sum of money to purchase. litigation is already very easy to come by in this profession. The industry seems to emphasis discloser more than ever. Taking a buyer's agent out of the picture goes against that concept in my opinion. If they did take out the buyer's agent, perhaps they would replace it with something new. Either way I can see California saying, "Eh were ok". Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't California do that with the real estate transfer tax?
The buyer ultimately “pays” for all of the commissions… they get the loan to purchase the property…which includes all of the commissions because they are included in the price of the property. Am I wrong?
I see what you’re saying but it’s not totally accurate. Commissions have nothing to do with sales price. Sellers don’t lower their price when there are no agents involved. The seller just nets less money when agents are involved as a result of the seller paying for the commissions. The buyer agrees to the sales price regardless of commissions, make sense?
Also, the listing agent is getting the 6%. That is their fee and they choose whether or not to offer any of their commission to a buyer agent.
@@mistywatkins7617 well, if you're a member of a MLS....you are REQUIRED to offer some kind of "share" to the Buyer's agent...even if it's only $1.00. But as we all know by tradition it's 1/2 of the total commission.
I don't feel as though this is helpful for the real estate industry or the economy. As you said, the agents will thin, and that presents problems you've already mentioned. The largest impact comes from less money in circulation. A home is usually a consumer's largest purchase by far. After that, they tend to not rack up as many expenses. So with half of the commissions not being dealt out, the economy isn't stimulated in the same way. Leading to less spending on whatever buyer agents would usually spend on and not mentioning the slow down of buyer driven brokerages spending on office expenses
I’m going with a 1% reality
I can see how it would be better for the seller but I don’t believe it’s better for the buyer like you mentioned. Especially for first time home buyers… Think about how vulnerable they now are and the likely hood of them getting cold feet goes exponentially up. I do like the fact that the barrier of entry would be higher and it would weed out a lot of agents but I also believe that what makes this industry so unique and rewarding is when you’ve achieved success and built a sustainable business knowing there’s so many other realtors that fail. Why change something that I believe the majority of people don’t have a problem with?? Thanks for the video Brandon! I was unaware of this!
Listing agents and Buyer agents don't share commissions. The seller decides the commission, and are welcome to NOT OFFER COMMISSION.
So sellers agent would be having to write the 30+ offers on the house? I think that sounds worse for the sellers agent
The commission should never even be discussed in public. The industry really screwed up by having this topic, so front and center; here is why. First, do you know what commission % is made off you from any business you currently do business with? For example, your dentist, the furniture store you buy your furniture from, the government services, the grocery store, the gym, the attorney you hire, and the restaurants you eat at. I could keep giving examples, but the point is made. We do business with businesses we feel we get the best service, quality, and value, and if we don't believe a company is delivering that, we go to the next. We do not open a business door or call them by phone and ask what is the % of the commission they will be charging me. Because the industry has taken that to some extent away from the consumer, I believe a lot of people have been taught the amount of commission is what you should focus on when selling a home. The commission should be discussed and DECIDED between agent and seller. If the seller does not think an agent is worth the commission amount, they can find another realtor to interview; we are everywhere!!!!! Hell, just walk out your door a scream, I want to sell my house. I am sure ten agents will be there in seconds. As a seasoned agent, that is not the most crucial factor in selling real estate or any other product. There are plenty of studies that have found that most people do not buy on price regardless of what they are buying. Another topic people don't talk about is that a gross commission amount doesn't represent what an agent makes on that deal. They do not have an employer paying for their business supplies, vehicles, insurance, gas, taxes, marketing materials, and other items and systems that cost money to run your business. We even have broker fees! This part of the commission conversation is never talked about, it's just what gross commission they made from the sale.
Say what you want but paying $50,000 for the sale of an average Toronto home that will sell in a matter of days is far too much money. This industry needs a huge shake up and flat rate brokerages Will soon be the way to go much like Questrade it to the financial world.The amount of money paid to sell home simply cannot be justified
@@danielhouse1053 I see value in peoples expertise, you don't and you can do a for-sale-by owner.
