New nar rules for agents. will alternative models destroy the ease of appraiser getting that info.

[David S]

Losing a great property over commission issues is not worth it in not being the winning ratified offer.

Hopefully the buyer can understand like what you said. Good remark!

 

[Fernando]

Another ramification in the short term is that now that sellers don't have to pay the buyers commission, would there be a slight decrease in property values?
Be interesting to see in the market. Maybe good time right after July and negotiate for lower sales price.

 

[Zoe]

I knew NAR had a bunch of money. That put a little dent in the kitty.

 

[J Grant]

Another ramification in the short term is that now that sellers don't have to pay the buyers commission, would there be a slight decrease in property values?
Be interesting to see in the market. Maybe good time right after July and negotiate for lower sales price.

Where did it say the sellers dont have to pay the buyers commission?
The buyer was always free to pay an agent to represent them and not have the seller cover it, but few wanted to in the past and I doubt would want to now -unless "buyers; agents want to work for a few hundred dollars -

 

[Zoe]

I can see some resemblance to this situation with commissions and commingling of appraisal fees/AMC fees on TIL disclosures.

 

[Zoe]

Where did it say the sellers dont have to pay the buyers commission?
The buyer was always free to pay an agent to represent them and not have the seller cover it, but few wanted to in the past and I doubt would want to now -unless "buyers; agents want to work for a few hundred dollars -

It spurs from buyers thinking they are paying seller's commission. You can see the similarity of appraiser's and AMC's fees being commingled.

 

[J Grant]

It spurs from buyers thinking they are paying seller's commission. You can see the similarity of appraiser's and AMC's fees being commingled.

The new rule has changed nothing in that regard except clear up some verbiage. It does not force anybody to do anything - the only rule seems do not to disclose the commissions and splits on the MLS listing - which seems less transparent -

 

[J Grant]

It spurs from buyers thinking they are paying seller's commission. You can see the similarity of appraiser's and AMC's fees being commingled.

It is NOTHING like the AMC fees being split from the blended fee - nothing like it at all.

 

[David S]

The new rule has changed nothing in that regard except clear up some verbiage. It does not force anybody to do anything - the only rule seems do not to disclose the commissions and splits on the MLS listing - which seems less transparent

That verbiage is critical. Now the seller doesn't have to pay buyer agent's commission. The buyer might have to pay their agent's commission out of the pocket. The ripple effect is: which buyer is willing to pay buyer agent's commission and for how much. They will say:" I can do everything except writing the contract. Why I need to pay you so much?"

 

[J Grant]

That verbiage is critical. Now the seller doesn't have to pay buyer agent's commission. The buyer might have to pay their agent's commission out of the pocket. The ripple effect is: which buyer is willing to pay buyer agent's commission and for how much. They will say:" I can do everything except writing the contract. Why I need to pay you so much?"

The seller never "had " to pay the so-called buyer's agents' commission !!

PEople are so naive and not well informed. Read a sales contract, very few have a line for a "buyer;s agent", it says selling agent or cooperating agent or similar verbiage. That agent brings the buyer but gets paid by the seller - I doubt it will change, this nonsense changes nothing, all they really are doing is not listing the commission splits on the MLS any longer.