Rob Hahn recently ignited an important conversation about the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) decision to significantly modify Standard of Practice 10-5, a rule initially established to prevent harassment based on protected characteristics. While NAR’s move to restrict 10-5’s scope solely to REALTORS’ professional activities has been welcomed as a step toward safeguarding free speech, Hahn highlights another critical dimension needing attention: restitution for those previously penalized under its broader interpretation.
According to Hahn, now that NAR acknowledges the overreach of the initial rule, it owes apologies and possibly reparations to REALTORS previously sanctioned under it. As Hahn emphasizes, individuals like Brandon Huber, Wilson Fauber, Chad DeVries, and Jamie Haynes faced serious professional and personal repercussions for actions now clearly outside the revised scope of harassment. These repercussions included damaged reputations, career setbacks, and financial losses from legal defenses. Hahn calls for immediate revocation of any sanctions, restoration of membership, and financial reparations to make these individuals whole.
Hahn’s point raises broader questions relevant beyond real estate: How should professional bodies rectify past injustices when they recognize a rule was wrongly applied? History offers guidance. For example, when the American Bar Association (ABA) revised its ethical standards in response to changing views on lawyer advertising and free speech, it effectively nullified earlier disciplinary actions against attorneys previously punished under the outdated rules. Similarly, medical professionals once disciplined for practices later recognized as acceptable or even beneficial, like certain alternative treatments, often sought and received reversals of prior sanctions.
The conversation Hahn sparks compels us to consider the ethical responsibility organizations have to right historical wrongs once policies evolve. Should NAR follow suit, issuing formal apologies and monetary restitution to affected REALTORS? Moreover, should those who weaponized the rule inappropriately face accountability?
Hahn strongly argues they should. He asserts those who used the original rule as a political weapon should themselves face ethical scrutiny under the revised 10-5, suggesting this accountability is vital to restore trust and unity within the REALTOR community.
As this discussion unfolds, it prompts critical reflection across all professional industries: When policies change and previous “wrongdoings” are now exonerated, how far must an organization go to make amends?
Rob Hahn’s challenge to NAR is clear: “Peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.” Whether NAR responds by embracing this deeper reconciliation remains to be seen—but the conversation around accountability, restitution, and ethical responsibility is one all industries can benefit from exploring openly.
A new federal lawsuit filed in California is challenging a long-standing National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) policy that many small and independent brokers argue has quietly stifled competition in the real estate industry for years. The suit, brought by broker John Diaz, centers on the “Variable Dues Formula” — a policy that requires designated REALTOR® brokers to pay NAR dues not just for themselves, but also for any agents in their firm who are not NAR members, even if those agents opt out of the services.
While this may sound like an administrative issue, it has real consequences, particularly for independent brokerages and markets like St. Louis where many agents prefer not to join trade associations. The complaint argues that NAR, along with state and local affiliates, is enforcing a coercive system that punishes brokers who try to offer more flexible employment models. Under current rules, if a broker like Diaz hires an agent who doesn’t want to be a NAR member, the broker must either pay dues on their behalf, disassociate from them, or force them to join. These extra costs often exceed $1,000 per agent annually, a significant barrier for small shops trying to grow.
The lawsuit alleges this structure creates a “group boycott” of non-member licensees and illegally ties access to essential tools — like the MLS and standard contract forms — to association membership. It also calls out the Limited Function Referral Office (LFRO) workaround as inadequate, since it requires agents to give up all sales activity, limiting them to referrals only. According to the complaint, this is particularly harmful in markets with fewer large firms, where agents need flexibility and lower costs to stay active.
In many ways, this complaint echoes ongoing concerns raised in other major lawsuits — including the Moehrl case and those targeting buyer broker commissions — that challenge long-standing NAR policies under federal antitrust law. While those lawsuits focus more on how commissions are structured and disclosed, the Diaz suit strikes at the operational backbone of how brokerages function under the NAR system.
For agents and brokers in St. Louis, this case may be especially relevant. Smaller firms make up a large part of the local real estate fabric, and the economic pressure of paying dues for non-member agents limits their ability to operate efficiently. Consumers may also feel the effects — fewer active agents means fewer choices and potentially higher costs due to reduced competition. The outcome of this lawsuit could open the door for more flexible brokerage models and broader access to real estate careers.
It’s yet another signal that the way real estate has worked for decades is now under a legal microscope. Whether you’re a broker, agent, or consumer, change may be coming — and it’s worth watching closely.
Read the full complaint below for more detail on the case.
The National Association of REALTORS® Board of Directors today approved updates to Standard of Practice 10-5 and Professional Standards Policy Statement 29 — both key components of Article 10 of the Code of Ethics. These long-anticipated changes, debated since 2023, aim to bring more clarity and consistency to how REALTORS® are held accountable when it comes to discrimination and harassment.
As I reported in my May 26th article, concerns had been growing over whether SOP 10-5 infringed on members’ personal free speech — especially in cases where comments or beliefs expressed outside the workplace led to disciplinary action. The revised policy now limits enforcement to conduct that occurs within a member’s professional role and aligns the definition of “harassment” with the NAR Member Code of Conduct. This should help reduce ambiguity and risk for both members and associations tasked with enforcement.
NAR President Kevin Sears stated that these amendments better align with ethical standards used by other large trade groups and strengthen the association’s commitment to fair housing. From a professional standpoint, it’s a move that balances ethical responsibility with clearer boundaries — something the industry has been asking for.
Newly Revised SOP 10-5 of the REALTOR® Code of Ethics
Yesterday, I attended the Economic Forecast session during the NAR Mid-Year Meetings in Washington D.C.,
where National Association of REALTORS® Chief Economist Lawrence Yun gave a sobering yet hopeful outlook
for the housing market — and homeowners, sellers, and agents in the St. Louis area should take note.
Yun, recently ranked one of the nation’s top economic forecasters by The Wall Street Journal,
admitted the recovery he had predicted hasn’t yet materialized. “I thought at this conference I would share some
good news with you. Home sales are rising. Momentum is building. But we are not seeing that,” he told the crowd.
His presentation focused on key economic dynamics affecting housing, particularly the unusual gap between mortgage
rates and 10-year Treasury yields. Under typical conditions, mortgage rates hover 150-200 basis points above Treasuries.
Today, that spread has ballooned to over 300 points. “We should be seeing mortgage rates around 6%, not 7%,” Yun explained. He attributed the mismatch to uncertainty around reforms to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, debt rating downgrades, and volatile economic policy.
Yun emphasized the pressure this places on new buyers. “Your past clients are happy. Their monthly payment is fixed. But for new buyers, their monthly obligations have skyrocketed,” he said. He believes lower mortgage rates — combined with a stabilizing bond market — could be the “magic bullet” needed to jumpstart the market.
Still, there are positive indicators. Yun pointed to a 20% year-over-year increase in mortgage purchase applications as a sign of pent-up demand. “Just imagine if your home sales were 20% higher. The demand is there. It’s just not being realized yet,” he noted.
St. Louis agents should also pay attention to Yun’s comments on pricing strategy. Even though national home prices are at record highs, price cuts are deeper today than pre-COVID levels for the same days on market. This underscores the need for accurate pricing and strong listing preparation.
