The purpose of the Seller offering to pay a Buyer's commission has always been to encourage Buyer's brokers to bring Buyers to the Seller to sell the house. If you are a Seller and don't need anyone to come to your property to sell it, or you will market it yourself--then you don't need to offer a Buyer's commission. But if you want to encourage more Buyers to get a better a price--then offer a Commission. Simple as that.
Im not arguing the value of a commission, I'm arguing the Value vs effort proposition, which at this point, supports most Realtors living in a fantasy land of self-importance.
In the world where most people are keen to self-service and data is becoming readily available, cutting out the middle man will be more and more in demand. Zillow and the like will become platforms where sellers can list for a nominal fee, and buyers can buy directly. No more getting that agent who will just connect you to the folks or provide you info about property or neighborhoods for the average transaction. Specialized agents for unique / high value properties will still be a thing, but today's norm that you need to find an agent to conduct a sale or purchase a home will eventually break. The NAR has long gate-kept data, but tech and competition in that space is making things more transparent.
@@verb0ze Spoken like someone that knows exactly nothing about what a buyer's agent actually does for their clients and the money they earn. Buyer's agents don't simply "connect you to the folks." The buyer's agent makes sure the house is priced accordingly and then guides the buyers through the process, as well as shows up to the property if/when the buyer can not for certain things like the inspections, appraisals etc. The buyer's agent also makes sure that the buyer has been pre-approved for the amount that the house is selling for, as well as reads/knows the contract and all of the legaleze and how it effects the buyer and seller as well as knows what the buyer's (and seller's) rights and responsibilities are and the proper procedures. They also know how to negotiate a lot better than the average buyer that Seldom ever buys a house, compared to a RE Agent that goes through the process on a daily basis.
It sounds like it will close doors to people buying homes and leave the way open for investors to buy up homes to rent. This will force out regular families from being able to ever own a home. In my opinion
No, it lowers the cost of owning a home. Realtors charge 100 billion a year in commissions. Wouldnt it be nice for homeowners to offer a buyer 3% toward their downpayment, instead of feeling forced to give it to a buyer agent?
Both of my sons were wise enough to refi into 2% loans. Hell will freeze over before they sell their homes and my wife and I paid cash for ours. Nobody wants an 8% interest rate...
That’s the fear mongering. In reality, buyers will be able to improve their offers by working with the listing agent and with brokers who charge a rate lower than the 3% brokers intend to continue to charge.
@@TheKindKids In the interview she literally says that the more likely scenario is the seller will just pocket the 3% savings because sellers are greedy.
The settlement is not the cause of confusion. The confusion is the result of NAR trying to maintain the status quo, deny responsibility, and burning energy on pampering members who are intent on devising work around strategies.
First-time home buyer advice: Move to a city or buy in a town with new construction. Most builders offer huge incentives that can be used to lower the interest rate or reduce the price. Many areas have grants and programs that help with the down payment. Some companies even buy the home for you and let you rent that home, and then you buy it from them when you are ready at an agreed-upon price.
@@altheacbarnes2522 correct! I’ve represented a buyer for a new construction and saved them $50k. Compared to someone coming in Unrepresented those incentives are chump change for them due to them upping the actual price
Buying a new build comes with risks. Is the builder reputable? Do they honor their word? Is the sales rep telling you the truth? Can't sue the sales rep they are an employee. Sue an agent? Yep can do that as they are self employed. Pay their bills, pay extra SS taxes, pay their own insurance, so are not employees and a good one should guide you in your choices based upon their experience. LIke the one that another agent's clients bought that had plumbing that was not hooked up so when they ran their first load of clothes the laundry room flooded. Builder fixed it but the drywall still hasn't been repaired. Hole behind the washer. Think their sales reps would tell a client that? Nope they tout their 1-2-10 warranty. Does a good agent tell it to a client. Yep.
Barbara Corcoran is one of the smartest and most successful people . She really knows her stuff! I completely agree with her take on this NAR settlement causing confusion. It's hard to imagine sellers accepting less for their homes just to pass the savings on to buyers. At the end of the day, sellers want to maximize their profits, and most buyers don't want the extra out-of-pocket expenses either. 💰 Barbara's right - despite the uncertainty, now is still a great time to jump into the market and buy!
Good points, here is another. If I'm selling, do I want to be negotiating with an unrepresented buyer or with an agent who has done this a few times? I'm still going to agree to the net price I want either way, but after the contract is signed, who is making sure the buyer does what they are supposed to do? Once people learn how often closings are delayed due to incompetence from the buyer or because the lawyer has a tee time at 4 and doesn't care if it closes on time, sellers will rush to bring back the compensation offers they have today. What people don't understand is how commission vs hourly fees differ. Delays are a built in bonus for those who charge hourly fees.
