There has definitely been a sea of change that has occurred which is now reflected in plain sight, but <sigh> there’s more to come. This blog will be one of a series that you should understand. This first one will be just the overview of changes, followed by a blog on seller impacts, buyer impacts, and what we’re already seeing happen and more.
So what changed?
Up until August 17, 2024 (just a few weeks ago), the price of a property for sale through the MLS included an offer of compensation to the buyer’s agent. The compensation rates were part of the listing agreement – a negotiated compensation where usually half was paid to the buyer’s agent. The amount offered to a buyer’s agent was listed in the MLS. As part of the settlement, NAR agreed to the following which became effective August 17th of this year.
What forced the changes?
The “clear cooperation” rule was at the heart of the lawsuit Burnett et al v. The National Association of Realtors et al which found that NAR and real estate brokerages had violated antitrust law by conspiring to fix prices and restrain trade.
“allegations that [NAR] have anticompetitive rules that require home sellers to pay commission to the home buyer’s broker.”
https://www.mow.uscourts.gov/ca-cases/19-cv-332
The plaintiffs alleged that the NAR clear cooperation rule forced sellers to list their homes on the MLS. They further argued that it forced home sellers to pay higher compensations than they otherwise would giving NAR and its members an unfair advantage in the real estate market, driving up compensation rates. It was also alleged that buyer’s agents would steer buyers away from properties not offering a high compensation which was a form of price fixing.
“Both plaintiffs allege that Clear Cooperation was created to stymie competition and has been used to maintain a monopoly on the listing service market, while NAR contends the policy is meant to maintain a more transparent property market with protections against misinformation and fraud.”
https://www.rismedia.com/2024/07/23/
The key here, and at issue, is that NAR (National Association of Realtors) had what was called a “clear cooperation” rule. The rule required listing brokers to submit their listings to their local multiple listing service (MLS). The publication of the listing with an offer to pay a buyer's brokerage was a unilateral offer of compensation to other participants giving all NAR members an equal opportunity to sell a listed home, regardless of whether they are with the listing broker or not.
The Advent of Buyer’s Agency
Despite recent reports suggesting that buyers’ agency went back a hundred years, the correct number is approximately only 30+ years. Prior to the early 1990s, the seller’s agent was responsible for ONE CLIENT – the seller. There was no one looking out for the interests of the buyer. In real estate, the fundamental principle guiding sales was caveat emptor or let the buyer beware. This left buyers without representation and vulnerable to exploitation!
"A 1983 FTC study found that 71% of buyers mistakenly believed that the agent showing them homes represented their best interests.”
https://www.justice.gov/archives/atr/rew-public-comment-national-association-exclusive-buyer-agents-early-thomas-10252005-rew-0401
The start of buyer agency began with the 1984 court case of
Easton v. Strassburger where a jury found that the seller and seller’s agent had been negligent by withholding information and material defects from the buyer.
"It held that a seller's broker has a duty to inspect a house and disclose to the buyer what a reasonable inspection would have revealed."
https://www.lawpipe.com/California/Easton_v_Strassburger.html#:~:text=It%20held%20that%20a%20seller's,the%20broker%20would%20have%20discovered.
What’s the bottom line?
Prior to August 17, 2024, anyone with internet access could look up a home on Zillow and see the last sale price which almost always included compensation paid to both the seller’s agent and the buyer’s agent. The buyer bought the home for the sale price and ultimately the Buyer PAID both brokerages' compensations whether they paid cash or financed. The difference between then and now is that then: the seller netted an amount after the compensations and other closing costs were paid and now, they have the option of only paying their own agent plus closing costs. All comps and appraisals were factored into the sales price with the compensation already included in the value. Now, when reviewing comps of closed sales, and anyone looking at a sales price has no idea if there was compensation paid to a buyer’s agent or if the buyer had to pay the compensation separately.
If a published compensation was an incentive for an agent to show a house in the past, a buyer knowing they have to pay their own agent now may mean they can no longer afford to buy it without reducing their offer price or not offering at all. Fewer buyers may mean lower offer prices. It’s not clear yet that it’s going to benefit the seller in all cases, but what is clear is that first time home buyers may be the ones with the next lawsuits.
Samson Properties
Serving Virginia, Washington, DC & Maryland
VA #0225097826 & VA #022603431
DC #BR98366121 & MD #620724
All Rights Reserved I Jan Allen Homes I Samson Properties
New Paragraph
Real Estate Design By Bullsai