Danielle Hale, Chief Economist at Realtor.com, reinforced Yun’s concerns about affordability. She revealed that buying a home still costs nearly twice as much as it did five years ago and noted that 3.8 million homes are needed nationwide to meet demand.
For agents and sellers in the St. Louis metro area, this means opportunity. The Midwest is gaining traction for price growth thanks to its relative affordability. If mortgage rates dip — as many economists anticipate — we may see momentum build sharply heading into the second half of 2025.
As Yun concluded: “Homeownership is a pathway to wealth. Renters simply don’t build that wealth.” The aspiration remains strong. Now it’s up to market forces — and smart local strategy — to turn that aspiration into action.
For those ready to act or plan their next move, there’s reason to be optimistic… just keep an eye on rates.
The agents at MORE, REALTORS® are professionals that stay on top of the market and other factors that affect home buyers and sellers and help guide clients through the process to achieve their desired result.
Lawrence Yuns’ Slide Show Presentation on the Economic Outlook from NAR 2025 Mid Year Meetings
Quick Summary:
A new legal challenge could undo the $1.8 billion+ Sitzer/Burnett vs NAR real estate commission settlement. If successful, it could reverse everything the industry has done to comply, and throw home sellers, agents, and brokerages in St. Louis and across the U.S. into another round of litigation and uncertainty.
A key settlement in the Sitzer/Burnett commission lawsuit, the one that was supposed to change how agents get paid, may be on the brink of collapse. Law professor and former home seller Tanya Monestier has filed a formal appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Her argument? The settlement gives sellers pennies and promises… and not much else.
Monestier, who sold a home in 2022 and paid nearly $30,000 in commissions, believes the deal was cut without legal standing and fails to deliver real benefits. “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper,” she wrote in her original objection. “In the real world, it’s been a disaster.” Her recent filing adds that the plaintiffs—past home sellers—had no right to negotiate future practice changes in the industry because those changes don’t directly benefit them. That argument goes to the heart of whether the entire settlement is even constitutional under Article III rules for federal courts.
She also takes aim at the numbers. While the headline payout is nearly $1 billion, the average seller would see about $16—barely 0.1% of the typical commission they paid, which Monestier pegs at $11,450. And since commissions haven’t meaningfully dropped post-settlement, she argues the supposed “reforms” have had little impact. In her words, the settlement “simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.”
What’s more, she accuses agents, brokerages, and even NAR of already finding ways to “work around” the rule changes. Examples include adjusting buyer agreements after-the-fact to match seller-paid bonuses, using misleading contract language, and telling sellers their home won’t get offers unless they still pay the buyer’s broker. These tactics, she claims, maintain the old structure with a few more forms and less clarity for consumers.
So what happens if the Eighth Circuit agrees with her? The whole deal could be thrown out. That means rule changes already in effect across St. Louis brokerages—like the new buyer agency agreement requirements—could be voided. Brokerages would be back at square one, facing renewed legal exposure, and sellers who expected change could be left even more frustrated.
As we wrote in our earlier coverage of Monestier’s objection, this case has always been about more than money. It’s about whether the real estate commission structure in place for decades can be changed in a way that actually helps the consumers funding it—especially home sellers in markets like St. Louis.
Whatever happens next, one thing is clear: this isn’t over. As the legal process drags into 2026, sellers and agents alike will need to keep up—and stay informed. If you’re buying or selling a home in this shifting landscape, it’s more important than ever to work with a professional who knows the rules, understands the risks, and puts your interests first. That’s exactly what we do at MORE, REALTORS®.
Zillow’s new policy, set to take effect in May 2025, takes a hard stance against listings that are marketed publicly without being listed on the MLS and displayed via MLS feeds. Zillow says it’s about fairness and protecting consumers. But is it? Or is it about consolidating control of listing visibility under the guise of transparency? And with Zillow now operating as a licensed brokerage—and a member of many MLSs—is this policy actually benefiting consumers, or simply solidifying Zillow’s role as a gatekeeper?
Zillow claims alignment with NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy, but that claim deserves a closer look. NAR’s recent revision—specifically its creation of the Delayed Marketing – Exempt Listing category—was designed to give sellers more flexibility. Under that rule, listings can be publicly marketed but kept off the MLS for a limited time, with the caveat that they be accessible through a broker’s VOW. Zillow’s new rule goes beyond NAR’s, rejecting listings that follow NAR’s delayed marketing policy if they aren’t also fed through the MLS. So is Zillow really following NAR’s lead—or are they charting their own, more restrictive path?
This raises a number of questions that the industry—and consumers—should be asking. Is Zillow’s new policy truly pro-consumer, or does it limit choice and access by filtering listings through only the channels it chooses to recognize? Is it fair to require listings to be on the MLS and publicly syndicated in order to be seen on the largest home search platform? Is this policy aimed at leveling the playing field, or is it about limiting the options brokerages have in how they market homes? Could Zillow’s alignment with MLS feeds—while shutting out VOW-only listings—put it in violation of fair competition principles?
And what about the relationship between Zillow and NAR? While Zillow cites NAR’s policy to justify its actions, it seems to be implementing a stricter version of it. Is this a coincidence—or are we witnessing a deeper collaboration between the country’s largest real estate platform and its most powerful trade group? Are there antitrust implications when dominant platforms and associations appear to move in sync in ways that reduce listing flexibility and centralize control?
Perhaps the most important question of all is this: Who wins in this new environment? Is it the consumer, who may get a more uniform home search experience—but possibly fewer listings to choose from? The agent, who now has fewer tools for pre-marketing a home? The MLS, which benefits from more required listing input? Or Zillow itself, which sits at the center of it all, deciding what gets seen and what doesn’t?
As this policy rolls out next month, agents, brokers, and consumers alike would do well to dig beneath the surface. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re watching these developments closely—not just to understand what’s changing, but to ask the tough questions about why, and who it ultimately serves.
If you’re a homebuyer or seller in the St. Louis area, heads up—there’s something going on in Washington that may affect your next move in a bigger way than you think.
The Department of Justice just appointed Roger Alford to a top antitrust role. He’s not a household name, but he’s someone who’s been deep in the fight over real estate commissions and how homes get marketed. He played a key role in the massive $1.8 billion verdict in the Sitzer/Burnett case here in Missouri—where a jury said real estate commissions were being artificially inflated by the industry.
So what’s this mean for you?
In plain terms: the way homes are bought and sold is changing, and the DOJ is pushing that change forward. We’re likely to see pressure to break down rules that limit how sellers can market their homes and how buyers find them—especially when it comes to FSBO (For Sale By Owner) listings. Alford’s already criticized laws that block FSBO sellers from advertising on big platforms like Zillow and Redfin. That’s good news for consumers who want more options.
We’re also likely to see more flexibility in how commissions work. That doesn’t mean agents go away—it means buyers and sellers might have more say in what they pay, and how they structure their deals. And the agents who are upfront about costs, focus on value, and act as true advisors—not just middlemen—will rise to the top.
The DOJ has its sights set on rules and practices that limit competition, like the MLS Clear Cooperation Policy and others that were designed to protect the system as it’s always been. Alford’s appointment is a signal that the government wants to open that system up and give consumers more control.
Here in St. Louis, we’ve already seen how these national issues hit close to home. So if you’re in the market—buying or selling—this is the time to work with professionals who get it. The landscape’s shifting. The old ways are under pressure. And the best agents are the ones leaning into change, not resisting it.