Pffft, are you working twice as hard as you did 5 years ago before prices doubled? My house is valued at around 780k. I would sell it tomorrow for 750 in a heartbeat if I didnt have to get gouged by a realtor commission from someone who MAY have spent 20-30 hours on the deal if i am extremely lucky... whats that $1560.00 hourly? Please....
@@chateauchamonix Without a business there are no employees. Are businesses greedy? So should there just be businesses without employees? Sorry I don't understand your point.
BOTTOM LINE. Sellers should negotiate ANY commission to sellers agent BUT should HAVE NEVER bound the buyers with those enormous fees! Many buyers DON'T need or WANT ANY agent! Contrary to what NAR and many agents believe, buyers are savvy enough to research listings, get inspections and arrange financing. And yes, a buyer can even compose questions to a seller or sellers agent. The real estate industry has been a RIGGED SCAM for decades. No other country in the WORLD punishes buyers and sellers with 5, 6 or 7 percent fees. Usually one or 2 percent.
Also, buyers will be a great disadvantage if they choose to represent themselves since listing brokers have far more experience with real estate contracts.
If anything this settlement will make it more expensive and harder to buy a home, especially first time buyers. And we are only getting started with the lawsuits. Sad time for America
Barbara is a wise Lady. She is correct about the confusion being the problem with this change. I think if agents are wise, they will encourage the seller to pay the commission as they always have and the statisics show Sellers get more money for their home using a realtor, verses selling it themselves without paying a commission.
As a buyer I am not ever going to pay a commission to a Buyer Agent. Afterall, who is coming up with all of the funds that is being used to pay all of these fees through the cost of the home...yes, me the buyer! No sale, no money. I will have closing costs, appraisals, inspections, etc. so don't need to pay additional fees. Plus, I am the one incurring debt not the one reaping thousands of dollars through a sale. A selling agent not willing to share a commission is a greedy one. If I show up with a Buyer Agent and end up purchasing the home, you've got a sale so pay for it! Selling agents not willing to share a commission with a buyer agent (just ran into this) will potentially turn away a sale. Buyer agents won't work for free.
SELLING AGENTS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ASK THE SELLER TO PAY FOR THE BUYERS AGENT ANY LONGER, MAYBE YOU/BUYER CAN ASK IN YOUR PURCHASE CONTRACT, BUT SELLING/LISTING AGENTS CAN NOT ASK THE SELLER TO PAY FOR THE BUYER’S AGENT. IT WILL DEPEND ON THE MARKET CONDITIONS IF SELLERS WILL PAY. IF HOMES ARE SELLING QUICKLY WITH MULTIPLE OFFERS, THEY WON’T PAY, AND BUYERS WILL GET STUCK FINANCING IT INTO THEIR SALE. SO ULTIMATELY IT WILL COST THE BUYER MORE. THESE PEOPLE AND LAWYERS WHO BROUGHT THE SUIT, FELT THEY WERE HELPING BUYERS, THEY WILL ONLY HURT THE BUYER. NO SELLER IS GOING TO SELL THIER HOME FOR LOWER, ALL SELLERS WANT TOP DOLLAR FOR THEIR HOME. (IT’S NOT SELLING AGENTS NOT WILLING TO SHARE THEIR COMMISSION, SELLING AGENTS CANNOT ASK A SELLER TO PAY 2 SIDES, THEY CAN ONLY ASK THE SELLER TO PAY THEIR COMMISSION).
So who is the Buyer’s Agent working for? That’s who should pay them. If I’m a Seller and the Buyers Agent works with a Buyer to pick apart the property to justify a lower price, why would the Seller pay them?
@@peterwilliams2889 But as a seller, you gain a sale and both the seller and listing agent gain a profit. Remember where all of these funds are coming from...yes, the buyer.
@@JanMaroseSwiszcz It will be up to the listing agent to speak up and let the seller know that in order to market, show on different listing sites, etc, it will be a (6%) fee, and the listing agent can still provide 3% to the buyer's agent. That's my two cents on it.
@@JanMaroseSwiszcz 100% incorrect. And why are you yelling btw? Sellers can pay the buyer agent fee - and all lending types: FNMA, Freddie, FHA, VA ...etc. All of them agree: Buyer agent fees can be paid by buyer OR seller and do not factor into the seller concession limits.
When the seller does not pay the buyer broker fee, it should reflect in a lower sale price. Previous sales reflect both sides in the price. Adjustments will need to be made to the price (and appraised value) based on who paid what.
