One of my favorite “Modern Family” episodes depicts the hilarity and nonsense of a real estate agent’s daily life as Phil Dunphy rattles off deed restrictions and the proper pronunciation of the word “Realtor” (real-TOR).
A registered trademark of its originator, Realtor is a title only real estate agents who pay membership to the National Association of Realtors (NAR) are allowed to boast.
Today, after more than 10 years as one myself, the “Realtor” prestige has lost its allure.
Just when it felt like NAR was bouncing back after a sexual harassment scandal in 2023, we real estate agents and brokers now find ourselves in the aftermath of this month’s multimillion dollar NAR settlement.
While I am nervous about what these NAR settlement changes mean for my residential real estate business and community, I am pleased that we’re all turning our eyes and ears to a company whose pockets have gotten too big and too dark for too long.
But enough about NAR.
Brokers, their agents and our local associations are scrambling to decide how to restructure serving residential buyers fairly without undervaluing our work. It feels a bit like a bomb just went off, and we’re running up to each other screaming, “Can you hear me talking? Are you talking? What are we going to do about this?!”
We have only until mid-July to figure it out.
Here’s what we know now: Buyer broker compensation is no longer allowed to be included on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). And buyers are now required to sign a Buyer Representation Agreement, which includes the buyer broker’s compensation.
Real estate agents are worth it. So how do we get paid?
Buyer services are harder and more unpredictable, I think, than seller services (even in a buyer’s market!). Some buyer clients take years to find a property, while others take only a few weeks.
The stories we agents could tell would make anyone roll with laughter or cry – probably both. Being a real estate agent is like a reality TV show. How will we divide our whole job into billable hours? Billable tasks?
As an agent, I’m not only giving advice about market data and negotiating terms for sale. I’m also an on-call therapist, a babysitter, an interior designer, a cleaner, an exterminator … agents gladly do an endless list of tasks for our clients. Just ask your favorite agent what she keeps in her car for emergencies!
One thing I can predict with much certainty: Buyers will have to do more work to buy a property in the future. Private tours will be less common and replaced by 3D tours, video tours and open houses. Buyers might also have to meet with their inspectors, contractors and others without their agent.
Maybe buyers really will do it all themselves without losing money.
Buying a house?Don’t go it alone. A real estate agent can make all the difference.
If you’re hoping to buy in the next three months, my recommendation would be to close by July 1. Most first-time homebuyers have no idea what has happened or how it will affect their ability to negotiate.
In the past week, I’ve had to explain the NAR settlement to every friend, neighbor and client outside the industry. I can only tell you that we’re all racing to get it figured out by the time it does affect everyone.
NAR settlement explained: How will this impact home sellers and real estate prices?
Seller-paid buyer broker commissions were created with equitable rights to good representation in mind. Specifically, so that first-time buyers could afford to have a fair negotiation, instead of being swept under the rug by a seller’s agent signed to protect the seller (a law in most states).
My heart breaks for those sellers who were swindled into commissions. As much as I’d like to blame NAR, this error is also on agents, brokers and local boards who clearly violated our ethical code. It’s maddening to watch agents and brokers feed right into the stereotype that real estate agents are lazy and just in it for the biggest paychecks.
So, who will pay the buyer’s agent now, and how will this affect home prices?
Real estate prices:Will home prices fall after Realtor lawsuit settlement? You shouldn’t count on it.
It’s commonly acknowledged that the 5-6% sales commission was “baked into” the sales price. Investor agents and builders have been using low-to-zero percent buyer broker commissions as leverage for years.
While I do think that 5-6% sales commissions will be a thing of the past, there is a chance that sellers will find a way to simply advertise buyer broker commissions through a different medium. This compromise walks a fine line with the new restriction.
Seller-paid “buyer credits” is my favorite idea bumping around. Buyer credits would be offered on the listing, and could be distributed as the buyer sees fit at the closing table. The buyer could use the funds for themselves, their broker or both.
If buyers are responsible for the buyer broker commission on top of other purchasing costs, the sales prices will have to come down. Lower sales prices should not affect the sellers’ net proceeds in this instance, since the sales price deficit should roughly mirror the now absent buyer broker’s commission.
In short, even though most sellers think they should be celebrating now, these new rules probably won’t affect sellers much, if at all, once the dust settles.
What does the NAR settlement mean for buyers?
Gone are the “Let’s go tour this house for fun!” days.