At MORE, REALTORS®, that’s how we operate. We’ve always believed in transparency, client-first service, and helping you make smart, informed decisions—whether you’re working with one of our experienced agents or going the FSBO route and just need the right support. If you want a real estate experience that respects your choices and puts your interests first, we’re here to help.
There’s been a significant appointment at the Department of Justice that should grab the attention of everyone in the real estate industry. Roger Alford, a Notre Dame law professor with deep antitrust experience and a key expert witness in the 2023 Sitzer/Burnett case against NAR, has been named Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ’s Antitrust Division. That’s a strong signal of where things may be heading.
Alford has made his views on NAR’s practices clear—particularly the Clear Cooperation Policy and MLS rules that tie access to REALTOR® membership. In his testimony and published work, he’s criticized these as tools to maintain monopoly control, limit competition, and prevent innovation. With Alford helping lead the Antitrust Division, it’s likely we’ll see increased federal pressure on longstanding industry practices.
Here in the St. Louis metro area, MARIS—our regional MLS—has taken a forward-looking stance. MARIS, which serves the metro and surrounding areas, has been actively working to address key issues early and stay ahead of regulatory changes. As Vice Chairman of the MARIS Board, I’ve seen firsthand the effort to prioritize transparency, flexibility, and broker protection while preparing for what’s ahead.
Real estate is changing fast, and those who adapt will thrive. At MORE, REALTORS®, we continue to push for transparency and consumer-first practices while equipping agents with tools and coaching to compete in this evolving landscape. Stay tuned—we’ll be ready for what comes next.
Today, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) announced significant changes to its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP). After months of debate and scrutiny—from brokers, MLS leaders, agents, and legal experts—NAR introduced the new “Multiple Listing Options for Sellers” policy, which aims to address concerns around consumer choice and market fairness.
I’ve written extensively on why the original CCP faced such strong opposition, notably in my recent article highlighting attorney Michael Ketchmark’s explicit warning to NAR brokers: repeal CCP or face legal action. Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, clearly indicated that maintaining the CCP could trigger antitrust lawsuits against individual brokers who supported it.
The new policy announced today appears to be NAR’s attempt to address these legal pressures while preserving some of the original intentions behind CCP.
Under the updated policy:
Sellers can now opt for a “delayed marketing exempt listing,” allowing the listing agent to temporarily withhold public marketing through IDX feeds or third-party syndications.
During this delayed period, properties remain accessible within the MLS, enabling agents from other brokerages to share these listings privately with clients.
Each local MLS will determine its own delayed marketing timeframe, catering to regional market needs.
Sellers choosing delayed marketing must sign a disclosure confirming their informed consent to delay broader public exposure.
Notably, NAR also clarified that one-on-one broker communications won’t trigger CCP’s requirements, but multi-broker communications remain classified as public marketing.
While the new policy does introduce more flexibility, from my perspective, it may still miss the mark. In my recent article, I proposed a more balanced solution: creating an “MLS Exclusive” category. This would mandate inclusion of listings within the MLS to ensure broad exposure among professionals, but without public syndication to Zillow, Realtor.com, and countless other public sites. This approach effectively balances privacy needs with fair competition—avoiding potential antitrust pitfalls.
The new NAR policy seems like a half-step toward that goal. It introduces valuable flexibility but still leaves questions about privacy and antitrust vulnerability unanswered. While delayed marketing might address some concerns, it stops short of fully embracing a robust, MLS-exclusive alternative.
As this policy rolls out nationwide—with implementation required by September 30, 2025—it’ll be critical for MLSs, brokers, and agents here in St. Louis and across Missouri to carefully evaluate the implications. The legal landscape remains sensitive, and industry professionals would be wise to consider whether this new policy fully addresses potential legal challenges or merely delays them.
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is on the verge of making a pivotal decision about its controversial Clear Cooperation Policy (CCP)—a rule requiring listings to be submitted to a multiple listing service (MLS) within one business day of public marketing. Now, attorney Michael Ketchmark, lead counsel in the landmark Sitzer lawsuit, has issued a stark warning: if NAR brokers vote to maintain the rule, he may take legal action against them.
Ketchmark, in an interview with Inman News, made his stance clear: “It’s my expectation that after this meeting, when this comes to a NAR vote overall, that they’ll do the right thing and remove that policy and let the free market continue to work.” He added that if the rule remains, his firm will scrutinize the motivations of those involved and determine whether anti-competitive behavior is at play. “We’ll take the depositions of the people involved and figure out exactly why they did that and what was the motivation behind it, and then make a decision at that point on how to proceed,” Ketchmark told Inman.
Legal Pressure Mounts Against NAR’s Listing Rules
The Clear Cooperation Policy, introduced in 2020, was originally designed to increase listing transparency and prevent pocket listings, which some argue allow brokers to double-end deals at the expense of consumer choice. However, opponents—including brokers, agents, and consumer advocates—argue that the rule violates antitrust principles by forcing listings into MLSs, thereby restricting homeowner control over marketing strategies.
NAR’s recent $418 million settlement in the Sitzer and related lawsuits has already forced major industry changes, including the decoupling of buyer agent compensation from listing agreements. Now, Clear Cooperation is in the crosshairs as another rule that may not withstand legal scrutiny.
Ketchmark emphasized that his issue is not with NAR itself, which he acknowledged has upheld its obligations under the settlement. Instead, his focus is on individual brokers who would vote to uphold the rule. “I don’t want anybody to suggest or think that I’m threatening the National Association of Realtors,” Ketchmark said, “but what I am saying is that whoever is voting to continue and enforce this rule, if we believe that it is done with anti-competitive goals in mind, that we will take their depositions and will hold anyone who is involved in that responsible.”
A Better Alternative: ‘MLS Exclusive’ Listings
As the debate over Clear Cooperation continues, one practical alternative gaining traction is an “MLS Exclusive” listing category. This approach would require all listings to be entered into the MLS, ensuring maximum exposure to real estate professionals while addressing seller privacy and security concerns.
Unlike traditional “office exclusive” listings—where properties are only shared within a single brokerage—MLS Exclusive listings would still be accessible to every licensed real estate professional in the MLS. For example, in the St. Louis area, MARIS (Mid-America Regional Information Systems) serves over 16,000 real estate professionals, all of whom would have access to MLS Exclusive listings.
This means that a seller’s property could still reach a vast network of professionals actively working with buyers, without being publicly displayed on thousands of websites like Zillow, Realtor.com, or IDX feeds on brokerage sites. For sellers who value privacy—such as high-profile individuals, those facing personal security concerns, or those in sensitive situations like divorce or estate sales—this provides an ideal balance between market exposure and confidentiality.
This solution eliminates the anti-competitive concerns of private “pocket listings” while preserving the seller’s right to control how their home is marketed. It also ensures that real estate professionals remain central to the transaction, offering expert guidance to both buyers and sellers without unnecessary public exposure.
The Future of Clear Cooperation
With NAR expected to vote on the policy by the end of the month, the fate of Clear Cooperation—and potentially more lawsuits—hangs in the balance. If Ketchmark follows through with legal action, brokers who support keeping the policy may find themselves on the defensive in court. Meanwhile, the industry must consider whether MLS Exclusive listingsoffer a more viable solution that protects both consumer choice and market integrity.
