NAR Settlement - HOT TAKES

[Alan Asriants]

I have a few HOT TAKES on this recent NAR Settlement News

1. Buyer's agents won't wait long to get into written agreement with a Buyer. Right now, many agents don't sign any agreements until they sign an offer. With this new system, I won't wait long to sign an agreement and spell out what commissions are owed. Many Buyers will refuse to sign, but will quickly see that no one will want to work with them for free without an agreement in place. This is actually not a bad thing for Buyer's agents, as we will encounter less tire kickers. 

2. Prices of listings will adjust. The MLS market always included both sides of the commission. So if the Seller is not offering that commission, then the price of the home offered should be less, since the buyer is now assuming this responsibility

3. Many agents will leave the business. Again, this is a good thing. For many agents it can be a sigh of relief, as we no longer have to compete with incompetent family members for business 

4. The market will drive commissions. In a sellers market, anyone can sell a home. This is why I believe this issue started in the first place. Sellers got greedy and wanted more money in their pocket because they felt they could sell their home on their own just by putting it on the market. While some of this is true, this won't hold true when the market shifts. In a Buyer's market, sellers offer LARGER commissions to Buyers agents in hopes of getting an offer. To the sellers thinking they are going to make more money, maybe not. 

5. Buyers who don't have representation will get screwed. If a buyer doesnt want to pay an agent and goes directly to the seller, their interests are not protected. In the short term we might not see any issues, but overtime, cases will arise when Buyers start getting screwed in shaky deals. Its like going to court without a lawyer. The lawyer could've likely gotten you a shorter sentence.

What are your thoughts?

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Steve K.:

Yeah we can't do anything PM-related like rental listings at my brokerage, I refer them to my PM and get a referral fee. My PM refers me some sales but they also do their own sales so you have to find a PM you can trust not to steal your clients. Mine manages my rentals for me and I have a big portfolio with them so our relationship is important to them.  

It's interesting and helpful to hear how other states operate, especially because we have a lot of buyers moving here from other states: CA #1, NY #2, TX #3 currently and all those states have very different rules. Californians like to go to the listing agent directly but dual agency is illegal here, we simply can't operate that way so we try to refer unrepped buyers to another agent, or they can be a "customer"/unrepresented but that's tricky to navigate and increases our liability a lot, and they usually have no clue what to do so they need their own agent. New Yorkers expect lawyers to be involved but that's not common here, etc. Texas is probably the most similar to us because they don't have dual agency either and are a title state. CA and NC seem to have the most unique rules that I've come across, especially the non-refundable due diligence money in NC. That seems like a good way to weed out the tire-kickers but also seems like it can be taken advantage of by sellers. I don't envy you having such variation of rules within your market, or having lawyers involved on everything.   

 in your state is open house common ? is it common to have staging ?

in our market  open house are common so it's extremely easy to bypass buyer agent if buyer has to pay commision although there're tons of flat fee buyer agent only. You can buy 2 mil house with $7,500 here.

if open house is common and dual agent is allowed I don't see reason why we can't bypass buyer agent,esp in CA.

Also in our area sometimes there are only 3 home for sale for one zip code. Listing agent not showing house is laughable idea becoz there're just too fee house to sell.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

We will see what plays out but as an investor agent for 10+ years I have some thoughts

* Agents will be required to sign a brokerage agreement before doing any showings.  My brokerage agreement states my commission is 2.5% and if the seller offers any less the buyer has to cover the difference.  That will not change.

I read that's KW position , but I read EXP strategist is saying we will see more listing agent that's offering discounted price.

Also lets say your brokerage doesn't want to reduce commision of 2.5%.

That's fine, but some "Lousy Agent" brokerage would open/accept 1.25% and every buyer would move to use their service (although if it's kinda limited). 

So what would happen in the future is more dictated by competition between realtor/brokerage/tech company.

