The NAR ruling, has broken a perfectly working system by removing transparency of sellers intention to pay compensation. This in turn could make homes more expensive for buyers. It will disqualify many buyers that could have bought in the current system. And all this in turn will make the pools of buyers smaller which can directly effects sellers net. All this will change the seller's market to a buyer's market increase the value of buyers over sellers. And who's to stop the buyer's agents to charge upwards of 10% now since they know their buyers pool is limited. Further increasing the chance of sellers getting less for their home. Stupidest ruling ever designed to help the ibuyers
Agree that this is the stupidest thing that’s happened with the industry - well, you have individuals with zero understanding of the industry making generic decisions. It’s like someone with no understanding of aerodynamics trying to teach engineers how to make an airplane based on the fact that they have traveled by airplane ✈️.. I don’t think I’m exaggerating. It’s really stupid! I was born in former USSR and I though THEY were idiots However, 10% commission - I have to respectfully disagree. Nobody is stopping anyone from charging even 20% but good luck finding a client. We will likely see the opposite - losers working for 1% and losers hiring them. What has to happen is - buyers agents have to now promote themselves like sellers agents do, show the client why they are worth 3% or more. In my opinion, in most cases intelligent people will actually understand why they have to pay - both from ethical and financial point of view. Talked to a client today - simple conversation, he’s more than happy to make sure I get 3% regardless of the situation!
There are several things you mentioned that are Incorrect. 1. A perfect system? How so? Because it “worked” for you and/or the real estate industry for so many years? 2. Limit the pool of buyers? How so? I believe there is now a power that shifts to the buyers in being more selective of their representation for one of the biggest purchases of their life. As opposed to grabbing the first body who has a license to help them. 3. As much as we (collectively) the real estate industry would hate to admit it. The facts are that there is/was collusion. There is price fixing. We have maintained a 5-6% rate for years. “But it’s always been negotiable!” Sure then where did 5-6% come from? Why is it the “standard?”
@@HenrikKarapetyanI agree, as a buyer I think it is important for the buyer to have the power to choose and pay their own realtor. I was told by my buyer realtor as a first time buyer that I did not have to pay him so I should not worry and just choose him. In hindsight I should have been more careful and interview more agents, but because I was told that I am not the one paying them, I should not bother them and should just pick one and stay with that agent. But now that I am paying, I will be more careful in selecting my agent, they have to convince me that they worth their rate.
Unfortunately this video did not explain to the public that the listing agent didn’t get that $6,000 and the buyer agent didn’t get that $4,000. The public needs educated that generally there are four entities involved. The listing brokerage and the listing agent split that supposed $6,000 how ever they have contracted. The buyer brokerage and the buyer agent split that supposed $4,000 how ever they have contracted. The idea that a single agent ever got 6% or 3% is ridiculous. The commission has always been split four ways, unless it is a dual agency and then the agent is doing twice the work. 25:03
Ummmm what about agents who work for 100% commissions brokerages?? They most certainly earn the full amount of their commission in exchange for either a monthly fee tk their brokerage and/or a transaction fee.
I may be mistaken, but isn't there also an option for the seller's broker to contribute to a portion of the buyer broker commission? On the CAR Seller Payment to Buyer's Broker form I believe there's this option.
Decoupling of Compensation is NOT part of the settlement. Listing Brokers can still compensate Buyers Brokers (aka sharing), it just can't be advertised in the MLS. Please get your facts correct so you are not spreading misinformation to the public.
Thank you. You are correct that the NAR settlement does not explicitly prohibit broker to broker compensation at this time. However, after speaking with numerous stakeholders and our analysis on the matter, we strongly recommend to stay away from "cooperation compensation" in every regard. I would recommend only seller directed and buyer directed compensation ONLY and there should be NO sharing of compensation going forward.