The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) recently released its 2024 Member Profile, offering valuable insights into the business activity of REALTORS®. One of the most compelling findings is in Chapter 2, particularly Exhibit 2-6, which sheds light on the number of residential transaction sides completed by agents. Here’s what the data reveals and why it matters.
Residential Sides: A Snapshot of REALTOR® Activity
In 2023, the median number of residential transaction sides completed by REALTORS® was 10, a decline from prior years, reflecting the challenges of the current housing market. The breakdown of residential sides highlights the disparity in activity levels:
27% of REALTORS® completed 1 to 5 transactions.
22% completed 6 to 10 transactions.
15% completed 11 to 15 transactions.
19% reported 21 to 50 transactions.
Only 3% completed 51 or more transactions.
Agents with 16 years or more of experience reported a higher median of 12 transactions, compared to just 2 for those with 2 years or less experience. This highlights the significance of experience in navigating market complexities and building a robust client base.
Key Factors Influencing REALTOR® Productivity
The report identifies several factors impacting residential business activity:
Lack of Inventory and Housing Affordability: Both factors tied for the top reason REALTORS® cited as limiting client transactions, with 26% of respondents selecting these challenges. The tight housing market, combined with rising home prices and interest rates, continues to constrain transaction opportunities.
Mortgage Rate Expectations: The expectation that mortgage rates might drop was another factor, cited by 19% of REALTORS®. This suggests that both buyers and sellers are hesitating, waiting for more favorable conditions.
Referral and Repeat Business: Experienced agents benefit significantly from their established networks. REALTORS® with 16 years or more experience derived a median of 42% of their business from repeat clients and 29% from referrals. In contrast, agents with less than two years of experience reported little to no repeat or referral business.
Why These Numbers Matter
For REALTORS®, understanding the trends in transaction sides and business sources provides actionable insights for strategizing in a competitive market. Key takeaways include:
Building Relationships is Critical: Referral and repeat business remain foundational for sustained success. Newer agents should prioritize networking and client relationship management to establish a long-term pipeline.
Adapting to Market Challenges: The constrained inventory and affordability issues demand innovative strategies, such as leveraging off-market opportunities and sharpening negotiation skills to help clients navigate the tough market.
The Value of Experience: The data underscores the advantages of experience, not just in transaction volume but also in accessing repeat and referral business. Mentorship and learning from seasoned agents can accelerate the growth of newer REALTORS®.
This data, outlined below, highlights the importance of continuous improvement and innovation in real estate. At MORE, REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on equipping our agents with the tools, training, and proprietary resources they need to excel. By fostering a culture of learning and providing cutting-edge solutions, our agents consistently outperform the market average, delivering exceptional service to clients and driving greater business success.
NAR 2024 Member Profile – Transaction Sides by Agents
(click on table below to view all information from report)
The real estate industry’s relationship with the National Association of Realtors faces mounting challenges as multiple lawsuits emerge nationwide. Texas broker Lou Eytalis recently joined others in challenging NAR’s mandatory membership requirements for MLS access (see lawsuit complaint below), with similar cases in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Louisiana. These suits coincide with controversy over NAR’s Standard of Practice 10-5, which has sparked First Amendment challenges from both brokers and agents who argue the rule improperly restricts speech by banning hate speech and discriminatory language on personal social media accounts.
These legal challenges come amid a turbulent period for NAR, which faces scrutiny over sexual harassment allegations, spending practices, and commission lawsuits. The Free Speech Coalition, representing real estate professionals across multiple states, argues that NAR’s speech restrictions exceed their authority and violate constitutional rights. Meanwhile, Eytalis and others contend the mandatory membership issue extends beyond fees – it’s about forcing change within an organization they believe has lost touch with members’ needs. While NAR maintains local organizations control MLS access rules, their intervention preventing Phoenix Realtors from offering membership-free MLS access suggests otherwise. The convergence of these suits – challenging both membership requirements and speech restrictions – represents growing industry pushback against NAR’s regulatory reach.
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to review the National Association of REALTORS’ (NAR) appeal to block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from resuming its antitrust investigation. This decision allows the DOJ to reopen its probe into NAR’s practices, including the Clear Cooperation Policy and the Participation Rule, both of which have been criticized for limiting competition in the real estate industry.
The Clear Cooperation Policy requires listing brokers to submit a property to their Realtor-affiliated MLS within one business day of marketing it publicly. This policy was intended to ensure transparency but has faced allegations of reducing competition and restricting options for consumers. The Participation Rule, which NAR recently eliminated as part of a separate settlement, previously required listing brokers to make a blanket offer of compensation to buyer brokers to list properties in the MLS. The DOJ had issued a subpoena in 2021 requesting extensive documentation on these rules, signaling its intention to assess whether they hindered fair market practices.
For St. Louis homeowners and investors, the outcome of this investigation could lead to significant changes in how properties are marketed and sold. It’s a reminder of the evolving landscape in real estate and the importance of staying informed. As always, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website MORE, REALTORS® is here to provide guidance and insights to help you navigate these developments. Contact us today to learn how we can help you with your real estate needs.
The National Association of Realtors’ 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers provides fascinating insights into the evolving preferences and demographics of today’s real estate market. As reflected in the charts below, buyers continue to seek homes and neighborhoods that align with their lifestyles and values, while trends in home size, type, and location highlight shifting priorities.
Key Highlights from the Report
Family Dynamics in Home Purchases: The share of homebuyers without children under 18 in the home has risen significantly, reaching 73% in 2024, compared to just 41% in 1981. This trend underscores how demographic changes are shaping the housing market, with more buyers focusing on personal preferences or retirement needs rather than family-centric requirements.
Neighborhood Selection Drivers: When choosing a neighborhood, 59% of buyers cited the quality of the neighborhood as the top factor, while proximity to friends and family came in second at 45%. Affordability, shopping convenience, and walkability were also notable influences.
What Homebuyers Want: Detached single-family homes remain the gold standard, with 75% of buyers opting for this type of property. However, preferences between new and previously owned homes differ—31% of buyers chose new homes for features like energy efficiency, while 31% opted for previously owned homes citing better overall value.
Emerging Trends in Home Sizes and Environmental Features
The report reveals that the median size of homes purchased by first-time buyers remains modest at 1,500 square feet, while repeat buyers prefer larger homes averaging 2,000 square feet. Meanwhile, the importance of energy-efficient features continues to grow, with heating and cooling costs cited as very important by 33% of buyers.
For those interested in diving deeper, the complete report can be accessed below. As always, if you’re considering buying or selling a home in the St. Louis metro area, the expert agents at MORE, REALTORS® are here to assist. We pride ourselves on understanding the market trends and finding the perfect fit for your needs. Contact us today to explore your options!
The 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers, published by the National Association of Realtors (NAR), provides a detailed look at the trends shaping the real estate market. One of the most striking takeaways is the continued rise in the age of first-time home buyers. In 2024, the median age of first-time buyers is 38 years—a dramatic jump from 29 yearsin 1981. This increase reflects the growing challenges young buyers face, including rising home prices, student loan debt, and tighter lending standards. The chart below vividly illustrates this trend over the past four decades.