[Brie Schmidt]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

We will see what plays out but as an investor agent for 10+ years I have some thoughts

* Agents will be required to sign a brokerage agreement before doing any showings.  My brokerage agreement states my commission is 2.5% and if the seller offers any less the buyer has to cover the difference.  That will not change.

I read that's KW position , but I read EXP strategist is saying we will see more listing agent that's offering discounted price.

Also lets say your brokerage doesn't want to reduce commision of 2.5%.

That's fine, but some "Lousy Agent" brokerage would open/accept 1.25% and every buyer would move to use their service (although if it's kinda limited). 

So what would happen in the future is more dictated by competition between realtor/brokerage/tech company.

Brokerages set the minimum commission the agents can charge.  I have owned my own brokerage for 10+ years and I allow my agents to charge whatever they want.  We have never had a minimum commission.  But our business is almost 100% investors, so if your client bought 3 houses with you and wants to sell one and you want to do it for 1% that is fine with me.  Our business is a bit different because we have repeat clients.

I think in the short term we will see agents offering a lower commission to get business, but I think long term it will just weed them out. At least on my side of the business as an investor agent it is a very complex job. I can't just tell my clients to send me links from Zillow of houses they like. I do not set up any clients on a MLS feed. I have to run numbers on properties and determine the cap rate before we see something. I need to determine rehab costs, ARV, market rents, capex budgets, ect. I have to educate clients on investing and counsel them on deals and what their ROI is going to be. Plus we have a complicated city with zoning and the building departments with inspections and violations.

My job isn't to find you a property, my job is to close on the sale and there are very few people in the city of Chicago who know 2-4 unit properties like I do.  I cannot tell you how many clients come to me to get them out of a situation because they bought wrong with a bad agent.  So over time the lousy agents are going to drop out.  People like me are going to be able to sell their value and grow their client base.

[Steve K.]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Yeah we can't do anything PM-related like rental listings at my brokerage, I refer them to my PM and get a referral fee. My PM refers me some sales but they also do their own sales so you have to find a PM you can trust not to steal your clients. Mine manages my rentals for me and I have a big portfolio with them so our relationship is important to them.  

It's interesting and helpful to hear how other states operate, especially because we have a lot of buyers moving here from other states: CA #1, NY #2, TX #3 currently and all those states have very different rules. Californians like to go to the listing agent directly but dual agency is illegal here, we simply can't operate that way so we try to refer unrepped buyers to another agent, or they can be a "customer"/unrepresented but that's tricky to navigate and increases our liability a lot, and they usually have no clue what to do so they need their own agent. New Yorkers expect lawyers to be involved but that's not common here, etc. Texas is probably the most similar to us because they don't have dual agency either and are a title state. CA and NC seem to have the most unique rules that I've come across, especially the non-refundable due diligence money in NC. That seems like a good way to weed out the tire-kickers but also seems like it can be taken advantage of by sellers. I don't envy you having such variation of rules within your market, or having lawyers involved on everything.   

 in your state is open house common ? is it common to have staging ?

in our market  open house are common so it's extremely easy to bypass buyer agent if buyer has to pay commision although there're tons of flat fee buyer agent only. You can buy 2 mil house with $7,500 here.

if open house is common and dual agent is allowed I don't see reason why we can't bypass buyer agent,esp in CA.

Also in our area sometimes there are only 3 home for sale for one zip code. Listing agent not showing house is laughable idea becoz there're just too fee house to sell.

Yes open houses are common here but they’re usually hosted by buyers agents looking to find buyer clients. So you’ll meet a buyers agent there, not the listing agent. When buyers go directly to the listing agent here it creates a conflict of interest for the listing agent who already has a fiduciary duty to the seller, because dual agency is illegal. They have to treat the buyer as a customer not client (or switch to transaction broker (neutral paper-pusher not coaching either side) but it’s kinda too late for that as they’ve already advised the seller on listing price etc.). The buyer still usually expects all the services of a buyers agent from the listing agent of course. Most buyers don’t know how to write an offer themselves or navigate the sales process. Some think they do but they really don’t, they need a lot of guidance and hand-holding that the listing agent can’t provide them as a customer or a transaction broker. So most listing agents refer unrepped buyers to a buyers agent from their office. 