A signed Buyer Representation Agreement is now required before a property showing. This has always been best practice. For some states this will be a big change.
For example, I usually complete a buyer consultation and one or two property tours before requiring a buyer’s agreement. I do this to be sure we’re a good match for each other. A successful client-agent squad requires a lot of trust and a common communication style.
Take the tours off the table, and I think things will get awkward. Now I spend one hour with a potential buyer and then prompt, “So do you trust me to guide you through your biggest life purchase? Sign here.” I’m sure thankful many of my clients are referrals.
How will the commission change impact real estate agents in 2024?
The part-time agents and small brokerages will likely diminish over time, which will either be great or horrible for the industry. Agents will have to do more with less, and our 60 to 70 hour work week will feel impossible without high sales volume.
Once in escrow, the brunt of the work usually lands on the buyer’s agent, too. If there are more transactions without buyer’s agents, then the seller’s agent will have to pick up the slack.
I often joke that as a 1099 real estate agent, I’m either overpaid or underpaid on each property. Still, my annual income mashes up into a worthwhile sum despite the work-life balance.
Without that 2-3% buyer’s commission propping up half my income, I am not sure the 11:30 p.m. phone calls, 6 a.m. texts, missing my daughter’s basketball game for an impromptu showing, and never having paid time off or maternity leave will be worth it.
Maybe I ought to go back to copywriting.
It feels like most brokers and Realtor associations are strategizing how to make the buyer agent obsolete with new technologies. I think they’re focusing on the wrong solution, but that’s a story for another day.
Emily Ross has been a real estate agent in Austin, Texas, for 10 years and a writer for much longer. Her background is in copywriting and editing, and she holds a master’s degree from Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism.
A landmark settlement in an antitrust challenge to the National Association of Realtors’ standards for real estate agent commissions has understandably been celebrated as a victory for homebuyers. At around 5.5%, average commissions in the United States are some of the highest in the world, and if the NAR settlement results in lower commissions (and if sellers, who typically pay the fees, incorporate the savings into their listing price), prospective homebuyers could save thousands of dollars.
Any such savings would be welcomed, and for good reason. But homebuyers shouldn’t expect fundamental changes to the brutal U.S. housing market.
First, it’s unclear just how much they’ll benefit from the settlement because it doesn’t address the other, and arguably bigger, anticompetitive facet of the U.S. real estate agent market: occupational licensing regulations.
All states require real estate brokers to obtain a license, and 44 states license real estate salespeople (who must work for a licensed broker). In many states, this system creates a high barrier to entry into the profession and severely limits competition.
Colorado, for example, demands 168 hours of education from a state-approved real estate school (or college equivalent), passage of the state licensing exam, fingerprinting and background check, a sponsoring broker, errors and omissions insurance and $485 broker licensing fee. All told, the process can take more than a year to complete and cost more than $1,000. Once licensed, brokers must annually complete another 24 hours of continuing education at a substantial additional expense.
Licensing leads to higher costs for consumers
Research has consistently found that by limiting competition, occupational licenses like these increase consumer costs while providing few, if any, benefits in terms of quality, health or safety. For home buyers and sellers, this probably means paying higher commissions for no good reason.
Consider, for example, the United Kingdom, which doesn’t license real estate agents and enjoys average commissions of just 1.3%. Even after this month’s settlement, U.S. homebuyers can only dream of such rates.
In a free market, providers should be able to offer any service at whatever price they want, and if consumers don’t like it, a competing provider can – and almost certainly will – offer it for less. But this is no free market. And until state laws that create local real estate cartels are reformed or eliminated, we should expect commissions to remain higher than they’d otherwise be.
How much should it cost to sell a house?Your real estate agent may be charging too much.
Even then, however, homebuyers wouldn’t be spared from the most important problem in the U.S. real estate market today: home prices and rents increasing at a pace that far exceeds overall inflation. That trend has nothing to do with cartels or commissions and almost everything to do with the limited supply of housing, particularly in high-growth metro areas.
Building more homes will slow price increases
Research has repeatedly shown that the most effective check on skyrocketing home prices is simply to build more homes. One survey of the literature found that new construction of market-rate units in several U.S. cities moderated the prices of all typesof nearby housing, both high- and low-priced.
Housing shortage squeezes budgets:Rising home prices create an enormous burden. So why aren’t we building more houses?