In contrast, repeat buyers now have a median age of 61 years, as seasoned homeowners return to the market later in life. For all buyers, the median age has reached 56 years, a significant shift from the past. These changes highlight the growing complexity of homeownership in today’s market, where affordability and economic pressures are driving buyers to delay their purchases.
As buyers grow older, their household composition has also changed. This year, 73% of buyers reported having no children under 18 at home, compared to 59% in 1981. This shift suggests evolving priorities among today’s buyers, many of whom are opting for homes that meet their lifestyle needs rather than focusing solely on family size.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we understand these changing dynamics and specialize in helping buyers and sellers navigate the real estate market, whether you’re a first-time buyer, a seasoned homeowner, or simply exploring your options. Contact us today to learn how we can help you make informed, confident real estate decisions. For even more insights, explore the full NAR report by clicking HERE and check out the charts below to better understand today’s home buyer.
The landmark settlement in the Burnett (Sitzer) v. National Association of Realtors (NAR) class action lawsuit has officially received final approval from U.S. District Judge Stephen R. Bough on November 27, 2024. This settlement is set to impact millions of homeowners across the U.S., offering substantial financial restitution and mandating significant changes in real estate practices. The full details of the court’s order and settlement terms are provided in the document below.
Judge Bough emphasized the fairness of the settlement, noting that it provides “substantial benefits to the class” while ensuring equitable treatment of all members. Over 491,000 claims have been filed as of November 14, 2024, with claims open until May 2025. Below are the key highlights:
Financial Compensation: Settlement class members who paid real estate commissions through any MLS-affiliated transaction are eligible for compensation.
Industry Practice Reforms: Changes include greater transparency in commission structures and improved practices across participating brokerages.
Comprehensive Notice Program: Nearly 40 million notices were sent, ensuring a broad reach, with over 300 million digital impressions.
Minimal Objections: Despite the large class size, only 39 members opted out, and objections were minimal.
Judge Bough described the settlement as “a significant and swift recovery for the Class,” underscoring its importance in resolving complex antitrust claims while avoiding protracted litigation.
For those in St. Louis, this settlement underscores the value of informed real estate practices. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are committed to transparency and exceptional service, ensuring buyers and sellers have the support they need in an ever-evolving market.
Learn more about the settlement and its implications by reviewing the full order below.
Burnett vs The National Association of REALTORS Settlement Order
A recent Notorious P.O.D. interview with Wilson Fauber, a Virginia real estate broker and ordained minister, has brought renewed attention to the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. The rule prohibits hate speech, epithets, and harassing language by Realtors® at all times, including outside their professional lives.
Fauber faces an ethics hearing over social media posts he made years before the rule’s enactment, including one quoting scripture. Supporters argue the rule ensures a welcoming environment for all, while critics believe it infringes on personal freedoms and is being selectively enforced.
Why This Matters to Agents
The case raises concerns about how far professional organizations should extend their oversight into private speech. With potential penalties including fines, loss of MLS access, and more, some see the rule as a necessary step toward accountability, while others view it as overreach.
As the real estate industry navigates these debates, Fauber’s case highlights a pivotal moment for Realtors® to reflect on the balance between ethical guidelines and personal freedoms.
Notorious POD: NAR Speech Code Strikes Again, with Wilson Fauber
The New York Times published a detailed investigation yesterday into the spending practices of the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), raising significant questions about the organization’s leadership and its stewardship of member dues. The report, titled “Chauffeured Cars and Broadway Tickets: Inside the National Realtors Group,” written by Debra Kamin, explores what some describe as a culture of excess and self-interest within one of the largest trade associations in the United States.
The investigation reveals that NAR’s top executives and elected leaders have enjoyed a range of extravagant perks, from luxury hotel suites and first-class travel to private club memberships and even pet-sitting expenses. According to Kamin, former CEO Bob Goldberg, who resigned last year, received a compensation package that included a $1.2 million salary that grew to $2.6 million over five years, a $1,500 monthly car allowance, and paid pet care while on business trips. NAR officials defended these expenditures as necessary for the demands of leadership, but nonprofit law experts cited in the article raised concerns about potential violations of tax laws.
Adding to the controversy, NAR has faced mounting legal challenges, including a recent $418 million settlement related to a Missouri lawsuit over inflated commissions. Kamin reports that some REALTORS® feel abandoned by an organization that has historically promised to protect their interests. As real estate strategist Rob Hahn put it, “When N.A.R. gets its ass kicked in every lawsuit and then throws brokers under the bus, it’s like, what am I paying for?”
At MORE, REALTORS®, we understand the importance of upholding the original ideals of professionalism and integrity that once defined NAR. While the current controversies highlight systemic issues within the organization, they also serve as a reminder of why ethical and responsible leadership matters more than ever. At our brokerage, we set high standards for ourselves and the agents we work with, staying true to the spirit of Charles Chadbourn, who coined the term REALTOR® over a century ago.
The term “REALTOR®” is one of the most recognized in the real estate industry, but its meaning is often misunderstood. While many people assume all real estate agents are REALTORS®, that’s not the case. The distinction goes beyond holding a license—it’s tied to a specific organization, a shared history, and a professional designation with legal and ethical implications. Let’s explore where the term comes from, how it’s protected, and what it means today.
A Brief History of the Term
The term “REALTOR®” was coined in 1916 by Charles N. Chadbourn, a real estate agent who sought to create a professional identity for members of the National Association of Real Estate Boards, now known as the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR). Chadbourn wanted to distinguish professionals who adhered to a defined code of ethics and elevated the standards of the real estate profession. In 1949, the term was trademarked by NAR, giving the organization exclusive rights to its use.
This trademark ensures that only members of NAR can use the term “REALTOR®,” much like the way “Kleenex” refers to a specific brand of tissues rather than all tissues. It’s a legal designation that differentiates REALTORS® from other licensed agents—but it’s not a guarantee of superior service or moral standing.
The REALTOR® Difference: What It Means Today
To use the title, REALTORS® must agree to abide by NAR’s Code of Ethics. While this code aims to set higher standards for professional conduct, much of it aligns with basic legal requirements that agents must already follow under state laws. Critics argue that the organization’s focus has shifted over time, and its standards may not be as rigorous as they once were. Recent controversies, lawsuits, and leadership issues within NAR have further complicated its reputation, raising questions about its ability to fulfill its founding mission.
Still, the term “REALTOR®” holds historical significance as a symbol of professionalism, and it serves as a reminder of the original intent set forth by Chadbourn: to foster trust and integrity in real estate.
Why This Matters to Buyers and Sellers
For buyers and sellers, understanding the distinction between a licensed agent and a REALTOR® is essential. However, designations alone don’t define the quality of service or ethical standards an agent upholds. At MORE, REALTORS®, our focus isn’t just on being members of NAR. We strive to set the bar higher by surrounding ourselves with agents who embody integrity, professionalism, and a commitment to doing what’s right. This is the spirit of Charles Chadbourn’s vision, even if the broader organization has strayed from its original path.
If you’re looking for a team that values high moral and ethical standards, MORE, REALTORS® is here to guide you. Our agents are committed to not just meeting but exceeding the expectations of those we serve. After all, real estate isn’t just about buying and selling homes—it’s about trust, relationships, and doing what’s right.