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Yeah we can't do anything PM-related like rental listings at my brokerage, I refer them to my PM and get a referral fee. My PM refers me some sales but they also do their own sales so you have to find a PM you can trust not to steal your clients. Mine manages my rentals for me and I have a big portfolio with them so our relationship is important to them.  

It's interesting and helpful to hear how other states operate, especially because we have a lot of buyers moving here from other states: CA #1, NY #2, TX #3 currently and all those states have very different rules. Californians like to go to the listing agent directly but dual agency is illegal here, we simply can't operate that way so we try to refer unrepped buyers to another agent, or they can be a "customer"/unrepresented but that's tricky to navigate and increases our liability a lot, and they usually have no clue what to do so they need their own agent. New Yorkers expect lawyers to be involved but that's not common here, etc. Texas is probably the most similar to us because they don't have dual agency either and are a title state. CA and NC seem to have the most unique rules that I've come across, especially the non-refundable due diligence money in NC. That seems like a good way to weed out the tire-kickers but also seems like it can be taken advantage of by sellers. I don't envy you having such variation of rules within your market, or having lawyers involved on everything.   

 in your state is open house common ? is it common to have staging ?

in our market  open house are common so it's extremely easy to bypass buyer agent if buyer has to pay commision although there're tons of flat fee buyer agent only. You can buy 2 mil house with $7,500 here.

if open house is common and dual agent is allowed I don't see reason why we can't bypass buyer agent,esp in CA.

Also in our area sometimes there are only 3 home for sale for one zip code. Listing agent not showing house is laughable idea becoz there're just too fee house to sell.

Ms. Lori my rock star RE broker wife that was the first thing that came to  mind for her.. Open houses are going to be MUCH more popular and instead of pawning them off to the beginner agents top producers ( or a team member of a top producer) will now sit there.. I know Ms. Lori and I hold our new construction open every weekend.. there we are personally.  Dual agent is legal in Oregon and frankly on new builds its so much easier than having another agent involved that does not have any experince with how the new build process works.

[Carlos Ptriawan]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Carlos Ptriawan:

Quote from @Steve K.:

Yeah we can't do anything PM-related like rental listings at my brokerage, I refer them to my PM and get a referral fee. My PM refers me some sales but they also do their own sales so you have to find a PM you can trust not to steal your clients. Mine manages my rentals for me and I have a big portfolio with them so our relationship is important to them.  

It's interesting and helpful to hear how other states operate, especially because we have a lot of buyers moving here from other states: CA #1, NY #2, TX #3 currently and all those states have very different rules. Californians like to go to the listing agent directly but dual agency is illegal here, we simply can't operate that way so we try to refer unrepped buyers to another agent, or they can be a "customer"/unrepresented but that's tricky to navigate and increases our liability a lot, and they usually have no clue what to do so they need their own agent. New Yorkers expect lawyers to be involved but that's not common here, etc. Texas is probably the most similar to us because they don't have dual agency either and are a title state. CA and NC seem to have the most unique rules that I've come across, especially the non-refundable due diligence money in NC. That seems like a good way to weed out the tire-kickers but also seems like it can be taken advantage of by sellers. I don't envy you having such variation of rules within your market, or having lawyers involved on everything.   

 in your state is open house common ? is it common to have staging ?

in our market  open house are common so it's extremely easy to bypass buyer agent if buyer has to pay commision although there're tons of flat fee buyer agent only. You can buy 2 mil house with $7,500 here.

if open house is common and dual agent is allowed I don't see reason why we can't bypass buyer agent,esp in CA.