@@chenknasty Thanks. LIke I shared about... let me copy and paste it here for you. Thank you. You are correct that the NAR settlement does not explicitly prohibit broker to broker compensation at this time. However, after speaking with numerous stakeholders and our analysis on the matter, we strongly recommend to stay away from "cooperation compensation" in every regard. I would recommend only seller directed and buyer directed compensation ONLY and there should be NO sharing of compensation going forward. If you want to see my full breakdown on this which is the ultimate playbook for navigating the NAR changes you can see it at realbuyerplaybook.com
@@sharran I fully agree with you! As a brokerage, we have decided that we will only handle listings in which the seller either opts to pay compensation to the buyer's agent or to the buyer. We believe a full decoupling is where we will end up, and we are there now. We have required EBBA's for over a year now and are glad we have been on the leading edge of the shift. ~Kevin Johnson
I hope some big RE company appeals this decision, otherwise the NAR days are counted. It is so wrong that government meddle in the private enterprise on how to run their business or how much to charge for their services. A seller and a homeowner can always do their home selling and home buying themselves, good luck with that. I have two questions that I still have not found a clear answer to: 1. Does this settlement new regulation applies only to Realtors? 2. Who enforces this new regulation in a transacción? The bank (if there is financing)? The tittle company?
I may be incorrect, but in scenarios 1, 3 & 4 the buyer's agent is not allowed to receive more than what was agreed to in the new buyer representation/showing agreements. Correct?
Sharran…Why would a buyer agree to amend or modify their buyer representation agreement allowing the buyer agent to receive more compensation then what was previously agreed upon? And, what consideration is that buyer receiving in order to agree to amend the original service contract with their buyer agent?
@@theGHSV good question. Because if the seller directed compensation is higher than the pre agreeed upon buyer responsible compensation then it helps the buyer agent get the additional dollars. Again very situation specific
I think the only people that are mad are the buyers agents. No more greed! But my question is, The realtors have known about this decision of the settlement since March 2024, but no real estate agency has said anything to their clients, they have actually rushed deals through before August 17! why weren’t the realtor companies honest with homeowners who are selling their homes? Maybe it has to do with their commission, and not their client after all!
Not sure exactly what you mean, but you can view all properties online anytime of course. However, if you want to tour or see a property (in person) with an agent (that is not an official open house) then yes, you will need a written agreement.
@@Mark-sy2bx you do not need an agreement to tour the home in that scenario as the listing agent works for the seller and is allowing you to tour the home as a “impromptu” open house. But you will need an agreement for anything that the listing agent does to support you as a buyer. Please understand that there are numerous types of written agreements and most states have a touring agreement for entirely this purpose which is why we recommend that a buyer should review that and it is a mistake to think that going directly to the listing agent we’ll give you a competitive or process based advantage.
The NAR ruling, has broken a perfectly working system by removing transparency of sellers intention to pay compensation. This in turn could make homes more expensive for buyers. It will disqualify many buyers that could have bought in the current system. And all this in turn will make the pools of buyers smaller which can directly effects sellers net. All this will change the seller's market to a buyer's market increase the value of buyers over sellers. And who's to stop the buyer's agents to charge upwards of 10% now since they know their buyers pool is limited. Further increasing the chance of sellers getting less for their home. Stupidest ruling ever designed to help the ibuyers
Agree that this is the stupidest thing that’s happened with the industry - well, you have individuals with zero understanding of the industry making generic decisions. It’s like someone with no understanding of aerodynamics trying to teach engineers how to make an airplane based on the fact that they have traveled by airplane ✈️.. I don’t think I’m exaggerating. It’s really stupid! I was born in former USSR and I though THEY were idiots
However, 10% commission - I have to respectfully disagree. Nobody is stopping anyone from charging even 20% but good luck finding a client. We will likely see the opposite - losers working for 1% and losers hiring them. What has to happen is - buyers agents have to now promote themselves like sellers agents do, show the client why they are worth 3% or more. In my opinion, in most cases intelligent people will actually understand why they have to pay - both from ethical and financial point of view. Talked to a client today - simple conversation, he’s more than happy to make sure I get 3% regardless of the situation!
