Can someone explain what the Realtor Lawsuit thing is about? How will it affect Realtors?

all i know is realtors are mostly idiots. I would know, I spent over 1.5 years looking for a house in this CRAZY market so I interacted with many buying/selling agents. Holy sh-t man, I would not shed a tear if that entire business unit was obsoleted tomorrow.

Hopefully the whole business gets banned it's very exploitative.

If seller, you can elect not to pay buyers agent=2.5-3%(or less) for you.

If buyer, you can elect to do the transaction on your own or hire a broker and you can negotiate the fee based on what level of service you need.

Some secondary outcomes but this is really what you need to know as a buyer or seller.

Just Google NAR settlement and you can read hundreds of articles about the settlement.

But be aware of who is writing the story.

So less money for agents then probably? Always seemed like somewhat of a fabricated industry... I don't see why people really even need an agent to show them houses... Isn't that what Google is for? I realize they have "expert knowledge," buy I think it seems silly to most people to pay someone thousands of dollars just to explain this type of sink and that type of fireplace... Most of the realtors I have known are very low ability people... Anyone with actual skills would be doing something else (that's worthwhile). Maybe I'm biased though.

Just to add that 2 Federal Reserve economists suggested that the “profession” will go from 1.5 to 750k.

All I can say is it’s about time for all of the proposed changes.

What does 1.5 to 750K mean? 1.5M?

I'm also happy with the upcoming changes. Saw no reason for them to make that much money for such little work.

As long as the legislation includes penalties for those who pronounce the word as “re-la-tor,” I’m in favor of it.

Yes 1.5 million agents down to 750 thousand. The part-time and marginal ones won’t be able to make a living. Time for them to get a real job.

It could be any day now that the Judge signs off on the Agreement. NAR gets fined 417M? paid over 10 years and makes these changes.
Couldn’t have happened to a nicer group of colliders and prices fixers.

Pre-Internet, I suppose it was more difficult finding houses for sale. MLS was not that easy to get a hold of. Other than some listing in the newspaper, one would of had to just drive around looking for 'For Sale' signs.

Nowadays, with all the phone apps, it is very easy to find a house for sale. The broker's role is diminished. However, the upside to a broker is they are knowledgeable and can tell you what in your house might need to be fixed in order to sell better. Also, one doesn't have to be home to show your house. The broker can show the house without you there.

Just weigh the pros and cons and decide what works for you.

The commissions realtors have gotten away with for so long are insane.

The internet made their job basically useless. Home buyers do their own research online, they can check comparable house prices, schools, see pictures and stats, etc. This should have driven commissions down, the same way commissions for stock trading have gone to zero, but the real estate agents acted as an illegal cartel to artificially keep their insane 6% commission per sale as standard.

If you buy a regular middle-class house, say $800k, you're giving about $50,000 to the two agents who each spent a few hours work and filed some standard, reusable contracts and paperwork.

In the luxury market, a real estate agent can literally work part time for a few months, sell a couple houses per year, and make a good living. A 3% commission paid to a buyer's agent on a $2 million house is $60,000. That's an entire year's salary, for finding one Bay Area tech worker who decided to relocate to a beach/mountain/whatever and being their agent.

No one should pay more than 0.1% commission to an agent. Not 3%, not 1%, I'm saying 0.1%

It's not small, it's cozy

It's not old, it's rustic

It's a blank canvas, it's not gutted.

Are you a car salesman? Sounds like want ALL salespeople erased from the face of the Earth. You can always follow the opinion of internet trolls when deciding what to buy, and how much to pay. LRC is a good place to ask for sales help.

I worked as a consultant for 25 years. A few people complain about rates and think nothing of asking 3 or more people to spend thousands of dollars of their own money on a proposal that they will reject. MOST people/companies understand the concept how consulting and bidding work. LRC trolls are entirely clueless about the people at their company who are paid to win contracts so that they have a job.

Realtors are similar in that they show a lot of homes and don't make the sale.

You're describing the role of the seller's agent. The value of the seller's agent is at least straightforward to understand: if they can sell your house for a more than 3% higher price than you could yourself, they are worth the commission.

The role of the buyer's agent is what has been in question. We can all agree that, in the age of Redfin, Zillow, Realtor.com, etc., finding a house that interests you does not require a person in the middle. The only value of the buyer's agent, then, is that, in theory, they have the motivation to and ability to negotiate the price lower for the buyer. The 3% commission is worth it for the buyer if he gets the house at a 3%+ lower price than he otherwise would.

But wait .... then additional questions arise.

* If the buyer's agent represents the buyer, why the does the seller pay the commission to both agents? The buyer's agent is supposed to be acting in the opposite interest of the seller.

* If the buyer's agent gets the sale price 3%+ lower and the seller's agent gets the sale price 3%+ higher, didn't they cancel each other out? How can they both have scored a "deal" for their clients? There could be 6% skimmed off the sales price that would be the same if neither agent existed.

* Where did this magical 3% number come from? Why is it more like 1% in countries other than the U.S.?

* When there is a house buying mania like we saw in 2020-21, where house prices are getting bid up, the seller agent isn't negotiating down prices. His supposed value to the seller is "winning" them the house. But is that really so much more complicated than simply offering the highest $ to the seller?

That would only work if you paid a realtor for showing you homes. The longer it takes you decide the more you own them.

Or they show one house, buyer makes offer that is accepted and buyers agents may make 3% commission on $450k house, $13k for a small effort. Those transactions are balanced with the agent that shows 30 house and doesn't get sale closed.

You would over pay and end up with buyer's remorse after moving in and realizing the amount of repairs you have to make that you can't afford.

Ignoring the majority of buyers who don't buy the first home they see.

#1 rule of home buying: NEVER buy the first home you see.

Look around at a lot. Come back to the first one once you're sure. Most buyers decide the first one wasn't the one.

We bought the 2nd home we saw, just 10 homes from the first one we saw. We made an offer on the home after looking at a dozen more.

I realize that realtors provide some kind of service.

What I don't understand is, that they get a commission based on the house price. Why is opening the door of a multi million dollar home more work than on a $250,000 house?