Also in our area sometimes there are only 3 home for sale for one zip code. Listing agent not showing house is laughable idea becoz there're just too fee house to sell.

Ms. Lori my rock star RE broker wife that was the first thing that came to  mind for her.. Open houses are going to be MUCH more popular and instead of pawning them off to the beginner agents top producers ( or a team member of a top producer) will now sit there.. I know Ms. Lori and I hold our new construction open every weekend.. there we are personally.  Dual agent is legal in Oregon and frankly on new builds its so much easier than having another agent involved that does not have any experince with how the new build process works.

 With new home construction, very few home to select , 3 days DOM , multiple bids , seller market, do we need buyer agent ? No

what’s funny is that we may need listing agent if it is older home or buyer market or cheaper / broken home.

Another thing , over here broken home still got bid above ARV without any contingency

[Andrew Syrios]

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

We will see what plays out but as an investor agent for 10+ years I have some thoughts

* Agents will be required to sign a brokerage agreement before doing any showings.  My brokerage agreement states my commission is 2.5% and if the seller offers any less the buyer has to cover the difference.  That will not change.

* Some buyers will decide to skip a showing if they know the seller is unwilling to consider a buyers agent commission

* Sellers will be presented offers as "net to seller" which will still include buyers agent commissions.  What do they care if the offer has a $20k buyer's agent commission if it is $25k higher than the next highest offer.  Seller's agents will just need to do a little extra math.

* Sellers who refuse to consider paying the buyer's agent commission will have difficulty selling

* We will see discount agents / brokerages like we have seen for the last few decades and they still will never gain any significant market share

* I am not sure if we will see agents move to a hourly rate of pay, if so I think we won't see that for a few years. That being said I can't imaging seller's will take that risk. If this were to happen today I would tell clients based on a hourly rate I would charge anywhere for $3k to $40k for my services and I can't tell you where in that range it will be till we are in the middle of it. Some deals I close after 20 hours of work and some deals I close after 200 hours of work. I have two sellers right now that would owe me over $30k each at this point if I was paid hourly and we aren't even close to the deal closing. My job as an agent is not to post your house on the MLS and greet people at a open house. My job is to close the deal and that can be extremely labor intensive.

* We will see a lot more unrepresented buyers, and my contract with the seller will include a 1% surcharge for having to deal with those transactions.  

* The herd will thin and we will lose a lot of agents, which will be a good thing

This is a good rundown. I highly doubt agents will move to an hourly rate. I just don't think many sellers (or buyers will really want that). Personally, I think you'll see more disclosures and more discount brokerages (but still a distinct minority) and not much else will change. 

[Brie Schmidt]

@Andrew Syrios - I agree.  Our listing agreements don't say anything about the coop being optional.  But when I talk to a seller I explain my fee is X and I pay X as a coop.  That is not banned under the settlement.  They always had the option of negotiating or choosing another agent.

There have always been flat fee brokerages but I don't come across them very often.

I think moving forward our listing agreements will include just the listing agent commission and the seller will have the option to pay the buyer's agent with the offer.  So I just had a listing with 8 offers and some had credits so I broke it down for my seller in net terms.  I see it going that way starting in July.  This offer is no commission but $20k under list, this offer has a $20k commission at list, this offer is a $25k commission and $10k over list...

I am curious to see how our brokerage agreements are altered by the associations.

I am also curious if the media's misinterpretation of the settlement will kill our spring market as sellers will wait till mid-July to list thinking the previous commission structure has been banned.

[Andrew Syrios]

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

@Andrew Syrios - I agree.  Out listing agreements don't say anything about the coop being optional.  But when I talk to a seller I explain my fee is X and I pay X as a coop.  That is not banned under the settlement.  They always had the option of negotiating or choosing another agent.

There have always been flat fee brokerages but I don't come across them very often.