@@HenrikKarapetyan yes siri. Say hello to Vartan for me in Glendale
There are several things you mentioned that are Incorrect.
1. A perfect system? How so? Because it “worked” for you and/or the real estate industry for so many years?
2. Limit the pool of buyers? How so? I believe there is now a power that shifts to the buyers in being more selective of their representation for one of the biggest purchases of their life. As opposed to grabbing the first body who has a license to help them.
3. As much as we (collectively) the real estate industry would hate to admit it. The facts are that there is/was collusion. There is price fixing. We have maintained a 5-6% rate for years. “But it’s always been negotiable!” Sure then where did 5-6% come from? Why is it the “standard?”
@@HenrikKarapetyanI agree, as a buyer I think it is important for the buyer to have the power to choose and pay their own realtor. I was told by my buyer realtor as a first time buyer that I did not have to pay him so I should not worry and just choose him. In hindsight I should have been more careful and interview more agents, but because I was told that I am not the one paying them, I should not bother them and should just pick one and stay with that agent. But now that I am paying, I will be more careful in selecting my agent, they have to convince me that they worth their rate.
Unfortunately this video did not explain to the public that the listing agent didn’t get that $6,000 and the buyer agent didn’t get that $4,000. The public needs educated that generally there are four entities involved. The listing brokerage and the listing agent split that supposed $6,000 how ever they have contracted. The buyer brokerage and the buyer agent split that supposed $4,000 how ever they have contracted.
The idea that a single agent ever got 6% or 3% is ridiculous. The commission has always been split four ways, unless it is a dual agency and then the agent is doing twice the work. 25:03
Ummmm what about agents who work for 100% commissions brokerages?? They most certainly earn the full amount of their commission in exchange for either a monthly fee tk their brokerage and/or a transaction fee.
So the buyer has no clue what they will pay before searching for a home? Brilliant. Sure it will kill the market
Thank you, you are amazing. Thank you for contributing and sharing so many strategies to understand this inexplicable change in the industry
Thanks so much!
Thank you for such a thorough, concise, and easy-to-understand video.
You're welcome!
I am confused where is the buyer (client facing) video to share you mentioned in the NAR over view? This seems to be for agents not the public?????
Appreciate you Sharran! Work hard, be kind
Thanks so much samantha!
So as a seller, I can just say I am paying 2.5% to my agent and that we don't pay for the buyers agent? Buyer would need to pay?
You certainly can. Best bet is talk to your agent about that strategy and best ways to maximize the potential buyer pool and net proceeds
I may be mistaken, but isn't there also an option for the seller's broker to contribute to a portion of the buyer broker commission? On the CAR Seller Payment to Buyer's Broker form I believe there's this option.
Good Stuff! Thank you for the breakdown.
Thanks so much!
Decoupling of Compensation is NOT part of the settlement. Listing Brokers can still compensate Buyers Brokers (aka sharing), it just can't be advertised in the MLS. Please get your facts correct so you are not spreading misinformation to the public.
Agreed. Unfortunate that he got that part wrong because the rest of the video is spot on. I suggest he redo the video to fix the error.
Thank you. You are correct that the NAR settlement does not explicitly prohibit broker to broker compensation at this time. However, after speaking with numerous stakeholders and our analysis on the matter, we strongly recommend to stay away from "cooperation compensation" in every regard. I would recommend only seller directed and buyer directed compensation ONLY and there should be NO sharing of compensation going forward.
@@chenknasty Thanks. LIke I shared about... let me copy and paste it here for you. Thank you. You are correct that the NAR settlement does not explicitly prohibit broker to broker compensation at this time. However, after speaking with numerous stakeholders and our analysis on the matter, we strongly recommend to stay away from "cooperation compensation" in every regard. I would recommend only seller directed and buyer directed compensation ONLY and there should be NO sharing of compensation going forward.
