ARTICLE: RE/MAX Offers $55 Million Settlement in Lawsuits (buyer's agent, commission, contracts)
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.
Will this mean that the selling agent's (a.k.a. the buyer's agent) commission will be listed on the buyer's side of the settlement statement? And, will buyers be willing to directly pay for representation?
Last edited by EricBoyd; 09-19-2023 at 12:25 PM..
Reason: clarifying the selling agent.
Will this mean that the selling agent's commission will be listed on the buyer's side of the settlement statement? And, will buyers be willing to directly pay for representation?
It is my understanding that selling agent's commission will be on sellers' side.
Buyers continue to have the option of dealing directly with the selling agent (no representation), or use and pay for a Buyer's agent to get representation (lower commission). Agents will have to convince buyers that they're worth "the extra money" (some are, some aren't...).
One; sellers believe the coop fee paid to the buyers brokers is not transparent enough.
Two; va and fha loans do not allow the buyers to pay their agents directly.
Colorado contracts have a section in compensation regarding what the listing brokerage gets, and from that what they will pay another brokerage. I don’t see that changing.
Our MLS, REColorado now allows for no compensation to the buyers brokerage. But that is a conversation we need to have with the sellers. “How much incentive would you like to give to the brokerage that brings the buyer to the closing table? It could effect the showings and offers you do get.”
Well, this seems short-sighted. I believe this will probably hurt buyers, and to a lesser degree the sellers as well in the long run if the industry regresses back to what it was back before the evolution of buyer agency. Probably good for listing agents though.
Well, this seems short-sighted. I believe this will probably hurt buyers, and to a lesser degree the sellers as well in the long run if the industry regresses back to what it was back before the evolution of buyer agency. Probably good for listing agents though.
This is not about consumers. This is about a few parties cashing in.
It was totally avoidable by MLSs and NAR members, but they circled the wagons and dug their heels in with a lack of foresight and leadership integrity.
This was inevitable because the large franchises just have too many agents. There is no way that this system could continue this way. Commissions could have come down naturally on their own if we had 30-50% of agents in the business. So this is a brokerage-created mess, in my opinion.
Whether you enter in 0 or $1 as buyer agent compensation into the MLS doesn't matter so being "forced" to pay buyer agents really isn't an argument, in my opinion. It is that few agents do it.
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.
NAR vs MLS?