It has never made sense to me for the seller to pay the buyer's agent a commission to negotiate against them. If buyers want representation, they could just simply hire their own agent. The reason why the commission is the way it is currently is because NAR and the local MLSs benefit to have a large population of agents paying them money. This really has nothing to do with the benefit of the consumer.
Spot on! 👏
Right on! Well said
I wonder if this would reduce the amount of people buying a home because they can’t afford to pay a buyer agent?
@@LoveyB90 I think that a good idea would be to simply pay for the time or per house shown and representation. Does not need to be thousands and thousands of dollars. The entire house hunting process can be more efficient. When buyers pay nothing out of their pocket to see homes, they want to see EVERYTHING. When paying, they will narrow it down and truly pick what fits their criteria and what they can afford
Exactly. The system works well right now. This is stupid.
Wouldn't an easy solution be to have a compensation disclosure on the listing agreement, like they do here in MN, which states how the sellers commission is going to be shared with a cooperating buyers broker, if applicable? Do other states not have this disclosure so sellers are surprised when they see the CD at closing?
Our listing agreement here in 'bama states the same. No surprises.
A huge factor I feel needs more focus on this is the high possibility that less buyer's agents will also mean less buyers. If there are less buyers than the home price will drop and the overall net will drop. Thus worse for the sellers as well. If you reversed this to those countries with basically no buyer's agents I believe there is an argument that the homes in those countries would sell for a lot more if they had this system over there and had more buyer's agents. It is rare for a house with only one offer to sale for as much as if it had two or more.
Great point
I could see buyer brokers pushing buyer paid commissions so the buyer has the representation that should have. Many buyers don't truly understand that if they don't formally engage the agent "representing" them the agent's fiduciary responsibility is to the Seller since that is who is paying them ultimately.
No way this passes in the US. Buyers agents do so much for our clients to make sure they don’t get in a bad situation. Especially in this market imagine having to pay a buyers agent out of pocket to see houses and writing offers? 3 offers declined and every buyer is going to be out of some money and start getting discouraged. Not to mention this would take out literally 50% of business making a lot of people have to find a new career
Good thing I’m in Cali and they care about buyers out here
Even though the common thing to do here is to have the seller pay the buyers agent through the commission split, in the actual case are they not considering the fact that the seller can negotiate if they want to pay the buyers agent or not from the beginning of negotiating the contracts?
Thank you for the video.
You're welcome
Incredible Insight, you're truly brilliant. I'm not sure how I Feel about this. I don't believe it will go quite that far, but do believe there will be some drastic changes. With the majority of my business coming from Buyers, and only recently transitioning back to listing.. I may need your course
mmm what they should focus is not to add the commission on the sale price.. that's so illegal from the government part.. charging taxes on commission sales + taxes.. and without knowing it we, brokers, are government house increase protectors =P
Been 2.9-3.9% on first 400k then 2% after that forever here in New Zealand. Not many buyers agents around and the few that are get paid from the listing agent's fee. Agents that put in the work do well as always.
Buyers definitely disadvantaged in the transaction compared to the seller. First home buyers against 30+ years experience. Great for sellers.
There are some companies charging only 1.25% - but you can imagine the kind of job they do.
Seriously dude, 1% split between agents is more than fair. Absolutely no way to justify taking 5 or 6 percent. I will go with a discount broker.
@@danielhouse1053 I hear what your saying mate, however if your agent can't even negotiate their commission - do you really want them negotiating the sale of your biggest asset? Just a thought:)
@@alexb665 The current real estate system needs to be smashed to bits and rebuilt with fair rates for buying and selling a home
I’m curious why you think that buyer agents will disappear overnight? Wouldn’t then the buyer agent just negotiate their commission with the buyer? Just because the sell side doesn’t pay their commission doesn’t necessarily mean that there wouldn’t be a buyer agent correct?
Wouldn't it be the same thing? The seller needs a home to live (somewhere). They will eventually be buyers who will choose to pay a buyer's agent. They will still pay the 6% by the end of the transactions
So now the listing side would become even more competitive because those who focused more on buyers would be all in for listings now? Yikes
That’s actually a good thing
@@davidwebster584 How is it a good thing? I don’t how how. Only the best of the best will survive. Average and below will fall away?
