DOJ is NOT happy 😠 with NAR Lawsuit Settlement - BUT can they stop it?! 

I don't disagree, but the challenge is what constitutes "necessary". It's way above my pay grade, that's for sure. 🤣

STOP paying the fees to NAR-now Marxist with Marxists LOGO! What has NAR done for RE NOTHING! Parasite organization

@@brianfitzrealtywhat’s Not necessary is NAR-35 yrs in biz NEVEF needed NAR-! Put them out of bIZ & stop paying these not needed fees -

Biden wants us all EQUALLY POOR-vote with your pocket book NOT your emotions! Any realtor that voted for the present admin in White House-you got what you deserve

Thanks for watching!

I am already seeing consolidation happening in my market. Smaller brokerages are being gobbled up by the bigger ones. This trend will continue well into next year and perhaps beyond. The agents that are left will have tremendous upside once rates start to come down, demand softens (it already is in some spots), and inventory gets "unlocked".

Yes.

That's correct - the DOJ does not want ANY blanket offer of compensation in the listing itself. They are OK with the seller paying a buyer agent commission, but it has to be negotiated as part of the deal, not beforehand.

OMG - YES!!!! Who didn't see this happening. When you blow up the organization that writes the rule book, you end up with all these other smaller organizations trying to figure it out on their own. I've seen at least a half dozen different approaches from various MLS's across the nation on how to handle it. What is crystal clear at this point is that sellers STILL want to be able to offer a buyer agent commission because they recognize that it will attract more buyers who do not have the means to pay for a buyer agent in addition to all the other closing costs/down payment. It's such a mess and I'm hearing mixed messaged from everyone. Ultimately, it will be the broker that sets the policy for his/her agents.

@@brianfitzrealty My broker has us listen to the Zoom meetings with the California Association of Realtors given by their attorneys but there is still a lot of confusion. I also have my NMLS license so I am thinking about just doing the loan side, which is better than sitting on the bench until they decide who is on first. (Abbott & Costello)?? I feel it’s too risky right now.

It will definitely have an impact on those that need representation the most but can least afford it. I've already had to turn a few clients away that are not unwilling, but unable, to pay for my services out of pocket. When I explained that there is a real possibility that in the event that the seller would not pay my commission, they would have to walk away from the house, they were not willing to do so. In a way, it's better to have that conversation up-front rather than deal with it during the stress of an offer/negotiation. Buyer agents who are not having those conversations up-front are eventually going to run into a situation like I just described and are going to be upset for doing all that work for nothing.

Yes, until someone jumps on this new predicament, builds a better mouse trap and dematerializes the need for agents. Just another step. Sorry inevitable 🤷‍♂️ Maybe buyers will just tell agents to pound sand . There’s always someone willing to do it for less.

This will lead to buyers contacting the seller agents directly or hire a real estate atty. No one is going to pay a buyers agent $5000 to drive around and open doors!

@@rack9458I don’t think the average buyer can afford that. Buyers can do their due diligence ahead of time and just be house specific in a contract.

Cool - sounds like you have figured out a process that works well for you. Since you are routinely doing deals, it makes sense to have it set up the way you have. But for most people who buy a house every 10-15 years, a buyer agent adds tremendous value.

@@brianfitzrealty I am a firm believer in paying a lawyer for one or two hours of their time if a client needs help or I need help and any specific legal authority. That turns out to be much less money out of pocket than paying a % up to 6% of a $1M or more property. Housing markets are extremely local to a zip code. In my ACL market an SFR average home value is $750K up, most in this area are a $1M or over. Paying 3-6% on $1M sale is too high. If the DOJ and plaintiff's attorneys get their way, I see flat fee contracts between sellers and agents and buyers and agents the way of future.

You miss the whole point of hiring an expert in a field. You're a REI, so am I and a former agent - very different than the typical person going through a once or twice in a lifetime event. RE is in your lane - it's not in most people's.

@@GregPentecost Did you read my two posts above. What did I say? Pay a real estate lawyer for one or two hours of their time. I think you missed my posts. Again, pay a real estate lawyer if seller or buyer don’t understand contract law or how real estate contracts work. They are real estate experts in addition to legal experts. Agents and brokers are not experts to give legal advice or legal opinions and are conflicted because they are trying to get paid on the deal.This was only one class action case. Others are pending. DOJ got interested because several "expert" broker firms were posting about how to get around the jury verdict. Touting loopholes. DOJ is watching.

@@dewholdingsllc1050 Most people don't want to pay lawyer rates to walk them through and explain each step to them. You already know the process. As an agent I spent most of my time helping people understand the process - the knowledge and information you now take for granted. I wasn't giving legal or financial advice. I was helping people understand the process. As an investor I do what you do, but that's because I know the process and only need to call in that particular expert when they are necessary. You and I have knowledge of the RE process that 99.9% of people do not have.

This will absolutely hurt buyers who are barely able to scrape up enough for the down payment and closing costs as it is. I am ALREADY seeing the value of buyer leads plummet. During my new buyer consult, I explain that they may have to pay for some, or potentially all, of my commission and they look at me like I've got three heads. In the past, I'd explain it no differently, but also tell them that the situation is rare. Moving forward, it will be the norm. Until the market flips to a buyer's market, it is going to be very difficult (but not impossible) to get an offer accepted with a full buyer agent commission included. I can see most sellers paying for some portion of it and the rest being paid for by the buyer. We'll have to wait and see how it actually plays out - if every offer includes buyer agent commission, then it's impact will be much smaller.

@@brianfitzrealty buyers agent fees will be going down. more buyers will be going directly to listing agents.

@@ML-ql5kj True and definite conflict of interest

​@@debbie6533Are you saying there is something wrong with dual agency? Are real estate agents incapable of representing both sides?

@@rack9458 not here in California

That's fine - we can decouple the commissions. But please don't complain when commissions AND home prices go up together. It's sooooo obvious to me that is what's going to happen (it's already happening) but no one seems to realize it. For experienced / value-added agents, this new system is going to work out in their favor.

@@brianfitzrealty How are commissions going Up? The free market will decide whether 1) there is any commission 2) new brokerages are flat rate fees 3) if you increase your commissions, consumers can go somewhere else

1) Nobody works for free 2) Flat fee brokerages exist today 3) This will drive out so many agents from the industry that the only ones left will be true professionals that expect to be compensated fairly for their experience and value they bring to the table. Less competition means higher prices (i.e. commission). Price is only an issue in the absence of value...

@@brianfitzrealty you’re missing the point and Cruz of this lawsuit which is steering. Sellers can offer zero or very little compensation to the buyers side. In the past that same seller would get blackballed and have their house sit on the market. On top of that, the doj has made this a personal vendetta

@@shawnp.2084 Brian doesn't understand how the free market is supposed to work. Most buyer's agents (about 1,000,000) will be 'fired' as soon as the changes are implemented. This industry has lied to homeowners for decades by saying that buyer's agent's services are FREE. That lie will now come back to haunt them. No buyer will now agree to pay a broker, since it has been 'FREE' for decades. The buyer's agent in this video gets waterboarded (at 5:03, with an assist from the DOJ), for refusing to lower his fee. It worked. He lowered his fee. The free market and a little waterboarding WORKS. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-bL6ZBNv2EQ8.html