I was contacted by the New York Times asking me to weigh in on the recent national NAR court case ruling that intends to change the commission structure for buy side representation for Realtors. Currently the seller pays the listing agent a commission typically somewhere between 5-6% and the listing agent shares a portion of that commission with the buyer's agent and their brokerage. The court case suggests that the seller should not be required to pay for the buyer's Realtor representation, who may have an opposing position during the transaction. I believe there are beneficial reasons for our current commission structure. For many buyers who have saved to afford a home, if the fee structure changes, they may not be able to afford to compensate their representation after paying for their downpayment and closing costs. Currently, lending is not set up in a way where a buyer can finance this fee, so unless there are additional funds available, a buyer can’t afford representation at all. In our niche market with older housing stock, there are many complexities that make two competent advisors necessary, such as insurance challenges, deferred maintenance that may incur extensive recommendations of repair, some, but not all that are revealed in disclosures, as well as various natural hazards and the overall competitiveness of our marketplace. It is a daunting task for a buyer navigating the process alone. One may look at online tools, see the average sales prices and feel that they have a grasp on values and can navigate the buying process alone, however a buyer may purchase the wrong property by not understanding what they are buying, or not being aware of material issues that a veteran Realtor can shed light on.
A seller should want the buyer for their home to be represented by an experienced Realtor. The worst deal I ever experienced was when a buyer represented themselves. When the buyer got overwhelmed, they stopped responding, they did not return my phone calls or respond to emails, leaving the seller in limbo for days. The seller had to hire a process server to issue a notice to perform which was necessary, but the buyers took it as being aggressive. There was no buyer's agent to buffer, guide and respond. The buyer was not acting in good faith, but there was no broker to call to step in. I could not report their poor behavior to the DRE, because this is not their job and they have no standard of care or ethics to abide by. My seller clients were in tears during most of this escrow and felt that this buyer was holding their property hostage. While this is an extreme case, my concern is that this ruling could result in a chaotic market. One thing that I strive to do in my real estate practice is explain things so my clients have a better understanding of the process, what they are agreeing to, and what they are signing. Click here to read the New York Times article.
If you have questions about the real estate market, or your home specifically do not hesitate to reach out to me.
Wishing you a wonderful holiday season, sending you wishes for good health, peace and delicious food!
P.S. Don't miss the 8th edition of my favorite things, click here to view.