View this post on Instagram
Zillow keeps feasting on lazy realtors!
Any agent could walk around their next listing with their phone’s camera running and comment on what people are seeing and why they should buy the house! The extra audio will be far more effective than any whiz-bang product that comes to market at any price.
Why don’t agents do that?
It’s inevitable that artificial intelligence will be utilized in the business of selling homes. Having AI assist with writing home descriptions or other advertising would seem to be a natural fit.
How about speaking with clients on the phone though? Listen to the brief conversation above.
Here are some of the results:
Homes.com is making a run at Zillow and all other search portals. They are advertising 100 million users already, and they are displaying the listing agent’s phone number prominently on their properties for sale:
Zillow must have felt the pressure, and they are doing it too, although in a more subtle way because they still want you to contact their call center so they can control – and get paid from – the agent they desire:
This is will probably have more to do with the extinction of the buyer-agent than the lawsuits.
All anybody has to do is spend $100 million per year on advertisng to become a major player like like Zillow did, and homes.com is in a position to do it. Look for the homes.com ads during the Super Bowl!
The gradual phasing out of buyer-agents is underway, and it shouldn’t be long now.
Zillow’s new format features the listing agent’s phone number under the main photo!
The three-headed agent display was removed and now when a reader clicks on the right side for Request a tour or Contact agent, they are linked to the Zillow call center instead. There they get processed/qualified on the phone by Zillow employees, sent to Zillow Mortgage, and then get assigned to an agent who is paying big money to Zillow for the privledge.
Buyers will figure it out pretty quick. By clicking on the right side, you get a 3rd party agent who isn’t the listing agent and has never been to the home. With the listing agent’s phone number now prominently displayed, it is inevitable that buyers will call the listing agent next time.
If they need a prompt, they will get one when they start clicking on the photos – which every viewer does immediately. This is what they will see now:
Yep – the listing agent is in the upper-left corner of every photo!
https://www.zillow.com/homedetails/2533-Camulos-St-San-Diego-CA-92107/16966353_zpid/
With the threat of buyers having to pay a buyer-agent a hefty commission out of pocket, it will be irresistible for them to contact the listing agent to see what they have to offer – in hopes of avoiding a separate payment due to a buyer-agent. The listing agents will be happy to oblige because they will already have their full fee packed into the listing side.
By the time the realtor lawsuits get resolved, it will be too late – there won’t be any need for a buyer-agent.
Zillow is offering a full marketing package to listing agents too.
Package Includes:
The Listing Placement Boost on Zillow?
Listing agents who purchase a marketing package will have their new listings displayed first in the home’s area for seven days – a very nice feature for agents looking to capture buyers for their listings.
While the rest of the industry was grumbling about lawsuits over the last few months, Zillow created a new format that will solve everything. But nobody knows what fee the listing agent charges because it is never disclosed to anyone but the seller – the person who just wants to hurry up and get their money.
Traditional real estate being manipulated by billionaires. Hat tip to Anna for sending this in!
The digital renderings of North Bayshore, a massive proposed development in Mountain View, California, are crowded with glistening buildings and cheerful, animated pedestrians. There’s a lot to show off, including 7,000 new homes, three distinct neighborhoods, and nearly 300,000 square feet of retail and community space. Notably, though, the gleaming images don’t bear any hints of the company behind the whole endeavor: Google.
Companies like Google and Facebook’s parent, Meta, conquered the digital realm a long time ago, setting the ground rules for how we search, interact, and shop online. Not content to stop there, however, these firms are now making huge bids to expand their reach. They want to be landlords, too.
We are going through this now in our family, and it’s probably happening to you or someone you know. It’s a reminder that if you’re a senior and have one move left, it’s so much better to move sooner, rather than later (trying to put a real estate spin on this touching video).
The copycat lawsuits are pouring in now, with attorneys from across the country looking to get their piece. The latest, called Batton 2 (other versions were filed previously), is for buyers from the last 27 years:
“All persons who, since December 1, 1996 through the present, purchased in the Indirect Purchaser States residential real estate that was listed on an NAR MLS.” For this class, the plaintiffs are asking for damages under “antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.”