In his recent article, “Repeal the Speech Code,” Rob Hahn has urged the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) to reconsider its controversial Standard of Practice 10-5. This policy, implemented in 2020, prohibits REALTORS® from using harassing or hate speech, epithets, or slurs based on protected classes, such as race, religion, and gender identity, in both professional and personal settings. Hahn argues that while intended to promote inclusivity, the policy overreaches and restricts REALTORS®’ freedom of speech outside of real estate-related activities.
The case of Brandon Huber, a REALTOR® and pastor, illustrates Hahn’s concerns. Huber was penalized under Standard of Practice 10-5 after making statements as a church leader unrelated to his real estate profession. His case raised questions about the balance between personal belief expression and professional standards, with Hahn emphasizing that the Speech Code “tells members what they can and cannot say in their private lives.” Similarly, NAR has faced debates over whether misgendering or expressing personal political beliefs could be deemed hate speech, as highlighted in discussions covered by Inman News. REALTORS® questioned how subjective interpretations might lead to unintended disciplinary actions, such as mistakenly using the wrong pronoun or expressing certain religious beliefs.
Hahn argues that repealing Standard of Practice 10-5 would not only protect REALTORS®’ personal freedoms but could also avoid divisive conflicts within NAR’s membership. He warns that maintaining the Speech Code may alienate members and draw unwanted attention from a new administration focused on freedom of speech. As Hahn states, “The right thing to do is sometimes the smart thing to do. When that happens, the only thing to do… is to do it.”
The full text of Hahn’s article is available below for those interested in the broader implications of this policy on NAR’s members and the real estate industry.
The National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers provides a comprehensive look at trends shaping the real estate market this year. From changing demographics to buyer challenges, this report highlights critical shifts in homebuying and selling behaviors. The full report is available below for readers who wish to explore it in detail.
One of the most notable trends is the rising age of both first-time and repeat homebuyers:
First-time buyers now have a median age of 38, marking a significant shift from the late-20s median seen in the 1980s. This increase reflects the growing challenges of affordability and tighter lending standards.
Repeat buyers have also reached an all-time high median age of 61, suggesting that many established homeowners are now looking to downsize, relocate, or move closer to family.
The report further indicates a strong preference for using real estate professionals. A remarkable 88% of buyers purchased their homes with the assistance of a real estate agent. The majority valued support in:
Finding the right property (49%)
Negotiating terms (14%)
Managing paperwork (7%)
These services are particularly important as buyers continue to face a competitive market with low inventory levels and relatively high prices.
On the selling side, the report highlights the quick turnover in home sales. Sellers typically achieved 100% of their asking price and sold their properties within an average of three weeks. This reflects strong demand and a limited supply of homes for sale, allowing sellers to command competitive prices and rapid sales.
For anyone considering a move, the insights in NAR’s 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers can serve as a valuable guide. For personalized advice, the experienced agents at MORE, REALTORS® are here to assist you with every step of your real estate journey. Please refer to the full NAR report below to explore additional insights and trends.
National Association of REALTORS® 2024 Profile of Home Buyers and Sellers
Tanya Monestier, a tenured law professor at the University at Buffalo School of Law and former professor at Roger Williams University School of Law, has stepped into the Sitzer v. NAR lawsuit with a compelling and meticulously researched objection to the proposed settlement. Monestier, whose academic work on contract law and consumer protection has been cited by courts across North America—including the United States Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Canada—brings a formidable legal background to her critique. Her objection portrays the settlement as a superficial, paper-only solution that leaves consumers vulnerable to the same anti-competitive practices it claimed to remedy. As Monestier puts it, “The settlement makes sense—but only on paper… In the real world, the implementation of the settlement has been a disaster.”
Monestier argues that the industry’s entrenched practices remain unchallenged by the settlement. Steering persists, commissions are still locked at 5-6%, and sellers continue to shoulder both agents’ fees, contrary to the supposed reforms. She warns, “What matters is how the settlement is being implemented in real life. And it is being implemented in a way that preserves the status quo of sellers paying both brokers.” Her objection underscores the reality that, rather than empowering buyers to negotiate their agents’ compensation, the industry has doubled down on its old ways, sidestepping reform.
Another alarming aspect of Monestier’s objection is her contention that the settlement introduces confusion instead of clarity, leaving both buyers and sellers struggling to navigate a complex, quasi-regulatory landscape. “As long as this is possible, the current system of seller-financed commissions will remain intact,” she argues, stressing that this agreement risks setting the industry back by reinforcing behaviors it purported to dismantle.
Monestier’s objection is a call to action for the court to reconsider the settlement’s adequacy and fairness, cautioning against accepting it at face value. She warns, “Unless someone speaks up, this Court is likely to be convinced that this settlement is ‘fair, reasonable, and adequate.’ It is not. It simply reinforces the existing system of seller-paid inflated compensation while pretending to eliminate it.” For those interested in the full details of her objection, the complete document is available for review below.
See the entire objection that Tanya Monestier filed with the court HERE
For the past few years, the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy has been a focal point of contention, sparking debate across the real estate industry. The rule, which mandates that any property being marketed to the public must be listed on the MLS within one business day, was introduced with the intention of promoting transparency and ensuring equal access to listings for agents and buyers alike. However, the policy has faced consistent opposition from various quarters, with critics arguing that it hampers the ability of agents to serve their clients’ best interests and limits consumer choice.
As I have highlighted in previous articles, the real problem with this rule is that it imposes a one-size-fits-all solution on a very diverse set of circumstances. Agents with every intention of putting a listing in the MLS may find themselves constrained by the policy’s rigid timeline and prohibitions, limiting their ability to execute marketing strategies tailored to the needs of their clients.
A Misrepresentation of Intent
One of the most frustrating aspects of the debate around the Clear Cooperation Policy is the disingenuous portrayal of the issue by some proponents of the rule. They often frame the opposition as a desire to keep listings out of the MLS entirely, suggesting that agents pushing back against the rule are simply looking for ways to avoid sharing information. In reality, many agents, including myself, are primarily concerned with the restrictions the rule places on how and when we can promote a property before it hits the MLS.
For example, an agent might want to place a “coming soon” sign in a seller’s yard as soon as the listing agreement is signed, even if the seller isn’t ready to show the property for a few weeks. Or a seller may want to share on social media that their home will be available once a few repairs are completed. The Clear Cooperation Policy effectively bans such practices, even if the intent is to eventually list the property on the MLS. These restrictions can prevent agents from building pre-market buzz, which often results in better outcomes for sellers.
Where the Industry Stands
Currently, the industry is deeply divided over the Clear Cooperation Policy. Some argue that the rule ensures fairness and transparency, preventing large brokerages from “hoarding” listings and selectively sharing them only within their own networks. However, opponents see it as a top-down mandate that ignores the nuanced needs of clients and agents on the ground. This tension is playing out in various forums, with major industry players like Compass and Redfin publicly taking opposing stances.
Additionally, the policy has caught the attention of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulatory bodies, adding a legal layer to what is already a complex situation. The DOJ has reopened its investigation into NAR’s policies, and many are watching closely to see whether the Clear Cooperation Policy might be revised or struck down as part of the broader antitrust concerns surrounding the real estate industry.
What’s Next for the Rule?