If you want to see my full breakdown on this which is the ultimate playbook for navigating the NAR changes you can see it at realbuyerplaybook.com
@@sharran I fully agree with you! As a brokerage, we have decided that we will only handle listings in which the seller either opts to pay compensation to the buyer's agent or to the buyer. We believe a full decoupling is where we will end up, and we are there now. We have required EBBA's for over a year now and are glad we have been on the leading edge of the shift. ~Kevin Johnson
Thank you Sharran! This is a very clear breakdown.
Thank you!
Perfection! Thank You Sharran
Thank you so much!
I hope some big RE company appeals this decision, otherwise the NAR days are counted. It is so wrong that government meddle in the private enterprise on how to run their business or how much to charge for their services. A seller and a homeowner can always do their home selling and home buying themselves, good luck with that. I have two questions that I still have not found a clear answer to:
1. Does this settlement new regulation applies only to Realtors?
2. Who enforces this new regulation in a transacción? The bank (if there is financing)? The tittle company?
Well done! appreciate the clear explanation....
This is amazing , Thank You Big DAWGGGGG
@@locallifesarasota thank you sir
Great presentation.
thank you!
Great illustration
@@KevinintheUSA thank yoj sir
where is the PDF located to sent to buyers?
resource in the description ✨
I have had nothing but bad experiences with buying agents, ALL the properties I have purchased were without buying agents.
Great explanation!
@@Marlon.Persaud appreciate you
Good break down. It's alot to discuss
Glad to help!
Are the slides available?
I may be incorrect, but in scenarios 1, 3 & 4 the buyer's agent is not allowed to receive more than what was agreed to in the new buyer representation/showing agreements. Correct?
@@thompsonrealty1 yes correct however you can amend and modify the agreement as well
@@sharran Are you sure about that? Again, it’s my understanding that this agreement with the buyer is “set in stone“ and cannot be modified.
@@thompsonrealty1 Yes. Or at least in GA we can :)
Sharran…Why would a buyer agree to amend or modify their buyer representation agreement allowing the buyer agent to receive more compensation then what was previously agreed upon? And, what consideration is that buyer receiving in order to agree to amend the original service contract with their buyer agent?
@@theGHSV good question. Because if the seller directed compensation is higher than the pre agreeed upon buyer responsible compensation then it helps the buyer agent get the additional dollars.
Again very situation specific
I think the only people that are mad are the buyers agents.
No more greed!
But my question is, The realtors have known about this decision of the settlement since March 2024, but no real estate agency has said anything to their clients, they have actually rushed deals through before August 17! why weren’t the realtor companies honest with homeowners who are selling their homes?
Maybe it has to do with their commission, and not their client after all!
So if I see a house on Zillow now I have to sign a contract? Forget that.
Not sure exactly what you mean, but you can view all properties online anytime of course. However, if you want to tour or see a property (in person) with an agent (that is not an official open house) then yes, you will need a written agreement.
@@sharran What if I just use the seller agent to view the property, do I need a contract also?
@@Mark-sy2bx you do not need an agreement to tour the home in that scenario as the listing agent works for the seller and is allowing you to tour the home as a “impromptu” open house.
But you will need an agreement for anything that the listing agent does to support you as a buyer.
Please understand that there are numerous types of written agreements and most states have a touring agreement for entirely this purpose which is why we recommend that a buyer should review that and it is a mistake to think that going directly to the listing agent we’ll give you a competitive or process based advantage.
@@sharran We'll see how badly that agent wants the sale.
Makes me not to want to buy a house
Using $10,000 compensation on a $500,000 home means we are going out of business
The cream always rises to the top ;)
@@MichaelSmittySmithScottsdaleAz bro. It was just an example. Lead with grace 🤪
@@sharranThanks Bro