The class will include millions of people! If NAR goes out of business (which is likely), it won’t change much because we’ll still have state and local associations. We’ll have less lobbying, but lower dues!
All plaintiffs have momentum now, and the lead attorney from the first lawsuit doesn’t just want money. “One of our goals in filing the case is to make sure any changes are brought nationwide,” said Ketchmark. “We’re extremely focused on making sure any change that comes from this is real change.”
But the NAR is taking it lightly, just like they have from the beginning:
“We are currently reviewing the new filing, and it appears to be a copycat lawsuit,” Mantill Williams, NAR’s vice president of communications. “We continue to assert that the practice of listing brokers making offers of compensation to buyer brokers is best for consumers. It gives the greatest number of buyers a chance to afford a home and professional representation, while also giving sellers access to the greatest number of buyers.”
Here’s our corporate viewpoint:
Compass spokesperson Devin Daly Huerta said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but provided comments from the company’s earnings call on Monday, saying the company “will respond accordingly to the complaints filed against us at the appropriate time” and that the company feels “confident that Compass is well-positioned.”
Compass pointed to rule changes at Northwest MLS that made listing broker compensation to buyer brokers optional and didn’t result in any decrease of offers of compensation or the amounts offered. “So we have evidence in a major U.S. market of what this change might look like that gives us confidence,” the company said.
“Secondly, we believe we are positioned well because we have the combination of some of the most productive agents and the only end to end technology platform in our industry. Third, we currently have agents that successfully ask their buyers to sign buyer broker agreements in order to work with them. We are in the process of launching trainings to all of our agents to empower them to successfully get buyer broker agreements signed with their buyers.
“Lastly, we operate largely in the luxury segment, where we think buyers will always want the help of an advisor through their home-buying journey.”
Similar statements from other brokerages are downplaying the impact. Yes, we will probably have better presentations of what realtors do and why we are worth the money, but anyone who thinks that will fix everything will be sorely disappointed. Consumers will be empowered to consider other options.
The only people who think that buyer-agents are needed are the agents. Buyers find homes for sale online, and they are proud about finding them before their agent does. They wonder why they need their own agent, when they can just contact the listing agent. The listing agents will be enouraging those thoughts!
Here’s a paragraph from the red team – the first to publicly mimic my prediction:
But if buyers’ agents become less common, Redfin will prosper in that world too. We run the largest brokerage website in America. We’ve built self-service technology for buyers to set up their own tours and to make offers. We’ll use that technology to market the properties listed by our agents directly to consumers, taking market share from other brokerages. We may open that platform to other listing agents who work with us as partners.
This is an opportunity for major changes to be implemented on how homes are sold, and these lawsuits are the disruption device. Realtors will roll out fancier graphics that tout the status quo, leaving it wide open for new ideas. Zillow and Homes.com have surged ahead of what should have been the dominant search portal, realtor.com, which NAR also screwed up when they sold it to an outside company.
Zillow has been amassing the pieces to build a super app, and create one-stop shopping for homes. If they add an auction component, it will be O-V-E-R for realtors.
Currently, every listing agent is required to offer some sort of buyer-agent compensation on the MLS. Zillow and Redfin publish those commission amounts on every listing now, so they are all out in the open.
Today, there are 79 homes for sale between La Jolla and Carlsbad in the $2,000,000-$3,000,000 price range. Thirty percent of those listing agents are offering less than 2.5% commissions to the buyer-agents.
Outsiders who see that will assume that commissions are finally starting to drop, after all these years.
But the vast majority of those listing agents are probably still taking 5% to 6% commissions, and offering 2% or less to the buyer-agent (and more for themselves).
If the listing agent is supremely talented and brings special skills to the transaction, then it would be understandable. But I’ve been a buyer-agent on listings that are offering less than 2.5%, and they’re not different. Virtually every listing agent still practices the Three-P marketing plan: Put a sign out front, Put it in the MLS, and Pray.
There are hundreds of multiple listing services in America. So far, only a few have removed the requirement of offering a buyer-agent commission. But the NAR lawsuits are going to change that, and soon every MLS will permit 0% commissions to be offered to the buyer-agents (hoping buyers will pay their own agent).
