Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"For the first time, real estate giant Realogy is publicly calling for the National Association of Realtors to end a requirement that listing brokers offer commissions to buyer brokers in order to submit listings to Realtor-affiliated multiple listing services.The company’s position was revealed in an unsealed legal filing on Thursday. Realogy — along with the National Association of Realtors, RE/MAX, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America — is a defendant in multiple antitrust lawsuits from homesellers and a homebuyer that seek to have homebuyers pay their broker directly, rather than have listing brokers pay buyer brokers from what the seller pays the listing broker. That change could upend the U.S. real estate industry by effectively forcing changes in how buyer’s agents are traditionally compensated."
Page 6 of 86 of the filing from the CEO of Realogy and Coldwell Banker, Michael Ryan Gorman:
9. As I testified during my deposition, it is the position of Realogy that the mandatory nature of the NAR Cooperative Compensation Rule should be rescinded. It is also the position of Realogy that offers of compensation that are made to buyer brokers should be transparently available to consumers, not just to brokers.
Of course, NAR pushed back. Wagons circled.....
Of course, beyond NAR's likely fear of an appearance of caving in, the real hurdle is the true need for most buyers to roll their buyer broker fees into their mortgages, as they have for decades when their money is shuffled through the sellers' side of the transaction.
NAR, Realogy, and other industry heavy-weights should be, should have been, lobbying for that dynamic to become rule for lenders who sell their loans backed by Fannie and Freddie.
Funny, in an ironic sort of way. Caveat emptor ended becuase buyers wanted representation. Now we are circling back towards ending co-brokes which will ultimately lead us back to where we started. Of course, buyer agency will still be more common than it was back then, but I have to think if the above happens we'll see total commissions drop and agents leave the business.
While not everyone is a fan of the current system, it functions pretty well. I think is the vocal minority pushing back loudly is once again creating a shift. First time and novice home buyers would probably be hurt the most if co-broke's are eliminated and more buyers start to go unrepresented again. As someone in the industry, I don't like working with an unrepresented buyer all that much. It can be a challenge to walk the line of representing my seller client and getting the buyer to closing, starting with the offer process.
Funny, in an ironic sort of way. Caveat emptor ended becuase buyers wanted representation. Now we are circling back towards ending co-brokes which will ultimately lead us back to where we started. Of course, buyer agency will still be more common than it was back then, but I have to think if the above happens we'll see total commissions drop and agents leave the business.
Interestingly enough, while not everyone is a fan of the current system, it functions pretty well but what I think is the vocal minority are once again creating a shift.
Of course, "agents leaving the business" might include some wheat, but hopefully a great deal of the chaff.
The incredible multi-decade industry-sanctioned lie that "buyers agency is free" is worthy of upheaval.
I don't see an end to cobrokes, as much as I see impetus towards integrity and transparency.
The display of cobrokes on IDXs/VOWs SHOULD be mandatory. I see no honorable reason for it not to be.
NAR and the powers that be have never moved out of the shadows of seller subagency, which was indeed a farce.
I think the whole cobroke thing remains because lenders will not allow buyers to finance that fee.
If Fannie and Freddie would….game changer.
Yes.
If NAR were progressive and proactive, they would be in the headlines with efforts to update Fannie and Freddie.
But, they would rather blow dues money on attorneys and circled wagons.
The more I think about it - brokerage giant Realogy, maybe making a play for market share & defunding the MLS altogether.
If they can do all their deals in-house because of the number of licensees they have, and avoid posting on MLS altogether...
I just got spammed by a Compass agent, promoting their Exclusives as one of the best ways for me to see inventory.
yuck
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