@@nicolasstanley8622 EXACTLY! It’s always been too easy to get into Real Estate. Too many people doing it part time and without real commitment. So many ignorant agents who do not know how to operate a business.
Sigh....how in the world does everyone forget that what they are advocating for is EXACTLY why we have the system we have now?? Literally, buyers were being taken advantage of because they just went to the listing agent and got hosed. Sheer lunacy....
BA’s advertise to get buyers. Plus, buyers get advice and guidance on the home purchase. This will put a ton of pressure on sellers and LA’s on disclosure. It will increase level of suits against sellers and LA’s. I can’t see how this have any merits. Seller agrees contractually to the deal.
The only way this works is to have the inspection included on every home with that 3% to seller agent. Otherwise there will be a lot of homes that are in disrepair being sold as great homes
If I'm doing both sides I'm doing twice the work and I'm taking the full commission.
Flip side, if theres only one agent, then the seller better take another 3% off the price. Why should the seller net more, if they're so concerned about the buyers?
The commission is paid to the listing broker. Period. If the listing broker decided to share and how much, that is the choice of the broker.
I like the concept. Buyers don’t always appreciate us, so yeah. This would be interesting.
It's like this in France, no "only buyers" agents.. we are at 4% to 8%
If an agent come with a buyer , the agent (listing) will have to accept to split the commission 60% 40% usually
As we also have no inspection, yes the listing agent has to be aware that he is paid by the sellers but have obligations towards the seller and the buyers.
He is responsible for both sides in the transaction.
I can’t stand when buyer agents promote their services and tell their buyers/clients “it costs you nothing to hire me, because it’s coming out of the sellers side”…🙄🙄 These are the same agents that’s when getting a listing tell their “teams” before it hits market to try to hurry up and keep it in house…THAT IS NOT HELPING YOUR SELLER…THAT IS TRYING TO HELP YOURSELF!!!
Let’s be honest, there are some really good and ethical agents and agencies.. but most only care about getting paid and nothing else. I hope there’s radical change and it thins the heard
The radical change that needs to happen is a fair rate for real estate services when selling your home. With Toronto prices hovering around $1 million how can paying $50,000 for a couple of days work be justified. This whole system needs an overhaul, people are paying way too much money
I disagree. I think the decision to remove buyer's agents will hurt everyone.
How would buyer's find properties without access to the MLS through a buyer's agent? Who is out there telling buyers it's a good time to buy and providing education to the buyer side? Less eyeballs on properties = fewer offers. Fewer offers = lower offers. Lower offers = declining home prices and/or stagnating real estate values & longer timelines to sell homes.
Many mortgage lenders rely heavily upon referrals from buyer agents. Removing buyer agents from the equation would kill many mortgage lending institutions, especially non-depository mortgage banking companies. Fewer options to choose from = higher odds of a monopoly and higher costs to consumers. Less buyer agents means consumers will only work with the banks that have the largest advertising budgets since banks would have to get in front of buyers somehow. Higher advertising budgets and less word of mouth through trusted advisors would result in increased costs and worse service to buyers.
Huge mistake if buyer agents are cut out of the deal.
czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
This is the perfect time for brandon to sell his services. If nar losses people will have to pivot and buy your product which to your defense is solid as fuck.
The healthcare system needs to be investigated as well and also insurance industry.
Dude, why can’t you stay on topic? Are you a real estate agent?
This is intresting. As a UK agent this is very much the normal thing for us. Listing agent does it all or employs a "accompanied viewing person" ( someone who opens a door to show the home and that's it) No buyers agents.
But..... buying agents are starting to get some momentum over here in the UK. Not a huge amount but enough to see a change coming. I wonder if this lawsuit is successful it would put a stop to it growing over here.
Chin up though guys. It could be worse, here in the UK average fees are 1.18%.
Hi Chris, how does that work in terms of writing the offer when an unrepresented buyer approaches the listing/seller's agent to buy a property? Does listing/seller's agent help buyer write the offer or is the buyer expected to write it themselves? How does the buyer negotiate for repairs, etc., once under contract?
