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.
Additional Resources:
The complete details can be found in the courts order below.
Based on the data from the recent ATTOM report on U.S. commercial foreclosures, there is a noticeable trend that highlights the challenges and changes in the commercial real estate market over the past decade. The report indicates a significant increase in commercial foreclosures, rising to 625 in March 2024 from a low of 141 in May 2020—a time characterized by pandemic-induced economic shocks and responsive fiscal interventions. This sharp rise represents a 117% year-over-year increase and underscores a broader economic narrative where, despite short-term stabilizations, long-term market corrections have been a constant presence.
States like California, New York, and Florida have borne the brunt of these fluctuations. For instance, California experienced a dramatic 405% increase from last year, showcasing how regional factors and state-specific economic conditions have influenced foreclosure rates. This analysis not only offers insights into the challenges faced by the commercial real estate market but also highlights the sector’s resilience and capacity to navigate through a continuum of economic cycles.
The recent spike in commercial foreclosures has raised questions about the interconnectedness of the commercial and residential real estate markets. Historically, these two sectors have shown some level of correlation, as economic factors affecting businesses often spill over into the residential sphere. For instance, a downturn in commercial real estate can lead to job losses and reduced consumer spending, which in turn can soften the residential market. However, the current trends suggest a more complex relationship, with the residential market remaining relatively stable despite significant upheavals in commercial real estate. In the coming months we’ll see if that trend continues.
US Commerical Foreclosures 2014 – 2024 (Chart)
Since the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and the plaintiffs in the following lawsuits—Christopher Moehrl v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Rhonda Burnett (originally Sitzer) v. The National Association of Realtors et al., Dawin Niel Umpa v. The National Association of Realtors, et al., and Don Gibson v. The National Association of Realtors—reached a settlement agreement on March 15, 2024, which is still pending court approval and thus preliminary at this point, the topic has dominated industry conversations. The focus of these lawsuits on buyer’s agent commissions has attracted more media attention since mid-March than it seems to have received in the over 40 years I’ve been in the business before that. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying all this attention is bad. In fact, I believe it is beneficial. I’ve long advocated for educating consumers, feeling that the more home buyers and sellers know, the better decisions they can make. This is why I’m rapidly approaching the milestone of 3,000 articles on the topic of real estate in St. Louis on this site.
Now, I don’t do this solely for altruistic reasons; sharing the information and knowledge I’ve gained either through experience or research is also self-serving. As a broker-owner of MORE, REALTORS®, I’ve put forth just as much effort in sharing knowledge with our agents, and I am blessed to be surrounded by real estate professionals who are as eager as I am to increase their knowledge and hone their skills to better serve clients. Here’s the reward for me: informed and knowledgeable consumers seek out better and more professional agents, like the ones we’re in business with, creating a win-win situation.
Having said all that, while the attention from the media is beneficial, unfortunately, there is a lot of incorrect information out there and assertions being made that don’t seem to be based on facts, but rather on opinion. Oh yes, I have opinions too, plenty of them, many of which are shared on this site, but to the extent possible, I try to base them on facts and include the sources of my opinions.
A Recurring Theme in Real Estate Litigation
The intertwining of Realtor association membership and MLS access has been a contentious issue, sparking several lawsuits over the years. This relationship, critics argue, creates barriers to competition and innovation in the real estate market.
Significant Legal Precedents
A pivotal moment in this ongoing discourse was the “Thompson v. Metropolitan Multi-List, Inc. Lawsuit,” where the 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals in 1991 ruled against restricting MLS access to Realtor members in Georgia. This case set a significant precedent, affirming that such practices could violate federal antitrust laws if the MLS wielded “market power” in the relevant geographic market.
Further complicating the landscape, California courts in the late 1970s found similar restrictions in violation of state antitrust statutes, thereby requiring Realtor associations in the state to open their MLS to non-members.
Looking Ahead
As the real estate industry continues to evolve, the relationship between REALTOR® associations and MLS access remains a focal point for legal scrutiny and industry reform. The implications of these legal battles extend beyond the courtroom, potentially shaping the future of real estate transactions, market competition, and consumer choice.
While the NAR settlement and recent lawsuits highlight different facets of the industry’s challenges, they collectively underscore a broader call for transparency, fairness, and innovation in real estate practices.
Conclusion
The dialogue surrounding MLS access and REALTOR® association membership is far from concluded. As legal actions continue to unfold, stakeholders across the real estate spectrum must remain vigilant and adaptable to the changing regulatory and business environment. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’re keenly aware of these potential shifts and are proactively strategizing to ensure our agents are well-positioned to navigate any changes that may arise. Our focus remains steadfast on providing exceptional service to our clients, irrespective of the evolving industry dynamics. As always, we’re committed to transparency, adaptability, and unwavering professionalism.
The Department of Justice (DOJ), through its Antitrust Division, initiated an investigation into NAR’s policies, which culminated in a settlement in November 2020. This settlement aimed to address four out of six policies identified by the DOJ as potentially anticompetitive. Crucially, it also included the issuance of a closing letter by the DOJ, indicating the closure of its investigation into two key NAR policies: the “Clear Cooperation Policy” and the “Participation Rule.” These policies relate to the operation of multiple-listing services (MLSs) and the commission structure within real estate transactions, respectively.