The listing agents who have little or no repsect for the buyer-agents will keep offering them lower and lower commissions. Eventually, their rate will get down to zero or close.
Will sellers figure it out?
Sellers focus on the total commission. They don’t do enough transactions to know that the amount the listing agent pays to the buyer-agent will impact the sale. It is a bounty offered to encourage the sale of the house, and when market conditions are soggy, it is better to pay buyer-agents more commission, not less.
In the lawsuits, they will discuss agents steering their buyers to homes that pay higher commissions. It’s why the search portals publish the commission rates now so buyers can track whether their agent shows any bias based on the commission rate being offered.
It’s why the industry will be racing towards 0% commissions offered to the buyer-agents.
Eventually, the DOJ will probably step in and insist that ALL sellers pay 0% commission to the buyer-agents to insure there is no chance of steering. Instead, listing agents will just offer them spiffs under the table in a softer market or when the house is ‘unique’.
Until then, the listing-agent teams are going to keep offering lower and lower commissions (if any) to the buyer-agents – who will then try to get their buyers to pay them something….anything!
At the same time, the listing agents will be encouraging buyers to avoid paying a buyer-agent commission altogether by coming direct to the listing agent instead. Their in-house assistant-agents will attempt a faux representation of the buyer but it will just be a novice clerk who processes their paperwork.
Boom! The seller didn’t have to pay a buyer-agent commission – making these lawsuits worth it – and instead the listing agent keeps the whole commission. If buyer-agents can somehow wedge themselves into the deal, then great, but will the buyer pay them too, when it doesn’t seem necessary?
Mark my words – this will be standard fare in the next year or two.
People are asking about the NAR lawsuits – hat tip to Susie, Gerry, and Carl!
The lawsuit that began this week contends that realtors force sellers to pay a commission to the buyer’s agent. Two defendants, ReMax and Anywhere (Coldwell Banker, Sotheby’s, etc.) have already come to settlement agreements, though they haven’t been approved by the judge yet. The other two brokerages, Keller Williams and Berkshire Hathaway, plus the National Association of Realtors are the remaining defendants. Their attorney started the proceedings by declaring that the plaintiffs have the burden of proof, and the defense may not call a witness. It is that type of arrogance that got them into this mess!
A summary:
In their trial brief, the plaintiffs in the suit allege that NAR’s Participation Rule, which they refer to as the Mandatory Offer of Compensation Rule, is “a market-shaping and distorting rule” that stifles innovation and competition.
“The Rule requires every home seller to offer payment to the broker representing their adversary, the buyer, even though the buyer’s broker is retained by and owes a fiduciary obligation to the buyer (who may be told, falsely, that the services of the buyer broker are “free”),” the brief said.
They argue that the current practice of the seller’s agent splitting their commission with the buyer’s agent, who typically negotiates for a lower selling price for their client, works against the seller’s interest and only exists due to the alleged anticompetitive rules. The plaintiffs also note that the NAR rule in question requires a blanket offer of compensation for the buyer’s broker regardless of their experience or the level of service they provide the buyers with, and that the compensation offer was only visible to the buyer’s agent and not their clients, until very recently.
“This artificial and severed market structure created by Defendants’ conduct deters price-cutting competition and innovation, resulting in inflated commissions,” the brief states. “The Mandatory NAR Rules impede the ability of a free market to function in the residential real estate industry, and the plain purpose and/or effect of the Rules is to raise, inflate, or stabilize commission rates.”
In the brief, the plaintiffs claim that the other defendants in the suit colluded with NAR to enforce this and other NAR and MLS policies.
“The Corporate Defendants compel compliance in multiple ways, including by requiring their franchisees, subsidiaries, brokers, and agents become members of NAR; writing the NAR Rules into their own corporate documents; and requiring that their franchisees, subsidiaries, brokers, and agents become members of and participants in the Subject MLSs — entities that compel NAR membership and adopt the mandatory NAR Rules,” the brief reads.
