Billion dollar break-up: Protecting rebates vs divorcing two-sided real estate commissions

Stupidtax_1
Redfin’s corporate blog is cheering because an "Anti-Rebate Bill" introduced in Illinois that would have banned real estate rebates has apparently died in committee, or in Redfin’s words, been "crushed."  Other sources report that the bill has changed focus, and as The Black Knight in Monte Python’s Holy Grail famously said, may not be dead yet.  According to sources, there may still be an attempt to morph the anti-rebate bill into a procuring cause bill before Friday’s deadline, which could be extended.  What’s at stake is the definition of procuring cause, a legal concept which Realtors use to decide who procured the buyer, and therefore who is entitled to collect the buyer agency fee under their guidelines.  Although the exact language has not been shared, Redfin and other sources allege that the reworded bill would require a buyer agent to accompany their client to property showings to collect the buyer agency fee offered through the multiple listing service (MLS).

Buyer agency compensation is an old family fight in the residential real estate industry, one the consumer has been dragged into because a growing generation of discount business model use rebates to hook home buyers.  What most home buyers don’t realize is the two-sided real estate commission is obsolete, and some critics have likened it to a real estate transfer tax (hence our photo above).  So, IMHO, firms discount business models like Redfin are actually propping up an artificial pricing structure and reinforcing a barrier to competition and consumer savings.  While a recent Redfin blog post called the 3% buyer agency fee "boring," it did not challenge it or call it unnecessary or anti-competitive.  In fact, the blog post says "Redfin has always been careful when listing a home to encourage our clients to offer the buyer’s agent 3%…"

I agree with Redfin, the proposed IL bill is not the answer, neither in it’s original form, which sought to ban rebates; nor it’s amended form, which may seek to define procuring cause.  However, there is a long overdue reform that would reduce real estate commissions by billions of dollars annually:  separate fees for listing agents and buyer agents.  Think of it as a real estate version of BYOB: Bring your own broker.  That’s the only way to create an open, competitive market place in residential brokerage, where as one attorney wrote:   "the ability to freely price one’s service is a pretty basic, bread and butter tenet of competition." The Consumer Federation of America first proposed that reform 16 years ago, and there is growing interest in "divorcing" the commission even within the Realtor community.  You can learn more by viewing this 90 second slide show:

Uncoupling the traditional two-sided real estate commission:  10 Mega-trends leading towards a tipping point (click to see video)

As the real estate industry transitions to a more competitive marketplace, The Real Estate Cafe’s will continue to offer a menu of hourly and flat fees plus rebates, including a 100% rebate option.  However, we’d prefer to work with other change agents to unlock billions of dollars of consumer savings annually by compensating buyer and seller agents independently.  If you are interested, please use this wiki to brainstorm about building a coalition and action plan to divorce real estate commissions.  If you’d like to meet in person in Boston, no need to BYOB — we’ll buy the beer.

Related Articles

Alternative fees for home buyers: Still the “Unfinished [r]Evolution”?

Four years ago, June 7, 2004, Banker & Tradesman quoted The Real Estate Cafe in a page one story entitled, "MLS Policy Statement Fuels Commission War."  The skip page read:

Unfinished Evolution

During the last decade or so, alternative services — such as flat-fee, listing-only or fee-for-service models — have been offered to home sellers, but there haven’t been a tremendous amount of choice for buyers, according to Wendel. 

This is one of the untold and unfinished pieces of this [real estate r]evolution," he said.  Wendel, who charges $100 an hour rather than charging a commission, has been offering a full menu of services to both buyers and sellers for the last 10 years.

Do you think the residential brokerage community now offers enough alternatives to the traditional real estate commission?  What kind of money-saving options would you like The Real Estate Cafe to add to it’s Menu of Fees & Rebates?  Should we bring back our $3,000 and $5,000 flat fees, first offered when we opened in 1995, or continue to focus on hourly fees?

Would you like to see the traditional, two-sided real estate brokerage commission uncoupled so home buyers and sellers can BOTH maximize savings in an open, competitive market place?  If you are not familiar with the issue, watch this 90 second video.  Why hasn’t this happened already, and what will it take to get there?  Your ideas are welcome on the "divorcing" commissions section of our wiki, or in the comments section below. 

See what we mean about the "Unfinished [r]Evolution" in real estate brokerage fees?

Real time “comps”

Link to recent press post Inman re "real time real estate."

Instead of developing a "CMA" type of report that describes sold data, I’ve
been using the "pending date" instead of the sold date.

 
Reason?  The market is changing so much on a daily or monthly basis,
that considering "comps" may not be as accurate if the sold date is used, as
much as using the "pending date."  If you develop a list of 6 houses that
sold in August to compare those sales with an offer you’re making today, then
what if the market has been in a decline since March?  How much of a value
difference may there be from properties that went pending in the spring,
compared to a property on the market now?
 
Some, if not all of those 6 "comps" could have sold last spring.  As
we know, listing agents and appraisers will often use the "comps" that best fit
the subject being appraised rather than an objective assessment of the sales
data.
 
So, next time you structure some type of analysis, why not use "pending
dates" instead of "sold dates" to make any comparison to a subject property
you’re trying to negotiate for on behalf of your buyer clients?
 
I suggested this to one of the "honest" appraises we typically use
here…he said he’s only using month old "comps" because there is an ongoing
decline in values here.

You get what you pay for…

Rona, maybe it’s not a question of what qualities sellers are looking for, but a question about how they are compensating their listing agent.

How motivated would the average person be to work on their own jobs if they had not been paid in 203 days, 251 days, or 716 days — the listing periods mentioned for three of the four condos described above?

Maybe the deteriorating customer service you describe will begin a discussion about how to compensation agents — whether buyer agent, seller agent, or  non-agents — to best serve their respective clients. 

More than a decade ago, the former chief economist of the National Association of Realtors predicted that:

"The next major revolution in real estate will be fee-based services replacing the blanket commission pricing that has dominated the industry for so long."

Do you think consumers would get better service if they compensated their agent by the hour, instead of commissions paid at the closing table?  (Before you answer  that question, consider this fact:  there were nearly 30,00 expired and canceled listing in the last three months of 2008 alone, which means that a lot of listing agents effectively volunteered to work on overprice listings.)

Dual agency: Untold story of real estate bubble?

I think there is some truth to complaint that the "traditional" real estate business model contributed to bidding wars over the past five years, hence the anger by some home buyers.  As a buyer agent, I can honestly say that our buyers seldom beat an in-house offer at well-known dominate firms in the Boston area.  My guess is that buyers were manipulated to drive prices up, and commissions were then shaved to insure in-house sales — enabling the brokerage to keep both sides of the commission.

Responses

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

HTML Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com