How about this: the seller now becomes a buyer too to purchase another house and pays per new rules 3 % or whatever to the buying agent he/she signs contract with??
@@Katherine-mo8flIf I'm a seller and I save half of the total commission I was going to pay, when I become a buyer I can easily afford to pay the buyers agent because I just saved half of the commission when I sold. But if I'm a young person who is trying to buy my first home and I don't have the type of parents who have extra money to give to me, I'm screwed because now I have to pay for the lender, appraisal, inspection, escrow. On top of that now I pay for an agent. Before I didn't have to pay for the agent.
Isn't it the reason of the lawsuit in the first place. When will America finally wake up and stop paying the middleman? Median sales price in the US is around $400k. Do you really think your agent deserves $8k-$12k just to 'show' you a few houses? They don't negotiate anything for you, they just make you believe they do
This rule only apply to Realtors. If you are not a Realtor it does not apply. Meaning, drop the Realtor designation, sell homes and make money. NAR is hamstringing agents.
@@PianoUniverse good for you. But there are many regulations and laws. Most average, Joe and Jane is not going to know. Perhaps you're a realtor so you know. But many owners and buyers are not in the industry. Agents serve a buffer to ensure their client walks away with best possible outcome. I bought my own home with no representation. And I am not an agent either. It's very rough and sometimes I think I didn't get the best deal and should have worked with an agent in hindsight.
@@lindada6460 Not a realtor. Just figure out a price, prep home ,advertise, and have your lawyer do the contract. I've done it 3 times with no formal training. Saved thousands.
America needs to stop allowing institutional investors to buy up most of lower priced residential housing stock. There should laws against this in every State. First time homebuyers who are strapped for cash can not compete with these big wealthy bullies. This is what is also causing low inventory but no one talks about it.
@@chateauchamonix i sent my comment 4 MONTHS AGO. who's clueless? and as a side note, does your mom know you and your unfocused snark is still living in the basement? grow up.
@@chateauchamonix my response was from 4 MONTHS AGO... i think that makes you, ''unobservant''. but no, enjoy your derisive snark. i'm sure you're swell to be around.
@@americansailor7967 Not really. Very likely it was laddered, i.e. 40% of the first million; 35% of the next whatever million; 25% of the last whatever million. No doubt they were well compensated, but they took a huge risk taking on a major industry model that's been in place for decades.
Hopefully making it even more expensive for buyer will signal buyers to stop buying… REAL ESTATE IS A RACKET! NAR IS CORUPT AND THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY IS FULL OF COLLUSION! Open your eyes people…
@@Vergy1331 rignt now the seller will pay for the commission of the buyers agent by increasing the price of the house so in a sense the buyer was financing the commission of their agent
Barbara is smart BUT she's not addressing what's really happening and the LAWSUIT lost by NAR. NAR caused this lawsuit and the judgment was against NAR for dictating in MLS and to Agents and Brokers how they should and could conduct business. Buyers and Sellers DO NOT KNOW what Licensed Agents and Brokers do in real estate transactions and THIS IS NAR’S FAULT. Buyer Agents will now have to go to the Buyer and explain they are now REALLY responsible FOR THE ENTIRE COST OF USING AN AGENT OR BROKER. The Buyer Agent WILL ATTEMPT TO GET THE SELLER TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS COST, I.E. PAYING 1% OF THE SALE PRICE TOWARD THE BUYER'S COST OF USING AN AGENT / BROKER, OR PAYING SOME OF THE BUYER'S CLOSING COSTS. BUYER AGENT / BROKERS ARE TIRED OF SHOWING PROPERTIES FOR FREE, WRITING AND NEGOTIATING COMPLEX LEGAL CONTRACTS FOR FREE AND ONLY GETTING PAID IF THE BUYER ACTUALLY CLOSES ON A PROPERTY AND DOESN'T CHANGE THEIR MIND ABOUT BUYING ANY PROPERTY. I think Buyer Agents and Brokers are GOING TO BE FEW AND FAR BETWEEN AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE MORE AND MORE WHERE ONE AGENT OR BROKER HANDLES THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION FOR BOTH THE SELLER AND THE BUYER....AS IN FUNCTIONING AS AN INTERMEDIARY! BUYERS ARE ALREADY STRAPPED FOR THEIR DOWNPAYMENT, THEIR LOAN COSTS, THEIR TITLE AND CLOSING COSTS AND WILL NOT WANT TO PAY AGENTS AND BROKERS WHAT THEY NEED TO BE PAID TO MAKE A LIVING. REALTOR ASSOCIATIONS NEED TO GO AWAY, WE HAVE STATE REAL ESTATE COMMISSIONS / BOARDS!
