Northwest MLS REFUSES to SETTLE! Is this a better MLS template to follow? 

Interesting, I did not realize they were already set up that way. Most sellers are going to still offer it if given the opportunity. It just makes sense - I'd gladly pay 2% to pick up 5% more in my sale price.

I'm just a little jelly. 😋🤣 I'm hearing rumors that MLSPIN, which is my local MLS, is about to fight back as well. We'll see!!!....

Yes, exactly! If the buyer agent commission field is removed, there is little reason to even have MLS. They probably figure they are going out of business anyway, so might as well fight as long as they can.

That is the fundamental issue I have with all of this. In the current system, that money is earmarked for buyer agents. Moving forward, if given the option, most buyers would choose the put the seller concession toward their closing costs, not an agent. What everyone is overlooking in that scenario is that the listing agent is not going to work for the buyer for free - most, if not all, of those concessions will be eaten up by the listing agent (or some other facilitator) charging them buyer "fees' (draft offer, P&S, inspection, etc.) It's going to be interesting to see how quickly things change when the buyer agent commission field gets removed from MLS in a few months. Grab your popcorn 🍿. Thx for adding to the discussion!

Awesome - thx for sharing!

Let's hope!!

Anti-trust is designed to combat monopolies. Last time I checked, there is TREMENDOUS competition in the real estate industry. The current commissions are where they are because of market forces over time, not lack of competition. I've been saying all along that as agents leave the industry, there will be less competition and commission will go UP! These lawsuits are an absolute sham. NAR never should have settled. It's not the agent offering different comp - it would be the seller instructing their agent to do so because now it's the seller that is deciding whether to directly contribute to buyer broker compensation or not.

It is going to be a real challenge to get someone to agree to a contract at the first meeting. I'd imagine many people will instead just go to the open house and try to buy through listing agent. What they will soon find out is that the listing agent is not going to work for them for free so they are still going to pay a commission, but to someone that represents the seller's interest, not theirs. And they will likely pay a premium in hopes that their offer gets accepted.

@@brianfitzrealty But won't the listing agent then also represent the buyer? Therefore, neither will have representation, neutral ground.

Dual agency exists only when there is a pre-existing relationship between the buyer and listing agent. However, my interpretation takes it even further. If an unrepresented buyer starts asking questions about offer strategy, contingencies, etc. then the listing would then be entering into dual agency (which is prohibited in many states and brokerages). But if a buyer knows exactly what they want to offer, the listing agent can assist with the paperwork and be compensated by the buyer for it. Hope that helps clarify - great question!

First of all, thank you for your thoughtful comment - I truly appreciate it! A lot of people get hung up on this negotiation piece. However, it's a part of any sale. The idea of the shared commission is to attract as many ready, willing, and able buyers as possible to the property. This increased demand will absolutely generate a higher sale price. It's no different than a car dealer advertising a $5,000 incentive on a vehicle. It attracts buyers to the dealership that then do what - NEGOTIATE against the dealer. It's nuanced and I think both perspectives are valid.