In my view, NAR is facing mounting pressure to adapt. While I don’t believe the Clear Cooperation Policy will survive in its current form, NAR has shown a stubborn resistance to change before. However, if they are smart, they will eventually recognize that the rule’s rigidness does more harm than good and will cave to the increasing calls for its removal. The reality is that as the market continues to evolve, the industry needs to be flexible enough to serve the interests of consumers and agents alike — and this policy is increasingly looking like an obstacle rather than a solution.
One potential outcome is that NAR will amend the rule to allow for more flexibility in pre-MLS marketing, which would still ensure the policy’s goals of transparency while respecting agents’ ability to promote listings in a way that benefits their clients. But whether this kind of change will be enough to quell the growing discontent remains to be seen.
The Bottom Line
The real estate industry thrives on cooperation, but cooperation shouldn’t come at the expense of consumer choice or the ability of agents to act in their clients’ best interests. Rather than a rigid mandate, we need a policy that adapts to the realities of the modern market. Until then, I’ll continue to advocate for changes that prioritize clients’ needs over bureaucratic rules.
The National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) Clear Cooperation Policy has been a contentious topic since its inception in 2019. The rule, which mandates that listings must be added to the MLS within one day of being publicly marketed, aims to provide transparency and equal access to all agents and homebuyers. However, as highlighted in anInman News article today, the policy is now facing strong opposition from major real estate firms like Compass and Anywhere Real Estate, both of which are calling for changes that would provide more flexibility to sellers.
This isn’t the first time the Clear Cooperation Policy has been challenged. I have previously discussed this issue in several articles, noting both the potential legal implications under the Sherman Antitrust Act and the practical impacts on homeowners trying to sell their properties effectively. While the policy aims to prevent “pocket listings” and promote fairness, some argue that it actually limits consumer choice by dictating how listings must be shared and marketed. As I mentioned in article I wrote in 2020 about the new rule, New Rule Will Require REALTORS Put All Listings In The MLS Or Not Market Them, while transparency is essential, homeowners should have the flexibility to choose a marketing strategy that best suits their needs.
At MORE, REALTORS®, we adapt to these regulations by leveraging our advanced digital marketing expertise to ensure sellers still get top exposure and results within the constraints of current rules. So, while changes to NAR’s policy may be coming, you can count on us to navigate these shifts and maximize your home’s potential.
There was an opinion piece published today on Inman News by Eric Bramlett that suggests that fears of a widespread shift in commission payments from sellers to buyers are overblown. Bramlett argues, “Sellers are primarily concerned with the net proceeds they’ll receive and the overall terms of the contract.” While I agree that many sellers will still “pay” the buyer’s agent commission, I don’t believe the traditional commission structure will endure. In fact, the St. Louis Association of REALTORS® is in the process of updating the forms that most of the St Louis area REALTORS®, including listing agreement. In this updated version, the seller will only be charged commission for the listing agent, with no provision for offering commission to a buyer’s agent. However, I expect that in many cases, buyers will negotiate for the seller to cover their agent’s commission as part of the overall deal—bringing more transparency to the process and putting the negotiation front and center.
As I’ve emphasized in prior articles about the NAR/Sitzer settlement, the real impact of these changes will be in how commissions are discussed and handled, not whether they are eliminated. This is a pivotal time for agents to educate their clients on the evolving commission landscape, ensuring buyers and sellers both understand who is paying for what and why. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for this shift, and we’re committed to guiding our clients through these changes with clear communication and expert advice.
This week, on July 23rd, the St. Louis REALTORS® Association implemented new and revised contract forms and agreements for use by Realtors throughout St. Louis and the surrounding areas. These updates are a direct response to significant changes in industry practices resulting from the settlement of massive class action lawsuits by the National Association of Realtors (NAR). For a detailed breakdown of these changes, you can refer to the settlement agreement below.
The revisions aim to align current practices with the legal outcomes of these settlements, ensuring compliance and fostering transparency in real estate transactions. One of the pivotal changes is the inclusion of clear, consistent language that reflects new industry standards and practices mandated by the settlement. This initiative underscores the importance of adapting to evolving legal landscapes to maintain professional integrity and trust with clients.
Upcoming MLS Rule Changes
In addition to the new forms, there are upcoming changes to the MLS rules effective August 1. These new rules will prohibit the display of commission offers to agents working with buyers in the MLS. This change has generated considerable confusion and anxiety among real estate professionals. Many agents are either unaware of the impending changes or are scrambling to figure out workarounds. However, there are dedicated professionals who are well-informed and prepared to adapt seamlessly.
The prohibition on displaying commission offers is intended to enhance transparency in real estate transactions by focusing on the value of the property rather than the commission structures. Despite the noble intent, the rule change has sparked debates within the real estate community, with opinions varying widely on its potential impact.
Embracing Transparency at MORE
At MORE, REALTORS®, we have been closely following these lawsuits since 2019, fully aware that industry changes were imminent. Our proactive approach has allowed us to prepare thoroughly for these changes, ensuring that our agents are not only compliant but also well-versed in the new practices.
We wholeheartedly embrace the idea of total transparency in transactions. This includes being upfront about how our agents are compensated, to whom they owe a fiduciary duty, and whom they represent in each transaction. Our commitment to transparency ensures that clients can trust us to act in their best interests at all times.
In conclusion, the recent updates to contract forms and MLS rules are significant steps towards greater transparency and compliance in the real estate industry. At MORE, REALTORS®, we are ready to lead by example, demonstrating our dedication to these principles and ensuring that our clients receive the highest level of service and trust.
Starting August 17, 2024, the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) is implementing a new requirement on its members that will impact home buyers and REALTORS® alike. This new rule mandates that REALTORS® must have a written agreement with buyers before showing them any homes. This change is required as part of the settlement agreement of multiple massive class-action lawsuits where NAR was accused of anti-competitive practices. The settlement aimed to increase transparency and fairness in real estate transactions, ensuring that both buyers and agents have a clear understanding of their relationship and obligations. However, there’s a lot of confusion surrounding the new requirement, including some “PSA” messages posted by agents on social media that refer to the required agreement as a “Buyer’s Agency” agreement.
A Buyer’s Agency agreement is used when you wish to engage an agent to represent you as a buyer and establishes obligations upon the agent, including fiduciary duties to put your interests ahead of all others (including themselves). This is certainly the agreement I would recommend buyers use in most cases once ready to commit to an agent. However, while this certainly meets the requirement, it is not the only type of agreement that satisfies NAR’s new rule. In fact, representation is not required at all. Yes, a written agreement is necessary, but it doesn’t have to be a full-blown buyer representation agreement. Any written agreement to show a property will suffice. The intent here is not to complicate the home buying process but to protect buyers and clarify the REALTOR®’s role and responsibilities, including the cost, if any, to the buyer and where the compensation is coming from. It ensures that you understand the services you’re getting and how your REALTOR® will be compensated, making the whole process smoother and more transparent.
Is compensation required under the agreement?
That is, of course, dependent on the agreement itself, but there is no requirement by the NAR settlement that buyers be charged anything to enter into an agreement to be shown a home. Naturally, if the agreement is a Buyer’s Agency agreement where you will, in fact, receive representation, the agent, like every other professional involved in the home buying process, will need to be compensated, and how much and who pays will need to be laid out.
How long does the agreement obligate me?