NAR HAS NEVER DICTATED WHAT I CHARGE. I WORK FOR RE/MAX, THEY HAVE NEVER TOLD ME IN 30 YEARS WHAT TO CHARGE A SELLER. COMMISSIONS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN NEGOTIABLE. WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS INFORMATION FROM???
Barbara is talking her book. Telling people to buy real estate at maximum unaffordability is either disingenuous or stupid. She's not stupid. So it's the former.
Buyers do not need an agent. All information regarding paper work and instruction could be given by listing agent. Buyers could personaly negotiate. This is why they do not need to be represent by an agent. If a buyer insists to be represented then they should pay the fee themselves.
One might argue that, given the current state of technology, we might not need the selling agent either. Since people can control doors locks from their phones (they can control their own showings), hire lawyers cheaper than real estate agents, can hire inspectors from a range of places, apply for and get pre-approved for loans online, and have documents notarized for less than a combined $30, it could be a shift in the dynamic of the market. It could be that, in 15 years or so, real estate agents go the way of the traveling salesman. It is argument, not an explicit statement of fact.
@@myronpriest4935 Good luck sitting on the market for months on end and wondering why the house down the street sold after a week. Most buyers can’t afford the commission. But, don’t take my word for it, try it your way first :).
Bleep the buyer's agent...If I list my home for sale and I hire an agent, I hire that agent. If you want to see that house, contact the LISTING AGENT. Re-write the agents code of conduct stating that the role of the listing agent is to represent both sides to facilitate a fair and reasonable agreement for both parties. Still feel you need a buyers agent. Pay them yourself... This is how it is done in the rest of the free world.
Interesting proposition. Without the volume of buyers, (and the aggregate time in the day of multiple people bringing them), as a seller, you CAN absolutely avoid paying buyers agents. But prepare to accept significantly lower prices. Nothing about the NAR settlement changes the principle of Supply and Demand. With only "one guy" bringing and having the time to interact with buyers... well, less demand, if due to nothing but the sheer force of the space/time continuum...
BOTTOM LINE. Sellers should negotiate ANY commission to sellers agent BUT should HAVE NEVER bound the buyers with those enormous fees! Many buyers DON'T need or WANT ANY agent! Contrary to what NAR and many agents believe, buyers are savvy enough to research listings, get inspections and arrange financing. And yes, a buyer can even compose questions to a seller or sellers agent. The real estate industry has been a RIGGED SCAM for decades. No other country in the WORLD punishes buyers and sellers with 5, 6 or 7 percent fees. Usually one or 2 percent.
@@clearviewtechnical Most people buy one or two homes in their entire life. In your universe that makes buyers and sellers experts. There is the FSBO market where you can play with no commission. Good luck with that. There is a reason why people list and buy homes with a real estate agent. The Lawfare shakedown will reek havoc on a already crazy real estate market. Thanks NAR for rolling over to the extortion.
The buyers didnt get hurt at all. They aren't going to pay realtors exorbitant fees. Thats the whole point: Stop the price gouging! The future of buyer agent commissions should reflect their fair market value. Right now they are putting buyers behind a pay wall. That absolutley needs to be done away with. Good for the class action firms addressing this! Buyer agents should get paid what they are worth, as decided by buyers, and not a penny more! No more price fixing!
The reality is you don’t need to pay commission to buyers agent, you just deal with the sellers agent or the owner period. And if they don’t want to sell you the property for the price you willing to pay then move on to another property. Negotiate from a side of strength and walk away if you need to.😉
LMAO Do you understand what happens when you work with the sellers agent? And who they owe their fiduciary duty to? It ain't the buyer. Unless the property is a dog they will tell you don't let the door hit ya in the butt as you leave. Plus you have to now sign an agreement to even enter the house.
She is surprisingly confident 😒. I follow a Realtor of 20+ years who is confounded on how things are going to work out. Leave it to investors, like her, to prop up the market.
I really think it's a lot of noise without much substance. I believe things will change some (mostly wording and forms), but sellers are still going to be paying commissions to Buyers Agents. (For the most part) Buyers have always paid their Buyer's Agent fees, it's just figured into the purchase price and their loan (if they finance).
That's because this is the first time this has happened in the history of real estate in this country. No one knows for sure how things are going to work out, not even Barbara. It's all speculation at this point.
As a real estate professional in Atlanta GA, I agree 100% with Barbara. Only the forms have changed and agents are explaining to buyers their responsibility to pay in the event a seller does not wish to compensate a selling broker's compensation. Commission paid by the buyer has always been in writing in the Buyer Brokers Agreement before the lawsuit as this is nothing new. This settlement has only put the commission's conversation on the front end of the process. I hope this helps.