I think moving forward our listing agreements will include just the listing agent commission and the seller will have the option to pay the buyer's agent with the offer.  So I just had a listing with 8 offers and some had credits so I broke it down for my seller in net terms.  I see it going that way starting in July.  This offer is no commission but $20k under list, this offer has a $20k commission at list, this offer is a $25k commission and $10k over list...

I am curious to see how our brokerage agreements are altered by the associations.

I am also curious if the media's misinterpretation of the settlement will kill our spring market as sellers will wait till mid-July to list thinking the previous commission structure has been banned.

 I think you're right. And given most sellers are used to a 2.5 - 3% buyers commission, that will typically be what's offered. Further, if the seller is unwilling to offer a buyers commission, I think many agents will just pass on listing their property. The biggest changes, other than a few more flat/discount brokerages, will be more disclosures IMO. 

[Brie Schmidt]

@Andrew Syrios - I would pass on someone who outright refuses.  I am not saying you need to agree to an amount upfront but you have to be willing to consider offers that include it

[Andrew Syrios]

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

@Andrew Syrios - I would pass on someone who outright refuses.  I am not saying you need to agree to an amount upfront but you have to be willing to consider offers that include it

 I would do exactly the same. 

[Matthew Paul]

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

@Andrew Syrios - I would pass on someone who outright refuses.  I am not saying you need to agree to an amount upfront but you have to be willing to consider offers that include 

You can say you will pass on a listing that wont pay . But there will always be someone who will list it  gladly .  It all boils down to $$$$ .    

[Brie Schmidt]

Quote from @Matthew Paul:

Quote from @Brie Schmidt:

@Andrew Syrios - I would pass on someone who outright refuses.  I am not saying you need to agree to an amount upfront but you have to be willing to consider offers that include 

You can say you will pass on a listing that wont pay . But there will always be someone who will list it  gladly .  It all boils down to $$$$ .    

Of course. Just like there have always been flat fee brokers who will post your property on the MLS for $350 or sellers who list FSBO

I have charged anywhere from .5% to 4% without a co-op

My conversations with sellers now is that I will present all offers as net to seller.  So the commission amount doesn't really matter as their decision will be made on the net

[Curt Smith]

My view as a buy and hold investor of this;

- negotiable everything sounds great.  Lets see a year from now how this really turns out.

- Buyers must now be in contract with a buyers agent for the listing agent to talk???   What the???   This was about competition.  This is anti-competitive.   I've not used nor needed a buyers agent for my last 30 transactions!! 

I approach the listing agent;  "I always close never have canceled a contract, my offers are without any contingencies - none,  I give high earnest money offers..."

This part makes my blood boil (if its true) that I have to be in contract with a buyers agent.  Even $500 flat fee is like ripping $500 from my mouth for nothing (in my view).

best too all,  curt

[Guy Gimenez]

Ultimately, this will level the playing field. Consumers (buyers) can decide if they are willing to pay for a representative or go direct to the seller. I believe most consumers want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get it as long as it doesn't cost them more to do so. I also believe technology and A.I. will play a greater role in this industry, as it should. Time will tell, but I'm hopeful the proposed settlement will cause some creativity in the industry and will allow sellers to have greater control in the sale process while potentially saving a great deal of money. 

[Matt McCurdy]

Quote from @Guy Gimenez:

Ultimately, this will level the playing field. Consumers (buyers) can decide if they are willing to pay for a representative or go direct to the seller. I believe most consumers want what they want and will do whatever it takes to get it as long as it doesn't cost them more to do so. I also believe technology and A.I. will play a greater role in this industry, as it should. Time will tell, but I'm hopeful the proposed settlement will cause some creativity in the industry and will allow sellers to have greater control in the sale process while potentially saving a great deal of money. 