The brief notes that Craig Schulman, the director of Berkeley Research Group and professor of economic data analytics at Texas A&M University, will be an expert witness for the plaintiffs at trial. In studying transaction data from NAR and other parties, the brief states the Schulman has concluded that “(a) the NAR Rules have anticompetitive effects; (b) the NAR Rules caused a seller to pay his adversary (buyer broker) and that, but for the conspiracy, a seller would not pay the buyer broker; and (c) all class members were impacted.”
The brief also notes that Schulman will testify that NAR’s rules have stabilized commission rates at an “anticompetitive level,” noting that commissions have remained at 6% for several years.
Unfortunately, none of the reality of what happens on the street will get introduced during the trial. Instead, it will be ivory-tower guys hoping to persuade the judge and jury (one of which has to breast-feed her infant every 1.5 hours) that the whole commission thing is out of control and someone is to blame.
But the defendants have a good point:
NAR also argued that the plaintiffs do not have the ability to sue for damages —which some believe could reach as much as $4 billion in this case — because under federal and Missouri antitrust law, only “direct purchasers” can be allowed to sue and the plaintiffs have not bought anything directly from NAR or the other defendants.
“And, according to those same Model Rules and listing agreements, Plaintiffs did not directly pay cooperating agents, NAR, or the other Defendants; sellers only directly pay their listing agents and only directly receive services from their own agents,” the brief states. “Therefore, at best, Plaintiffs might claim that they paid their listing agents (who are not parties to this case) who, only then, paid Defendants. But such an indirect claim is prohibited by Supreme Court case law.”
Home sellers pay the full commission to the listing brokerage. It is the listing agent who declares in the original listing agreement of how much of the full commission they are willing to pay the buyer’s agent. None of this will be discussed during this trial, but it’s the most important part!
The plaintiffs should be suing the individual listing agents – good luck with that!
In the end, the defendants might be found guilty, and they will appeal for years – the American way! Or it’s more likely that they will settle in the next couple of weeks because the ReMax and Anywhere settlements were only $55 million and $85 million, which is pennies.
Part of the settlement package will be that the MLS will no longer be obligated to display ANY commission to be paid to the buyer’s agent. It will cause two things to happen:
Kayla is faced with this dilemma in New York City. Did you know that 2/3’s of the population in Manhattan are renters? It’s a big business! But the listing agents don’t offer a tenant-agent commission, which means Kayla has to get paid by her tenants upon finding them new home to rent.
The results:
The idea that home buyers will hire and pay their own buyer-agents is a great idea…..in theory.
The reality is that buyers will go direct to the listing agents when they see an interesting new home for sale. Those listing agents will be advertising to those buyers directly, and flat-out encourage them to get a better deal by going through them.
The buyer-agent is a dead man walking.
An article published yesterday included some guesses about the future of the real estate market over the next five years. For those who thought it would be the usual expert opinions touting 3% appreciation per year, you won’t be disappointed, though Larry did throw in a possible 10% decline in California:
Yun foresees no major changes in purchase price tags on a nationwide level next year, with fluctuations of only about 5 percent one way or the other. The only exception is California, he says, where the market could see 10 percent declines: “Because it’s so expensive, California is always the most vulnerable to changes in interest rates.” This scenario is already playing out in the priciest areas in the state: For example, San Francisco median home prices are down 9.71 percent since last year, according to Redfin data. Overall, in five years, Yun expects prices to have appreciated a total of 15–25 percent.
McBride predicts home prices will average low- to mid-single-digit annual appreciation over the next five years. This rate of appreciation, he says, is consistent with the long-term average of home prices increasing by a rate that hovers a percentage point above the inflation rate.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/housing-market-predictions-forecast-next-175441472.html
I think the North San Diego County coastal region will perform much better for the following reasons:
The demand will stay strong and the inventory extremely tight. The realtor and lender populations will get cut in half (at least) and the fascinations about the real estate market will continue – but for almost everybody it will be from the sidelines.
The local Case-Shiller Index has risen 54% since March 2020.
I think we will see another +50% in the next five years, and in 2028 there won’t be a month when we have 100+ sales of detached homes between La Jolla and Carlsbad.
What do you think?
Are you looking for an experienced agent to help you buy or sell a home?
Contact Jim the Realtor!
CA DRE #01527365, CA DRE #00873197