If comparables used by appraisers include a buyer's agent commission and the subject property does not, an adjustment still needs to be made (downward in sellers' value) just as if the subject property doesn't have an amenity that the comparables have.
Yep. We moved with a plan to re-evaluate location in 5 years (now halfway through), but with a 3% mortgage, it’s going to take something significant to make it feasible to move.
Don’t be dense. Up until the NAR settlement, that was the buyer agent pitch for most. Now it’s not and my other comment reflects that. Maybe understand sarcasm and you wont have to make a foolish reply.
The new situation assumes a great deal. There is an assumption that the seller's agent is a sharp business person that can somehow attract the right buyers with the right financing. There will be no unpaid buyer agents going from listing to listing bringing in the deal. The seller's agent will not be dealing with experienced unpaid seller agents to make it all work when problems arise. If I am selling my home I would be hard-pressed to have newbies with no agent give me an offer.
They don't have to be. Hire a good buyers agent. The buyer's agent will agree to the commission that they will charge you. Very likely it will be the same or in the same range that the MLS used to offer. The seller still, absolutely CAN pay that commission. And since it's been baked into Fair Market Value for decades, and still will be, they'll pay it if the offer makes sense. Nothing has to change - it's just a matter of finding a good buyers agent, and understanding, finally, their value.
Spoken by someone who has no clue the hours that agents put in. If you want to pay a fixed 3% ... 1.5 to EACH - and then, ALSO pay for ALL of your ads, all of your staging, all of your marketing materials, signs, etc. And the buyer wants to pay a flat fee per tour, whether or not they decide to offer - then, maybe 1.5% would be enough - considering the risk that the licensee takes on to potentially get sued for not knowing and informing their clients of a whole range of things they can, and do get sued for...
Maybe I'm missing something, but in the old days, the seller would list with a realtor who would show the house, run open houses, and walk them through the sale of the home. Their agent is supposed to represent them. The overall commission was split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent. Generally, the buyer rolled the commission into the mortgage loan they acquired. I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure it worked that way. Now the seller has to negotiate a fee with their agent and pay for that out of pocket. For a $500,000 home a 2 percent commission is $10,000. That's a lot of money for most people. While they might be able to negotiate that down, they will still have to pay a few thousand dollars for agent representation. I understand that some agents may list for zero commission, but they're not going to do that very often. If they do, they will cut their income in half. I don't see how this is not going to change the way we sell and buy homes. Since Ms. Corcoran believes nothing will change that much; I can only assume I am missing something.
The small Perentage pf commision that goes to the agents for representation Is NOT gonna effect the prices of homes!! (Whats The reason prices are soo high is because we had a massive rate increase over an extreemly short period of time! And inflation.
@@tidycats151 They are working in your interest because they are bringing you someone who will buy your home! Your number one interest is getting your home SOLD! You need a buyer for that, and a buyer needs representation! Period end of story. And if you are not a real estate agent then you really cannot talk! You have NO idea what it is like to work for months, with out a pay and have a deal not close or fall out of escrow. You have no idea the stress of runing out of money and maxing out your credit cards while hoping to be able to finally close on a sale and put some money back in your account, while your also being eaten alive by fees and also stressing about how you are gonna get another deal, and knowing you are gonna have to spend more moeny to market etc. In my market the average home sale is 400,000 the average commission is 2.5% and an agent sells an average of 4 homes a year..and right now because of the high interest rates its extremely slow! Do that math! This isnt selling sunset we are NOT getting rich, and this is no monopoly!!
Buyers rep contract should be a flat 2.5% and paid by buyer at close. Seller can be whatever is agreed to by client. Seller shouldn’t be responsible for Buyer rep commission.
Real Talk... Thanks for your real estate expertise, Barbara. We agents and the public need more clarity in the marketplace to overcome the chaos that's being promoted in the media.
What’s interesting is how she says the sellers won’t want to give any of their equity gain to the buyer. 🤔 hmmm, but it’s ok for the seller to give the agents involved 6% of the equity 🤷♂️. Let’s make sure we negotiate what’s “always been negotiable” lol 😜
We're not selling widgets. These are homes, selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars. There are all sorts of legal ramifications and people's entire life savings riding on them. Do it wrong, and you're screwed. Maybe bankrupt, or worse. Remove the agent, and who takes all the risk of not knowing the stuff that they spend every day, all day, knowing - millions of little details that could ruin their clients lives. Who's gonna tell them the real risk - the seller? Not likely. They'll just claim they didn't know. Agents get paid what they get paid for the hours it takes to create the market buyers and sellers enjoy - plus their legwork - plus their risk. Added up - without them, buyers and sellers are screwed, and paying way more - one way or the other.