 I agree that AI will transform this industry.  However, I fear the tech companies are the one's who will stand to benefit from this transformation.  They price much of the competition out of the market and begin to spike commissions back up (similar to what Uber/Lyft did to the cab industry).  Ultimately, I feel the worst for the uneducated Buyers out there just trying to buy a property/investment.  They either don't have the time or skillset to represent themselves. This will thin out the realtor herd, which isn't a bad thing, but it certainly won't help the Buyers, when they are already facing steep interest rates.

[Jay Hinrichs]

Quote from @Curt Smith:

My view as a buy and hold investor of this;

- negotiable everything sounds great.  Lets see a year from now how this really turns out.

- Buyers must now be in contract with a buyers agent for the listing agent to talk???   What the???   This was about competition.  This is anti-competitive.   I've not used nor needed a buyers agent for my last 30 transactions!! 

I approach the listing agent;  "I always close never have canceled a contract, my offers are without any contingencies - none,  I give high earnest money offers..."

This part makes my blood boil (if its true) that I have to be in contract with a buyers agent.  Even $500 flat fee is like ripping $500 from my mouth for nothing (in my view).

best too all,  curt

Curt as it stands I suspect this is only in states that dual agency is not allowed.. Out our way U certainly can go direct to the listing agent no problem.. its how my wife sells a lot of our houses of course we co op with buyers agents but we probably sell 40% of our homes ourselves as a dual agent.

[Brie Schmidt]

Quote from @Curt Smith:

My view as a buy and hold investor of this;

- negotiable everything sounds great.  Lets see a year from now how this really turns out.

- Buyers must now be in contract with a buyers agent for the listing agent to talk???   What the???   This was about competition.  This is anti-competitive.   I've not used nor needed a buyers agent for my last 30 transactions!! 

I approach the listing agent;  "I always close never have canceled a contract, my offers are without any contingencies - none,  I give high earnest money offers..."

This part makes my blood boil (if its true) that I have to be in contract with a buyers agent.  Even $500 flat fee is like ripping $500 from my mouth for nothing (in my view).

best too all,  curt

 You don't need a buyer's agent to represent yourself like you always have.  If you want to contact a listing agent to see a property they will likely need to send you a "disclosure of no agency relationship"  Moving forward agent's cannot show a buyer a property without a brokerage agreement in place, it was always recommended but never enforced

[Troy Gandee]

@David M. South Carolina is also an attorney state, but the attorneys here are minimally involved in the actual transaction. Their primary role is to complete the transaction. They prepare closing documentation, handle escrow funds and adequately record the sale. Some times, attorneys will act as referees if there's a disagreement, but they usually want to stay out of those conflicts and leave it to mediation or a court to decide if it's a serious issue. 

The agents are responsible for all the negotiations and coordinating all the terms of the contract. I've seen plenty of people hire a RE attorney just to help them draft offers, but the attorney usually won't even deliver the thing to the listing agent.  

I can totally understand why the public feels negatively towards agents. Many agents I have to deal with don't seem to know anything about actual RE law. They can also be unprofessional, appear greedy and be terrible communicators. I think the problem is that these big companies have trained up legions of desperate agents to think there is actually a standard commission rate and have failed to teach them that real estate exists outside of their myopic little bullpens. I can't tell you how frequently I have to explain things to agents from big companies. They don't train these agents to be educated on the scope of real estate. They think their company's policies are actual law. Now us little guys who rarely see a full 3% commission are having to adjust. 

[Peter Mckernan]

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Zander Kempf:

I don't see listing prices being adjusted. If you were about to sell your house and your listing agent told you that you only need to pay 3% now instead of 6%, would you drop your price by 3%? Nope, sellers will just pocket the difference. 

are appraisers going to value the homes different depending on commish amounts ?

 No, not at all for the appraisers valuating the property differently.. And sellers always want to net more at the sale.  

[Curt Smith]

Quote from @Peter Mckernan:

Quote from @Jay Hinrichs:

Quote from @Zander Kempf:

I don't see listing prices being adjusted. If you were about to sell your house and your listing agent told you that you only need to pay 3% now instead of 6%, would you drop your price by 3%? Nope, sellers will just pocket the difference. 

are appraisers going to value the homes different depending on commish amounts ?

