3 ms·
> Ms. Brown said she believes the class-action suits to be shortsighted, however, because if home sellers are not required to compensate their buyers’ agents, m
by gnicholas 3y ago
> Ms. Brown said she believes the class-action suits to be shortsighted, however, because if home sellers are not required to compensate their buyers’ agents, many buyers will navigate the home market solo, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation. “It’s structured this way to make sure the consumer has protection,” she said.
It's so altruistic of this organization to require that two of their members be involved in every real estate transaction. Imagine what would happen if buyers could choose whether to use a realtor, and if so how much to pay them! My guess is there would be a lot less percentage-based deals, since the amount of work does not scale with the cost of the deal.
- lotsofpulp 3y agoI thought buyers can choose if they want to use a real estate agent or not. Most choose to use one because the real estate commission is being paid by the seller no matter what, if the seller is using an agent. And so if you, as a buyer, do not use an agent, all you are doing is increasing the profit for the seller’s agent.
- gnicholas 3y ago> N.A.R.’s chief legal officer, Katie Johnson, sent an internal message to staff that clarified the group’s own interpretation of the rules for agent commissions. In that message, which was obtained by The New York Times, she said that while N.A.R.’s policy does require listing agents to offer compensation to a buyer’s broker, that offer can be $0. Prior to this clarification, I could see how people would think that the compensation would have to be nonzero (otherwise why would you require compensation?).