Whew!! I feel so much better listening to you. Yes this is confusing. But you have explained it very well and I am WORTH every penny to the buyer. :) Thank you again!!!!
My broker has already made a statement that our Sellers will need to pay a "compensation" to a Buyer's Broker. Barbara, you need to check your states. Florida has WAY too many listings!!!!!
Then your Broker will be breaking the law. In California Sellers have never been obligated to pay the Buying side a commission. But they've always done so because it results in selling their home quicker and for the highest price. But they can't be forced to ... it's completely voluntary. It should be like that in every State ... requiring the Seller to compensate the Buyer's Broker will soon be illegal in every State. Barbara's facts are correct ... no need for her to check them again.
The reason its confusing is that is shouldnt have happened. But since Hedge funds own 85% or more of the properties, its becoming less of a problem as American home ownership is ending. Sone small step for Wallstreet, one giant leap for socialsim.
This lawsuit intent was to protect the buyer from having their agent only show them properties where the seller paid them the most money. In my opinion this did not help the buyer. Now the selling agent has to call the listing agent and ask them how much they are offering in selling agency compensation, which will now lead the selling agent to decide not to show them properties based upon the amount of commission being offered by the seller. In order for there to be true fairness to the buyer, the selling agent should never be able to ask the listing agent how much they are paying in commission, as this is the reason it is no longer listed in the MLS. That is the reason they sign the buyer's agency agreement that specifies compensation between buyer and selling agent.
Buyer agents are going to get a flat fee ($1-5k) for ANY purchases regardless of the list price and the Home owners are going to end up paying around 2% to list their house. This is the new norm! By you sneaking the buyer commission into the deal by increasing the home price is flat wrong and that is what led to all these NAR changes in the first place. There are plenty of Agents willing to list a home for 2% and buyers agents willing to take a couple thousand for a few hours of work, get it while you can!
In the public's mind, real estate licensees are not known for their competence and ethics. Example - the Phil Dunphy character on Modern Family. Why is it funny? Because there is a strong component of truth to it. Maybe this settlement will thin the herd. Though probably not. Multiple "experts" are already promoting ways to sidestep the upcoming changes.
Many states have required buyer agreements ; there are many undisciplined agents not getting written buyer agreements ( these agents need to be educated or leave the industry. A seller “pays” compensation when a buyer settles on the purchase of a house. If the buyer does not buy, the seller receives and pays no money. Dear sellers, before you decide you do not want to pay X amount of dollars for marketing, selling and processing the sale of your home, ask yourself how much time you have to study the data of sales for the last 6~18 months, how much time you have to market your home, host open houses, evaluate submitted offers, confirm lender data submitted, verify funding legitimacy, address title/ lien questions and on on. A house is sold when all steps have been taken not when an offer is accepted. Depending on the market we are in, you can sell the house on the first contract you get the first day it was listed or 180 days after it was listed….research how long it took homes to sales between 2005-2008
2:11 this doesn’t do a thing for the price in homes. The property sells for market value usually, which is based on what buyers are willing to buy. What “fees” may be involved in that sale are neither here nor there in those market sales. As for more buyers getting into the market because of this, how would anyone think that? Buyers now may have to pay for part of the purchase that they didn’t before, no buyers are seeing that as a good thing. I can’t even see why she would make that statement.
If you are a first-time homebuyer or home seller and need a lot of hand-holding, I don't see the commission coming down that much. However, for people who have been through the process before, I hope there are now "a la carte" options so you only pay for the services you need.
À la cart pricing gets tricky… You hire the agent to do the paperwork only but then sue him/her later because your basement floods unexpectedly. Unfortunately, the liability side of the equation never changes for the Realtor.
BOTTOM LINE. Sellers should negotiate ANY commission to sellers agent BUT should HAVE NEVER bound the buyers with those enormous fees! Many buyers DON'T need or WANT ANY agent! Contrary to what NAR and many agents believe, buyers are savvy enough to research listings, get inspections and arrange financing. And yes, a buyer can even compose questions to a seller or sellers agent. The real estate industry has been a RIGGED SCAM for decades. No other country in the WORLD punishes buyers and sellers with 5, 6 or 7 percent fees. Usually one or 2 percent.