 No, not at all for the appraisers valuating the property differently.. And sellers always want to net more at the sale.  

 The "settlement" an imperfect solution didn't address the quest by the market and buyers to pay and finance LESS!!!   Seems the Seller is the main winner here.   ;(

No I'm not ignoring one of the laws of economics the elastic market place where price is a function of supply and demand.  I'm just "grumbling"...   LOL  aaahhmmm.   Best to all.

[Christopher Davis]

I don't have a broad opinion as an experienced professional, but as someone with one investment house who will likely sell in the next 2-5 years, I have one thing on my mind. Commissions. My goal is to reduce my commission payout as much as possible. From reading here it sounds like the buyers and their agent will have a rocky road ahead for a few years until new standards are set in place. But as a seller I am hoping my commission will go from 6% to 3%. Is that a likely result for sellers? It seems like that's the direction this goes. I know that also means sale prices may go down, but I am less worried about that in a good market.

[Curt Smith]

Quote from @Christopher Davis:

I don't have a broad opinion as an experienced professional, but as someone with one investment house who will likely sell in the next 2-5 years, I have one thing on my mind. Commissions. My goal is to reduce my commission payout as much as possible. From reading here it sounds like the buyers and their agent will have a rocky road ahead for a few years until new standards are set in place. But as a seller I am hoping my commission will go from 6% to 3%. Is that a likely result for sellers? It seems like that's the direction this goes. I know that also means sale prices may go down, but I am less worried about that in a good market.

Only in the FWIW dept; we've always been able to flat rate list our sales via FSBO/forsale by owner sites in the local MLS. We do the pictures, ad text, show the house, lock box etc. Most MLS's have a fee we never see (the listing agents office pays this) of around 0.5% you pay on top of a typical $500 flat rate. Most folks don't know or know how to self list.

After some flippers education I have to agree that the right listing agent you can sell faster and get a higher price. IE the one in 10 million is a value and you'll get back your commission paid from their system, office with a deep data base of potential buyers. The trick is figuring out how to filter for the 1 in 10 million (figure of speech) listing agents. The #1 (or so) question when screening agents: Tell me about your lead generation system? This is an open ended trick question. What you want to hear is; I have a team of VA's working 7 days a week putting up ads, mailing fliers looking for buyers. We put all of those folks into our offices data base. When you list with us, we put your house in front of 1000's of ready to buy now buyers. What you don't want is to list and wait.... for the trickle that comes in organically off your MLS ad.

This settlement and changes does not address the need for sellers and buyers to know how to vet an agent...  ;(    This long period of selling in the first weekend above asking has spoiled listing agents and new sellers don't know how to screen for a top producing listing agent (any more).    Investors / flippers do but not most home owners turning seller.

Listing yourself means you don't get that instant exposure to 1000's of buyers a top top listing agent has in their data base. Its possible to pay only 0.5% and $500 or so to sell your house. I probably will go this route myself as an experiment along with putting in the agent comments no FHA offers accepted and use my lender to get first consideration... blabla all stuff that suits me and not the actual selling price or days on market.

[Shane H.]

Quote from @Christopher Davis:

I don't have a broad opinion as an experienced professional, but as someone with one investment house who will likely sell in the next 2-5 years, I have one thing on my mind. Commissions. My goal is to reduce my commission payout as much as possible. From reading here it sounds like the buyers and their agent will have a rocky road ahead for a few years until new standards are set in place. But as a seller I am hoping my commission will go from 6% to 3%. Is that a likely result for sellers? It seems like that's the direction this goes. I know that also means sale prices may go down, but I am less worried about that in a good market.

As I see it you will receive 3% less from the property and then pay 3% instead of 6. Winning… lol

[Brandon C.]

I agree wholeheartedly!