4 ms·

This paragraph jumped out for me It is possible that little changes for consumers in the near term because many sellers are used to including the cost of a buy

by Ajay-p 3y ago

This paragraph jumped out for me It is possible that little changes for consumers in the near term because many sellers are used to including the cost of a buyer’s agent in their sale price. But over time, new brokerage business models could emerge that make it easier for buyers to choose low-cost options "could" not "should" or will. Except for a huge payout for the lawyers, I don't see how this ruling is going to affect home buyers, or sellers in the near future. There would have to be a law put in place, so going forward it's still an agreement between private parties to sell or buy a house. I'm also troubled by what the Wall Street Journal claims is that this might push a lot of young realtors out of the career field. That can't be seen as a positive outcome. Overall, I'm still unclear exactly how this is going to help anyone. Especially for the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers who DON'T want to be their own agent, and want to hire the best realtor to do it for them. I remember when this first came out and lots of people on HN said I'll just be my own agent. Well, that's fine, but that's not an option for most people. I think regardless there will still be plenty of realtors doing business, and they will still make bank.

ssharp 3y ago
This ruling helps eliminate incentives that prevented innovation in agent services. There was zero need to innovate because Realtor controlled the entire market and nobody wanted to give up the cash cow, even though the only people it was really good for was agents. > I'm also troubled by what the Wall Street Journal claims is that this might push a lot of young realtors out of the career field. That can't be seen as a positive outcome. I guess that's one way to look at it. This was a service that provided very little value to the people needing the service but there was not really a feasible alternative. Sure some young people who find success in the field may no longer be able to but we shouldn't prop up nefarious businesses just to keep jobs going. Rather, what should be more likely to happen now is that young people will be able to move into this space and start out innovating the old practices, carve out a more impactful and scalable business model for themselves, and still do very well. > Overall, I'm still unclear exactly how this is going to help anyone. Especially for the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers who DON'T want to be their own agent, and want to hire the best realtor to do it for them. I remember when this first came out and lots of people on HN said I'll just be my own agent. Well, that's fine, but that's not an option for most people. This option will almost certainly still be available and will now cost less. If you ever want to hear someone spout of a truckload of B.S., just ask an agent why a 3% commission is justified on either end of the transaction. The value simply isn't there and it's a huge benefit that this initial hurdle has been toppled.
danaris 3y ago
> I don't see how this ruling is going to affect home buyers, or sellers in the near future. That seems obvious...? Either the prices will drop, which benefits buyers (and, to some extent, increases the liquidity in the entire market), or they will not, which means the sellers get to keep more of the value of the home they sold (even if it's with the assistance of a seller's agent, it's still their home). > I'm also troubled by what the Wall Street Journal claims is that this might push a lot of young realtors out of the career field. The WSJ has a very strong incentive to side with the entrenched wealthy interests here, and paint this as a bad thing. Frankly, any realtor this pushes out of the field was likely only in it in the first place because they thought it would be easy money. > Overall, I'm still unclear exactly how this is going to help anyone. That also seems obvious: home buyers and sellers will get the same agents as before (because it's not like the entire industry is going to dry up and blow away overnight, or be entirely replaced with worse agents), and have to pay less for the privilege of having access to the MLS (plus the other small services an agent offers). > I think regardless there will still be plenty of realtors doing business, and they will still make bank. This seems to completely contradict your previous statement about people who want an agent.

by Ajay-p 3y ago

ssharp 3y ago

This ruling helps eliminate incentives that prevented innovation in agent services. There was zero need to innovate because Realtor controlled the entire market and nobody wanted to give up the cash cow, even though the only people it was really good for was agents. > I'm also troubled by what the Wall Street Journal claims is that this might push a lot of young realtors out of the career field. That can't be seen as a positive outcome. I guess that's one way to look at it. This was a service that provided very little value to the people needing the service but there was not really a feasible alternative. Sure some young people who find success in the field may no longer be able to but we shouldn't prop up nefarious businesses just to keep jobs going. Rather, what should be more likely to happen now is that young people will be able to move into this space and start out innovating the old practices, carve out a more impactful and scalable business model for themselves, and still do very well. > Overall, I'm still unclear exactly how this is going to help anyone. Especially for the overwhelming majority of buyers and sellers who DON'T want to be their own agent, and want to hire the best realtor to do it for them. I remember when this first came out and lots of people on HN said I'll just be my own agent. Well, that's fine, but that's not an option for most people. This option will almost certainly still be available and will now cost less. If you ever want to hear someone spout of a truckload of B.S., just ask an agent why a 3% commission is justified on either end of the transaction. The value simply isn't there and it's a huge benefit that this initial hurdle has been toppled.

danaris 3y ago

> I don't see how this ruling is going to affect home buyers, or sellers in the near future. That seems obvious...? Either the prices will drop, which benefits buyers (and, to some extent, increases the liquidity in the entire market), or they will not, which means the sellers get to keep more of the value of the home they sold (even if it's with the assistance of a seller's agent, it's still their home). > I'm also troubled by what the Wall Street Journal claims is that this might push a lot of young realtors out of the career field. The WSJ has a very strong incentive to side with the entrenched wealthy interests here, and paint this as a bad thing. Frankly, any realtor this pushes out of the field was likely only in it in the first place because they thought it would be easy money. > Overall, I'm still unclear exactly how this is going to help anyone. That also seems obvious: home buyers and sellers will get the same agents as before (because it's not like the entire industry is going to dry up and blow away overnight, or be entirely replaced with worse agents), and have to pay less for the privilege of having access to the MLS (plus the other small services an agent offers). > I think regardless there will still be plenty of realtors doing business, and they will still make bank. This seems to completely contradict your previous statement about people who want an agent.