Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
NAR Lawsuit Explained for Realtors
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 авг 2024
- NAR Lawsuit Explained for Realtors - Learn how the National Association of Realtors lawsuit verdict will impact how real estate agents do business.
Enroll in our online courses:
www.ICCOnlineLe...
Sign up for coaching:
www.IcenhowerCo...
Join the fastest growing Facebook Group for Top Producers:
/ reagentroundtable
I didn't really understand until I heard a couple of the phone calls that were used as evidence. Realtors weren't willing to try to comply with a non standard commission and in verbally stated they would black ball those real estate agents and suggest to others to do the same. 600+ phone calls of that and other evidence supporting it. It was 100% collusive anti-compete behavior that had become normalized. This correction was overdue
I don't get it. It's a contract and the terms of the contract are fully negotiable. They signed it. What's the problem? The people were not forced to use a realtor and the Realtors were not forced to work for the client.
Meanwhile, the commission based attorney who took this case got his percentage! Let’s also sue to have attorney commissions lowered too!
The time is right for selling your house without these useless middlemen….a service is coming I promise u that will challenge this outdated model
Either way the broker holding the trust funds and taking all the risk isn't gonna work for free. Neither is anyone doing loads of paperwork. A 6% commission in CA and most states is split to 4 ways between each agent and their broker sometimes 6 ways for the team their working with, an average of 1-2% a head. You're paying for an ease of service, paperwork, and someone with a list of valid connections
@@ethandelacruz3009 And someone who has experience reading and understanding not only the contracts but the procedures involved. But you always have a person who thinks they are smarter than the average Joe. Bet they think they don't need an attorney in court to defend them.
@@FayeTaylor I agree that someone must be paid a fair amount to review the documents, etc. The question is what is fair? Consider the following. I am a structural engineer with residential as 99% of my work. I don't think anyone would disagree that the structural engineer's work is far more difficult and time consuming than that of a real estate agent's. However, unlike a real estate agent, the structural engineer is paid based on an hourly rate. So in light of this information, is earning even 1% of the selling price of a property a fair amount for a real estate agent considering the work involved, when the structural engineer earns less than 1%? And if you still think the agent is entitled to 1-3%, should the engineer begin charging 3-6% of the projected selling price? Keep in mind the huge liability (1 million plus) that the engineer is stuck with for 12 years after the construction of the property. 12 years during which the property can theoretically be sold 1-2 times, and each time the agent earns the same 1-3%...
Issue is the buy agent is not financially compensated to act as the buyer's agent a high price for a given property is worse for the buy and better for the buyer's agent. It should be better for both when the price is lower and worse for both if the price is higher that would be the fair way of doing it. Not as easy as a simple percentage
Oh!!! ok. this suit wasn't in California, right? In California, "DISCLOSE, DOSCLOSE, DISCLOSE. They got a form for everything!! And the compensation to buyers agent is negotiable and written into the contract.
What NAR should have done...a long time ago, is educate the public...Brokers and Agents should be educating the Public too. Buyer Brokerage commissions are not necessarily the answer in this scenario because if I am listing a house and not splitting the commission, the buyer's agent is going to have to add that commission to the price so that their buyer can finance the buyer commission. You're going to run into Appraisal problems because I'm going to list the house at the max. listing price...In order to protect my seller, I will make sure that there is an appraisal deficiency clause in the contract and if the appraisal is short, the buyer will have to come out of pocket for the difference. The other scenario is that buyers that use a seller's agent, will not be represented by their own Broker...that situation will be touchy with the fiduciary to the Seller and dual agency...this lawyer should be taught a lesson...he's a clown.
This ruling works both ways. As an agent myself, one who often represent buyers, I will no longer have the incentive to work with buyers. When agents don't have the financial incentive to represent buyers, it means houses will have less of a pool of buyers, eventually houses will sit on the market longer and deep discounts will have to be the seller's incentive to sell!
Should be a FLAT RATE!!!! The cost for selling a home is Fking ridiculous .
This came up as "recommended" in my feed. Great content.
Let the disclosure, negotiation and competition heat up ... just like with stocks & bonds in the 70's
Great video. Other than the buyer's brokerage agreement which is great advice along with a commission disclosure form and or publishing the commission on both sides....when do you think changes and new guidelines will be put in place if any?
You said it's a state court ruling... but I thought this is a federal court ruling?
Some say this could bankrupt these real estate companies. So what? Lots of businesses go broke then reorganize and do business in a different manner. Obviously u are a realtor!
Well Done Sir!
Really appreciate the video I think it's much overdue conversation... I think it is only right to have the buyer's agent pay the buyer's commission It's a conflict of interest to be paying The person that is negotiating against you and it keeps the buyer's agent accountable to do their job better... I think it's going to pass in the courts because it's the right way to do this each person should pay for the services they're getting from the person that's representing them.
I also think there's a great opportunity for the people that come first to market with this because there's a way to structure this that's a win for both sides. Because in reality everybody's going to end up with the same amount of money but there's an advantage for the seller agent now to be able to have a lower listing price and the buyer realize that he's paying this commission one way or another and now his expectations of the buyers agent representing him should be much higher.
Hi there, Realtor here. Been selling for 12 years. In my time working with both buyers and sellers, more often than not buyers barely have enough money to pay their down payment, and even fewer have funds for closing costs on top of that. How can we expect the buyer to come up with additional funds to pay for representation? If Realtors refuse service to buyers who can't afford to pay them an appropriate amount, wouldn't that pull representation away from the middle class and make it a benefit reserved for those with deeper pockets? Or create tiers of quality where less affluent buyers get newer or less effective agents because they can't afford to entice more quality agents with better pay? What if Realtors are legally required to help buyers regardless of fee paid? Even if real estate prices reduce commensurately, that doesn't free up, dollar for dollar, the money that a buyer needs to bring to the table, unless they are paying cash. What about tacking our commissions on top of the offer price but structured from the buyer's end? Well, there are rules in the lending world that prohibit that--it affects LTV ratios--it needs to come from seller proceeds to circumvent that and protect the lienholder's interests, so now buyers will have higher down payment requirements if that becomes the remedy. So what's the solution that guarantees fair and equal representation to buyers, regardless of how deep their pockets are?