Again, there is no requirement for the agreement to last any period of time. If it’s simply a showing agreement, it may last long enough for the agent to walk you through the home.
What if the listing agent shows you the home?
If the listing agent is giving you a tour of the home (as the seller’s agent) and not “working with” you, then the agreement may not be required. Personally, though, I think it is still a good idea to use it for transparency so that you, as the buyer, clearly understand whose interest that agent is required to put ahead of yours.
What is required in the “buyer agreement”?
According to the NAR settlement, the following are the only requirements for the agreement that must be signed before showing a home to a buyer they are working with:
Specify and conspicuously disclose the amount or rate of any compensation the MLS Participant will receive from any source.
The amount of compensation must be objectively ascertainable and may not be open-ended (e.g., “buyer broker compensation shall be whatever amount the seller is offering to the buyer”).
Include a statement that MLS Participants may not receive compensation from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to with the buyer.
Disclose in conspicuous language that broker commissions are not set by law and are fully negotiable.
Include any provisions required by law.
At MORE, we are committed to providing exceptional service and ensuring complete transparency throughout your home buying journey. Our experienced agents are ready to guide you through this new process, making it as seamless as possible. Whether you’re a first-time homebuyer or looking for your next investment, MORE Realtors INLINE TEXT Link – goes to agent website MORE, REALTORS® is here to help you every step of the way.
A recent flash poll by T3 Sixty at the NAR Midyear Conference highlights significant dissatisfaction among real estate professionals regarding the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR) and its handling of the ongoing commission lawsuit. View the entire report and survey results below.disa
Key Findings:
Approval of NAR’s Performance:
Only 30% of respondents approve of NAR’s overall performance.
A striking 63% disapprove, indicating widespread dissatisfaction.
Handling of Compensation Lawsuits:
Just 32% approve of NAR’s legal strategies.
A majority of 62% disapprove, showing deep concerns about the settlement’s impact.
At MORE Realtors, we understand the confusion and concerns surrounding these changes. Our experienced team is dedicated to helping homebuyers, sellers, and agents navigate this evolving landscape. We provide clear, comprehensive guidance to ensure you understand how the commission lawsuit outcomes will affect your real estate transactions. Contact us today to learn how we can assist you in making informed decisions in this shifting market.
Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist for the National Association of REALTORS
In his forecast yesterday at the 2024 REALTORS® Legislative Meetings, National Association of Realtors® Chief Economist Lawrence Yun delivered a promising outlook for the real estate market with expectations for rising existing-home sales. According to Yun, the U.S. is likely to see existing-home sales increase to 4.46 million in 2024, a 9% rise from 2023, and surge to 5.05 million in 2025. Yun highlighted, “More jobs mean more home sales and higher housing demand. You need a strong local economy for a strong housing market.”
Additionally, Yun noted a significant calming in rental markets, which will help stabilize the consumer price index, encouraging the Federal Reserve to consider lowering interest rates. He remarked, “The Federal Reserve has delayed rate cuts. I would have thought that, by now, rates would be lower and rate cuts would have begun. Whatever rate cut the Federal Reserve does not do this year will simply get pushed back to 2025.”
For individuals looking to navigate the St. Louis real estate market, the expertise of MORE, REALTORS® can prove invaluable. Our agents are equipped with the latest insights and are prepared to guide clients through the intricacies of buying or selling homes in today’s economic landscape. As Yun emphasized, the strong economic fundamentals support a vibrant housing market, underscoring real estate as a prudent investment for building personal wealth.
St Louis Metro-Area Home Sales and 12-Month Trend – Past 15 Years
Home sellers have reached a momentous $250 million settlement with HomeServices of America and its subsidiaries, including Long & Foster Companies, BHH Affiliates, LLC, and HSF Affiliates, LLC. This settlement, disclosed in a recent press release by the law firm representing the plaintiffs, resolves class action claims as part of a broader dispute over commission costs in the real estate industry.
In a landmark case held on October 31, 2023, a Missouri jury found HomeServices of America, along with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Keller Williams, culpable of conspiring to inflate commission fees, resulting in nearly $1.8 billion in damages. While this settlement absolves HomeServices of America from further claims in this specific litigation, it does not extend to Berkshire Hathaway Energy or its affiliates, maintaining their exposure to potential liabilities.
The recent $250 million agreement contributes to a total exceeding $943.25 million in settlements reached in related cases over the past year. Earlier settlements include a $418 million agreement with NAR in March 2024, and others involving major industry players such as Anywhere Real Estate, RE/MAX, Keller Williams, Compass, and Real Brokerage Inc., underscoring a significant reform movement within the real estate brokerage sector.
“These settlements mark a pivotal moment for American home sellers, who have historically been burdened with excessive commission fees,” remarked Benjamin D. Brown, Managing Partner of Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll. The lawsuit originated from Moehrl, et al. v. National Association of Realtors, which challenged the NAR’s policy requiring home sellers to offer non-negotiable compensation to buyer brokers, significantly affecting the cost transparency and fairness in real estate transactions.
For more detailed information on the implications of these settlements and how they might affect your next real estate decision, consider consulting with a knowledgeable professional at MORE, REALTORS®, whose agents remain at the forefront of industry standards and practices.
Missouri Online Real Estate, Inc. 3636 South Geyer Road - Suite 100, St Louis, MO 63127 314-414-6000 - Licensed Real Estate Broker in Missouri
The owner and authors this site are providing the information on this web site for general informational purposes only and make no representations, warranties (expressed or implied) or guarantees of any kind whatsoever, as to the accuracy or completeness of any information on this site or of any information found by following any link on this site. Furthermore, the owner and authors of this site will not be liable in any manner whatsoever for any errors or omissions in information on this site, nor for the availability of this information. Additionally the owner and authors of this site will not be liable for for any losses, injuries or damages in any way from the display or use of this information or as the result of following external links displayed on this site, or by responding to advertisements displayed, or contained, on this site
In using this site, users acknowledge and agree that the information on this site does not constitute the provision of legal advice, tax advice, accounting services, investment advice, or professional consulting of any kind nor should it be construed as such. The information provided herein should not be used as a substitute for consultation with professional tax, accounting, legal, or other competent advisers. Before making any decision or taking any action on this information, you should consult a qualified professional adviser to whom you have provided all of the facts applicable to your particular situation or question. None of the tax information on this web site is intended to be used nor can it be used by any taxpayer, for the purpose of avoiding penalties that may be imposed on the taxpayer.
All of the information on this site is provided as is, with no assurance or guarantee of completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the information, and without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to warranties of performance, merchantability, and fitness for a particular purpose.
This site contains external links to other sites not owned or controlled by the owner of this site, therefore the owner of this site does not control or guarantee in any manner the accuracy or relevancy of any information obtained through following such links. Links contained on this site are for users convenience and users should exercise extreme caution when following links. Including a link on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the site linked to or any views or opinions expressed on the site, products or services offered on outside sites or the companies or organizations that own and operate outside sites.
This site may accept payment for advertising, for displaying advertisements, through affiliate relationships with companies or may receive referral fees or commissions from companies as a result of recommending or referring people to a website. This site may also accept free product samples, free services, gift cards or cash to review a product or service. All paid and sponsored content may not always be identified as such. Any product claim, quote or other representation about a product or service should be verified with the manufacturer or provider.