@@clearviewtechnical I GUESS YOU DO NOT WORK WITH THE PUBLIC. MANY PEOPLE CANNOT DO THE THINGS YOU DESCRIBE ABOVE. THEY OWN BUSINESSES, HAVE EMPLOYEES TO SUPERVISE, HAVE JOBS, CHILDREN ETC… AND NEED A REALTOR TO ASSIST THEM. THE DATES COME UP VERY QUICKLY IN A CONTRACT. IF A DATE IS MISSED, YOU LOSE THAT CONTINGENCY TO GET OUT. MANY PEOPLE CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE TITLE COMMITMENT, OR EVEN KNOW WHY IT IS NECESSARY. MANY PEOPLE KNOW THEY NEED AN INSPECTION, BUT WHAT ABOUT MOLD TESTING, SEWER SCOPES, RADON TESTING. WORKING WITH AN EXPERIENCED REALTOR CAN SAVE YOU THOUSANDS IN MISTAKES AND HEADACHES. THE LAST PART OF YOUR STATEMENT, I AM NOT SURE HOW REALTORS DO IT FOR 1 %. FOR EXAMPLE I HAVE A LISTING FOR 649,000 NOW. 1 PERCENT WOULD BE 6490.00 TO ME, I HAVE TO PAY FOR PHOTOGRAPHY (400.00) MY SIGN IN THE YARD, FLYER BOXES, PAY FOR STAGING ADVICE, COLOR FLYERS TO BE CREATED AND PRINTED. ADVERTISING (WHICH IS VERY EXPENSIVE), GOING OVER THE CONTRACT AND DISCLOSURES WITH THE SELLER (MINIMUM 2 HOURS) FILLING OUT FORMS TO GET THE PROPERTY IN THE MLS, OR INPUTTING IT. HOLDING OPEN HOUSES, GETTING BACK TO BUYER/REALTOR INQUIRIES ON MY PHONE, TEXTS, AND EMAILS, GETTING IN OFFERS, GOING OVER THEM, 21 PAGE CONTRACT IN CO, GO OVER IT IN DETAIL WITH THE SELLER. POSSIBLY CREATING A COUNTERPROPOSAL AND AMEND EXTENDS. THEN FOLOW THE CONTRACT THROUGH TO CLOSING - EARNEST MONEY DELIVERY AND RECEIPT, INSPECTIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS, TITLE COMMITMENT, WORKING WITH THE LENDER ON BEHALF OF MY SELLER, GOING OVER IN DETAIL THE FINAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT FOR ACCURACY, ATTENDING CLOSING. PAYING MY REAL ESTATE COMPANY 1300 TO 1500 A MONTH. THERE WOULD BE NO MONEY LEFT FOR ME, I AM NOT WORKING FOR FREE.
The shortage of homes to buy and the interest rates are making many people turn to renting. In California rents are high, not low or neutral. Builders are approximately 4 million homes behind what they would have built if rates were still lower and the price of lumber were to come down. Yes, the "settlement" is extremely confusing. What a mess! I'm a real estate broker in California and Utah.
These fee arrangements are smoke and mirrors. If the seller pays 6% and 3% goes to the buyer agent expect that the price was inflated by 6% to cover it - WIN for the agents that get commission on a purchase price that was inflated by 6%. In a seller's market, the buyer is going to pay the seller's fee one way or another. How many agents are totally honest about that? Buyer's like to think they don't pay any fees.
I really enjoy listening to Barbara. However, I differ in her opinion that renting is cheaper. If you buy early enough, you will have $0 mortgage when you retire. If you rent, your rent goes up consistently and before you know it, you are retired and your rent, which is a forever payment, is not affordable.
I guess ,sellers and buyers are craving for a model where buyers and sellers are directly connected . without the agents as they always represent themselves, neither the buyer nor the seller!
@@adamblacketter that’s easy when you people blackmail and boycott homes that don’t pay buyers agent a ransom fee. That what the jury said. Let’s have more lawsuits, drop the settlement because you people think you are in the right. And cookie cutter homes in California that were built in last 30 years. Less than 10% of homes have big/special features that can alter homes appreciably. In extreme sellers market with home selling in 5 days or less with homes sold as is, did agent really do much except drive affordability to 10%?
So a record number of homes under contract and construction, inventory tripling in many states since '21, wages down, unemployment going up, individual savings at near record lows, credit card debt climbing, foreclosures and defaults going up...doesn't seem like a "prices going up" kind of formula. Never forget, these are the same people who shouted in 2008 that home prices were definitely going to go up. These are also the people who have constantly fail to look at how American financial situations are going to change real estate demand. On a long enough timeline this is completely unsustainable, as wages remain nearly flat the prices of homes continuously push people out of the market. A 6% YoY price increase takes $200k home to $358k in 10 years, and $641k in 20 years. So unless she is expecting something incredibly dramatic to happen to wages we're going to see real estate deflationary pressures sometime soon.