@@daleshin I'm not sure on your offer process, but here we take an offer verbally from buyer, then negotiate on vendors behalf for best possible price/situation. Once agreed financial checks are conducted on buyer and both parties (seller/buyer) instruct conveyancers/solicitors to deal with the legal paperwork and checks. Should any negotiations take place for repairs, that is dealt by the agent.
It's a laborious task with the time from buyer offer to handing over keys taking on average of 18 weeks.
Lower commissions and longer trasaction times are a problem in the UK
I hope they have jobs planned for the millions of agents put out of business. I'm sure all the middle aged agents can just go work at Walmart. And for everyone saying start listing, really? So if everyone starts going after listings, how long do you think it will take for those new listing agents to start offering 1% listing fee to beat out those asking for 3%
Wonder why there’s not many CZcamsr’s out there talking about this subject?
Great thoughts Brandon - it would be a very tough challenge for the public if buyers didn't have buyer's agents to work with.
As a home buyer I'm perfectly capable of driving myself to a home I'm interested in, and opening the door (if given a code). I'm also perfectly capable of communicating my offer price to the seller's agent. The seller's agent can stick that offer in a standardized contract. Done. I just saved myself 3% of $800,000? ($24,000). It ain't rocket science. First time home buyers may very well want to hire an agent. With today's corrupt scheme, however, the buyer can't negotiate a price with his agent. This is all a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
Your commission wasn’t cut in 1/2. You split 6% with the buying agent. So either way you’re still at 3% if you negotiate that. The seller should not have to pay a buying agent that doesn’t work for them.
I think teams could still survive.
What if you have this
- listing agent paid commission
- showing specialist paid like an employee
- transaction coordinator paid as employee
Seperately in same brokerage:
You have buyers rep that acts as designated agent for 1% commission. Job would essentially be only activities involved in representing the buyer’s best interest. No marketing; they get business more B to B rather than direct to consumer. Could become a referral based strategy for new business much like referring a lender or property inspector.
Just spitballing.
This shouldn't have to change for the LA. We can still charge 5%/6% to the seller for our services of marketing to sell and procure a buyer. LA will just be keeping more of the commission.
As a home seller, I won't accept your 5%/6%. I'll find a LA that accepts my offer of 2.5%. Buyer's agents will no longer have an excuse to not show my home, since they will have already negotiated a fee with the buyer. Your current corrupt scheme is a clear violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. Your fees will drop by 50%, post lawsuit win. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
What happens to the Multiple Listing Service or Realtor Association?
That would all stay in tact most likely.
Even if this Federal lawsuit goes against the real estate side, it will ultimately end up at the Supreme Court and frankly, that seems like a relatively safe place for the real estate side to win.
I don't understand why someone would think that removing an actual buyer-specific agent would automatically reduce a 6% commission to 3%. Now that the listing agent has to do way more work, you think they will be doing that work at a discount? I don't think so.
I have a bigger problem with dual agency than the commission structure. Try going before a judge when they ask you who you represented and answering "both sides equally" and see if the judge goes for that line of bullshit. Dual agency is a way bigger liability than a lot of people talk about and removing buyer agents from the marketplace would turn most transactions into either dual-agency transactions OR, homebuyers now get screwed when the listing agent defaults to representing his true fiduciary responsibility; the seller. Let the buyer beware I guess
All of this.
You're not understanding your industry's conspiracy against American homeowners. The following video does a good job of explaining it. czcams.com/video/HPD0r548bHU/video.html
So 30000 for the average toronto home isn’t enough for agents . Like the financial world companies like questrade will soon get things under control
@@danielhouse1053 Yes, with a lawsuit win, the residential real estate world will go through a major disruption (long overdue). Future generations will look back at this illegal scheme and say, 'that was bat shit crazy'. College students will learn about this monopoly breakup, along with the breakup of Standard Oil.
Brandon's argument for why this would be a good thing has me convinced he is a biiiiiiiiiiig Thanos guy
Great news!👍🏻come on man
It's a major assumption that listing fees would automatically be reduced.