Recent experience shows much the same: places that have seen housing construction at rates above national or regional averages – Austin, Phoenix, Atlanta, Raleigh, Minneapolis and more – have enjoyed slower rent and home price appreciation.
Unfortunately, regulation is a big problem here too, severely restricting the construction of market-rate housing across the country and thus boosting prices. The biggest impediments, studies show, are local zoning and land use regulations that dictate home sizes, yard sizes, parking and more, while giving politicians and residents an effective veto over anything that might deviate from these strict terms.
The restrictions’ effect on prices is significant: One recent study examined 24 different metropolitan areas and calculated a “zoning tax” of up to $500,000 per quarter-acre in cities with onerous land-use regimes – a finding consistent with previous research.
In case after case, in the U.S. and abroad, the lesson is always the same: new housing supply lowers prices; land use regulation discourages new supply; and homebuyers suffer as a result.
Other policies do further damage. Federal tariffs on construction materials, hard caps on immigration, high local permitting and building fees, and property and other taxes increase American homebuilders’ costs and thus discourage the construction of smaller starter homes with lower profit margins. National housing subsidies and city building codes preference traditional, “stick-built” homes over less expensive manufactured housing. And the U.S. government’s ownership of large amounts of land, particularly in the West, makes it unavailable for development and acts as hard barrier to the expansion of neighboring localities.
Combine state-sanctioned Realtor cartels with a witches’ brew of federal, state and local regulation, and it’s no surprise that home prices are skyrocketing today. Unfortunately, there’s no settlement amount that will change this troubling reality.
Scott Lincicome is vice president of general economics and trade at the Cato Institute.
Five years ago, when a real estate agent advised my wife and me to make an offer on a house we had seen only once − at night − and were unsure about, I thought she was being ridiculous. Today, I concede that she was being pragmatic because buyers significantly outnumbered sellers.
We bought another home before it was listed, happening to spot the “Coming Soon” sign out front. That was my preview of the housing shortage. Then COVID-19 supercharged the national housing crisis.
You may know the rule of thumb not to spend more than 30% of your income on housing. Redfin calculated that only 15.5% of homes bought last year would have a mortgage costing less than 30% of local median income, a record well below the pre-pandemic norm.
A new report from Harvard’s Joint Center for Housing Studies found that in 2022, a record half of U.S. renters were “cost burdened,” spending more than 30% of their income on rent and utilities. About 27% of renter households spent more than half of their income on housing.
The root cause of this financial hardship is a shortage of homes, although some housing advocates question or deny that reality. But the housing shortage is a literal shortage. We can see it from various pieces of evidence.
We can fix homelessness:California knows the way to end homelessness. It’s time to find the will.
Housing price index is at near record high
America built far fewer homes in recent years. U.S. private home construction crashed before the 2008 mortgage crisis (measured in total units). Only in late 2021 did it climb back up to its pre-Great Recession peak.
Homebuilding is rebounding, but we have a lot of catching up to do. The Case-Shiller housing price index sits near an all-time high.
The median age of first-time homebuyers also is near a record high, at 35.
Can Gen Z, millennials buy homes?Buying a home was a dream for millennials like me. For many, it won’t be possible.
Investment firms have owned many multifamily buildings for decades. They now are buying a significant number of houses because they expect a continued shortage to boost those properties’ values.
Economists argue about inflation and minimum wage laws, but they overwhelmingly agree we have a housing shortage. “Place the Blame Where It Belongs,” declared a recent Urban Institute report on the shortage. Economists are still figuring out how to measure it, but various estimates place the national shortage of homes in a broad range, from 4 million to 20 million.
Rising rents trigger increase in people without stable housing
It was a moment, not a number, that finally convinced me of the housing shortage. I started an all-volunteer housing advocacy group in 2021 and about a year later was invited to tour a homeless shelter. A staff member explained that rising rents had increased the local population without stable housing, and that the shelter struggled to find available homes to place its clients in.
I have since heard the same thing from staff at other shelters in my state. I have also heard chilling stories about residents of my city living in unsafe, overcrowded conditions.
Low supply lets landlords jack up rents. It prevents people from leaving abusive partners. It forces California college students to sleep in their cars.
The housing shortage is all too real. Only building many more homes will make housing affordable again.
Luca Gattoni-Celli is a Young Voices contributor and the founder of YIMBYs of Northern Virginia. Follow him on X @TheGattoniCelli