Less caffeine for you. 😁. Also unemployment is not going up. Many companies are having a difficult time filling positions and as much as inflation is still high. Try finding room at a restaurant on the weekend. Market correction on real estate, who knows when ? That’s normal . Also many homes are being purchased by hedge fund’s all over the country turning them into rental properties. Interesting developments. HOLD ON ! 🇺🇸🙈🇺🇸
@@rayRay-pw6gz Check out the End Hedge Fund Control of American Homes Act. It is due to be voted on soon. And unemployment is in the way back up from the January ‘23 lows, or at least that’s what the Bureau of Labor and Statistics holds to be true. And prices can only continue to go up if wages do the same, otherwise the purchasing pool (demand) gets smaller and smaller. Maybe we’ll adopt a 50 year mortgage option soon. Personally, I think it is far more likely we see a fairly big set of changes in how people buy homes from one another in a way that circumvents the bank loans and realty companies altogether. Our current state of technology would be capable of supporting such a concept.
she's a REALTOR'' ''it's in her nature.'' they are not our friends. best bet is unincorporated raw land. get them all out of you lives and if still working, go remote. me? retiring to the above scenario...
Barbara.... are you kidding me....? You are telling people to "rent" rather than "buy"???? Young people.... After 30 years you will have hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity and you will never have to make another rent payment or mortgage payment.... I can't believe you didn't tell people that renting is just throwing your money away every month and getting nothing for it but a roof over your head for now.... Geeez
And not just that, but renting is not cheaper at all at least here in Florida, when someone pays for 2 2 condo is around 2800 or 3000 per month... How is it cheaper than owning a property?? tenants are paying more money than homeowners paying in taxes...
With the sellers market as crazy as it’s been you would think a lot of sellers would go unrepresented, however, Fsbos in my market are rarer than ever. Sellers realize that 92% of buyers are represented by agents and, let’s face it, we all work together to get the deal done. Buyers these days need representation more than ever! Mostly to help keep them sane during the process. I have not had one deal in the last year where the buyers wouldn’t have walked away for something silly. The only good thing if buyers go unrepresented is the “back on market” inventory will skyrocket! So the ones with agents will have more to choose from!
It will only be a win if the 6% (3% + 3%) goes down to 4% (2.5% + 1.5%) Buyers agents were getting paid too much . I don't expect anyone to work for free but 3% is too much.
We have a massive shortage of apartments in the urban/suburban interface, where the city meets the suburbs. Government need to help developers gets buildings built in these areas, people will fight it as they don't want full schools and parking issues.
seems to me like the only thing that will change is that the entire deal will have to be negotiated sellers will still pay the buyer agent commission in most cases the media should not make sellers believe they are now saving X% a buyers agent will write an offer asking for the seller to pay their commission and most of the time these deals are worked out just like in commercial real estate all details will be laid on the table it's the best thing for buyers sellers and realtors it will weed out the realtors that don't know what they are doing and don't belong in the business anyway so buyers and sellers will be getting the best of the best realtors the real pros working for them it's a win win win
The Fed is mafia...and Hollywood is mafia. Mainstream media is mafia... And banksters are mafia, Big Education is mafia and High Tech is mafia, and so on and so on and so on...
When there's more buyer's than Sellers= buyer's will have to pay commission or add to the purchase price. But when house isn't selling or more Sellers than qualified Buyers = Sellers will either pay Full commission or Lower price in order to Sell!!😊
Corcoran's company, Corcoran Group, was sued in November 2023. She's just mad that her crimes (violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act) are going to be exposed and she's going to have to pay back some money she stole from home sellers.
@@larryjones9773 This woman destroyed the real estate market in NYC when she started up. Drove prices way higher which just continued to skyrocket throughout the years.
NAR is basically like a union for realtors. They keep the fees high and they also spend big money on lobbyists. If you are a buyer, you need to get a good lawyer familiar with real estate law. And do your homework on buying a home. The devil is in the details. It is complex. Site problems, location financial information, builder issues and much more.
Two things: 1. The housing inventory shortage is also being caused by corporate investors buying up residential homes to rent back to tenants. 2. First time buyers actually get access to home-buying programs to assist them so it’s not as bleak as it seems. Unfortunately, in some places that funding is also being shared with “migrants” so first time buyers who are actual citizens need to act quickly and decisively.
First time home buyers are often in need of A person to guide them through, and negotiate on their behalf. First time rates- FHA or USDA, with low down payment, they do not have funds to hire an agent, if the seller is not paying buyers'' agent compensation. And the seller is not going to cut them a deal.