Everyone has the same goal at the end--for the property to change hands. A much easier argument can be made about restricting or eliminating dual agency scenarios (where buyer and seller are represented by the same agent). Unfortunately this ruling will make these scenarios much, much more common, and this will not be to the homebuyer's benefit.
@@hoodwinkedbrewing Buyers who can't afford an agent, have no business buying a home. That's what caused the 2008 stock crash.
6% commission was never a standard rule. I have done deals with as low as 1%. I have always disclosed in the contract the commission realtors will be splitting..infact been in a position when the commission structure was re negotiated..don’t get it what is the big deal
it’s because NAR is fixing prices. The whole industry is corrupt and with interest rates high, inventory low, and hopefully if this commission changes go through, more completion which benefits the consumer.. Freedom for agents to set their own commissions and no more mandatory seller-paid buyer agent commission.
Absolutely none of anything in your statement is true or accurate.
@@jeremygrissom8434exactly!!
I don’t think you understand what the lawsuit is about. Don’t allow your dislike for NAR and the industry to cloud your judgement. Ignorance oftentimes result in confusion. I encourage you to get the facts.
So all those sellers who are upset after the fact will they purchase a home in the future without an agent ?
The benefit will go to larger corporations who will eventually buy up all the inventory and turn the general public into renters.
In TX there is full transparency w the seller what the total realtor commission % is and it’s stated how much of the total % goes to the buyers agent, it is clearly detailed in the state of TX promulgated listing agreement. That amount is discussed+negotiated w the seller, then put in writing on the listing agreement. Cannot speak to other states listing agreements. However there is a growing trend in TX where someone w a Brokers license holds the licenses of often hundreds of agents & that broker has never seen those agents, their team, their office etc. Many of those agents are either very green, or want to be a Team Leader, have their own office, build their own team/brand but they are not the Broker. It’s some faceless guy (probably in another city) holding the licenses of 250-300 agents that he’s never met. This is fertile ground for agent errors w/o accountability & oversight. I’m not sure how TREC (Texas Real Estate Commission) is monitoring this & sleeps at night!
Great video
The question is how in the heck did NAR lose?
Maybe zillow or ai lobbiest?
Within the first minute I could tell this speaker is biased toward the realtor community.
The defendant gets to choose if it's a bench vs jury trial. WHY THE HELL did the NAR agree to a jury trial????
Even if signed and put before the board… From colleague in office I saw where The buyer says, “Didn’t know what I was signing…” The doc doesn’t have any teeth. The board sided with Buyers
You make it sound like being open and honest about the commissions are a bad thing. Why would you have a fear of valuing what you do and what you charge? Why is it not actually that bad to have to disclose the commissions? Why would it be bad at all? Why would disclosing the commissions not be the end of the world? It should be the opposite of that. You give all these negative connotations to being up front and honest about how much everyone is getting paid. We need to make it to where everyone at any time can find out exactly to the penny how much things are going to cost them. We don't in property transactions, medical care, etc. The reason I think is two fold. Too much govt. interference making it hard to calculate all the cost and people not wanting to admit how much they are going to charge because they know, that it is too much. I feel that you give disclosing the commissions a negative connotation, is because you know that when people really find out up front what realtors are charging. People will say no or shop around forcing realtors to lower fees in order to get business. Which is the way a market should work. If you are providing a service at a fair price, then people will use the service.
I charge 3-4 percent and split with buyers agent so I may get 1 or 2 percent max and if I represent both parties I usually end up with 2 or 3 max. But I’m s broker so I cut out the middleman t give the discount to my customer.
Just curious. From a real estate or broker point of view, does it make sense that you are earning significantly more than the architect or engineer responsible for the design of the house?
But what is it that you do? I’m not bring sarcastic, I’m really asking cause the tittle company does all the research and warranty deed!
The point is, the seller is paying you the 3-4% and you are paying the buyer's agent with the seller's money. The buyer isn't paying his or her agent.
Freudian slip at 43 seconds
Then all industries must disclose what a person is making. That’s a privacy issue and shouldn’t be shared
In TX the buyer commission % is stated in the MLS and the buyer’s agent can share that with their buyers and if they’re a true professional have the buyer commission % stated in their buyer representation agreement. Professional realtors w knowledge & experience (& proper training) who have ethics+integrity go through the paperwork w their clients, they are fully transparent & they know how to set their clients expectations. The growing trend w agents today is lack of good training (most can’t explain the various contract forms to their mom), today it’s about rah-rah prop em up babysitting agents & letting office admin do all the heavy lifting- team leaders say Just go out there & take a listing or sell a house, don’t waste time explaining anything, the title co, the lender or our transaction coordinator will do all that. Hence sellers or buyers sign contracts they dont read & arent explained to them. The dumbing down of society has its affect on the real estate industry too!
If u pay 6% it doesn’t get split down
oops no appeal. $418M cough it up
You move so much, it’s hard to watch
Realtors= one of the most overpaid, not real necessary profession... a child can do the job of a realtor
someone explain to me why a seller who pays 6% to sell a $200k house in 1990 still should pay 6% to sell a $2mm house in 2024, when arguably the selling process has been greatly eased by technology in current times?
Please explain to me *who* is paying 6% to sell a $2M home?
plenty of people do here in the bay area where $2mm is a fixer upper@@BoldWittyName