I'm in SA and we go up to 7.5%
My question is, won’t the listing agent have to waste 30+ hours on showings per week? Some of my listings get 30-40 appointments right now with how crazy the market is. The buyers agents take them and schedule through ShowingTime. And that’s only on 1 listing imagine having 5 listings at once! Maybe we would have the homeowners do showings and we would only do open houses? I’ve only been in RE for a year so all I know is our current structure lol.
Is this were to happen, the value of open houses would come back which solves the points you’re making. Listing agents could hold their listings open a few times a week to get all the buyers through vs showing the house to one buyer at a time.
@@BrandonMulrenin that sounds better for the seller for sure! And would eliminate the headache of trying to schedule all of these showings!
In France there is no open house, we qualify the potential buyer by phone and ask for credit acceptance proof for the amount and we make max 5 visits
@@abcde_pe9ct do you think that makes the seller the most amount of money possible?
@@abcde_pe9ctDo they have more thorough virtual showings to go with that?
tbh..I think as a listing agent n this new scenario I may need a little bit more than what I am getting now.. if I have to show up at every one of my listings for every showing and also every inspection I may need to be compensated a bit higher since I will be doing more ..it will probably cut down on amount of listings you can have due to time constraints between showing my listings and being present for all inspections
This is literally your job already to do that….that is my expectation as a seller that you do this because of the amount I am already paying for your commission. This is why people get upset and say realtors are a scam because some are in for a quick buck and give the few a bad name
My perspective is that of course it’s better for the consumer in so many ways and there is the discrepancy, this is how you know it’s really about what’s coming next.
Zillow would take over, they would market heavy and just list homes and anyone trying to buy it will be very hard and the obstacles they would have to go through would be more than they have to now. Also if this is the case and it goes through wouldn’t the buyer agents be doing similar to wholesalers selling to their Investors? This is the end of the American dream period If this goes through it won’t happen immediately but for sure it will cut down on homebuyers. Your videos are great Brandon keep up the good work! #ReverseSelling
UPDATE: This was dismissed this week (May 2, 2022) by the time this video was posted lol (Leeder v NAR)
Different case…but still fascinating. Thanks for sharing
@@BrandonMulrenin What is the actual case name for this one? I'm going to dig it up and see what's going on
Sounds like the buyers CAN have an agent. They will need provide a service, and maybe a fixed price vs a %.
So would our MLS fees go away if there’s no buyers agents 🤣
I wonder if the next thing will be to go after lender fees for the loan?
I believe this will increase the listing commission and make it more expensive. If people have been paying 6% for both buying and selling why won't it increase from 3% for just Listing? I believe there will be more unintended consequences that will explode.
How will this work in states where dual agency is illegal? Such as Texas
Dual agency would go away completely in all states. Buyers would be unrepresented.
Buyers should hire an agent and pay them to represent them and sellers should do the same. Each side pays for their own costs.
What's next lender turns to buyer's agent? Consumer protection? I mean aren't home values 3ish % higher because the market pays 3ish % to buyers agents? This would have little effect on sellers yet so much effect to millions of workers. Millions of businesses. Millions of buyers. What, a 10-20 % increase in your homes value last year wasn't enough, let's just move time forward a year and give you an extra 3% as if you were even able to get that extra 3% buy selling yourself. NO BUYERS AGENT could mean worse buyer's. These buyer's agents bring ready willing and able buyers the second the home is listed. Wouldn't it naturally make sense to give out a bounty for a buyer. Bring me someone to pay us hundreds of thousands of dollars, I'll give you a few thousand.
It's a scam... as a new agent you quickly see NAR etc is a racket. They have clauses in their broker contracts demanding that all their agents have to be members (illegal I think). Also, how can two agents lock horns in battle for the best possible outcome if they high five at conferences and gatherings?
Can someone,anyone please tell me how paying 50,000 dollars for selling the average home in toronto is justified? Im serious...anyone?
Who’s wages have gone up the same as an agents in the last 20 years? Big changes are needed for this corrupt system.
Sounds like you are all for the cleansing. Luckily I have all sales this year from listings.