However, in a dramatic shift, the DOJ reopened its investigation into these policies in July 2021, leading to a legal challenge by NAR. NAR argued that the DOJ’s action breached the settlement agreement, which, in their view, included an implicit assurance against reopening the investigation into the specified policies.
The Appeals Court, in its decision, highlighted the legal nuances of the settlement agreement and the scope of the DOJ’s commitments. The court concluded that the settlement did not preclude the DOJ from reopening its investigation. This decision not only emphasizes the DOJ’s ongoing authority to regulate and scrutinize industry practices for anticompetitive behavior but also signals to real estate professionals the importance of adaptive compliance with evolving regulatory landscapes.
This ruling carries profound implications for the real estate industry, reinforcing the principle that regulatory oversight is a dynamic process, subject to revision and reassessment in light of new information or changing circumstances. For homebuyers and homesellers, the decision underscores the government’s commitment to ensuring fair and competitive practices within the real estate market, aiming to protect consumer interests and promote market transparency.
United States Court of Appeals Judgement – NAR vs United States of America
(click on image below to access entire judgment)
The Core Allegations:
At the heart of Wang’s lawsuit is an objection to how MLS access — a critical tool for buying and selling properties — is tied to membership in the NAR. This arrangement, according to the lawsuit, perpetuates a non-competitive environment where commission rates are kept uniformly high due to lack of market-driven pricing. This system, the plaintiff argues, indirectly forces buyers to absorb the cost of buyer’s agent commissions, which are embedded in home purchase prices, in violation of antitrust laws.
Legal Objectives:
- Seeking Class Action: The lawsuit aims to achieve class action status, offering representation to a broad swath of home buyers potentially affected by the described practices.
- Injunctive Relief and Damages: Beyond seeking damages for alleged overpayments, the complaint calls for judicial intervention to prohibit the continuation of tying MLS access to NAR membership, alongside the existing commission practices.
Industry Implications:
This lawsuit adds another layer to the ongoing discourse on real estate commission models, specifically targeting the structures that underpin agent access to essential market information. By challenging the linkage of MLS access to NAR membership, the case prompts a reevaluation of how such policies impact competition, pricing, and ultimately, consumer choice.
Reflecting on the Bigger Picture:
From an insider perspective, this case illuminates the complex interplay between professional associations, access to market information, and how commissions are structured. It calls into question whether current practices best serve the market’s needs or if they inadvertently constrain competition and innovation. As the real estate industry continues to grapple with these issues, the outcome of this lawsuit could have significant repercussions, potentially catalyzing shifts towards more transparent and consumer-friendly practices.
Hao Zhe Wang v The National Association of REALTORS®
(click below to view the entire complaint)
The Council of Multiple Listing Services (CMLS), representing over 200 Multiple Listing Services nationwide, has filed a brief supporting the settlement reached between the parties in the lawsuit against MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN). While this is not the settlement announced last week by the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), it involves one of the several lawsuits tied to the NAR settlement.
CMLS filed their brief in response to the one filed by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in February, which opposed the MLS PIN settlement, arguing that it did not go far enough to change existing practices to lower commissions and increase competition. In their brief, CMLS points to data showing that a similar rule change adopted by the Northwest Multiple Listing Service (NWMLS) in 2019 saved homebuyers an average of $1,000 per transaction by reducing buyer agent commissions.
The DOJ has opposed the MLS PIN settlement, asserting that it would not meaningfully benefit consumers. CMLS contends that the DOJ’s analysis is flawed and that its preferred solution – an outright ban on buyer agent compensation – could disrupt the real estate market and harm consumers.
It is doubtful that the judge will make a ruling in the MLS PIN case while the NAR settlement is pending. However, the briefs filed by the DOJ and CMLS in the MLS PIN lawsuit may have an impact on the decision regarding the NAR settlement.
CMLS Amicus Brief
(click to view entire brief)
One of the issues receiving significant attention following the announcement of the REALTOR® commission suit settlement is the topic of buyer commissions, specifically regarding whether a buyer has to pay them and how lenders will treat the commissions.
In a recent letter to the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), Federal Housing Administration (FHA), Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac, NAR and MBA sought confirmation on the treatment of buyer agent commissions following a proposed settlement agreement in the Burnett et al and Moehrl et al cases.
What does this mean for homebuyers? Under the settlement, cooperative commissions will no longer be displayed on Multiple Listing Services (MLS), but listing brokers and sellers will still be able to offer compensation for buyer broker services through other means. Additionally, the settlement does not prohibit home sellers from paying buyer agent commissions directly.
NAR and MBA believe that FHA and Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) policies should continue to exclude seller or listing agent payments of buyer agents’ commissions from Interested Party Contributions (IPCs). IPCs are concessions from the seller to the buyer for items traditionally paid by the buyer, such as loan closing costs or rate buy-downs. Maintaining this practice is essential to ensure that the flow of mortgage capital to homebuyers remains uninterrupted.
As a homeowner or potential buyer, it’s important to stay informed about these developments and how they may impact your buying or selling process. NAR and MBA have requested confirmation from the FHFA, FHA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac as soon as possible to prevent any confusion and potential disruptions that may cost you money or even jeopardize your home purchase.
The MBA and NAR Letter
(click to view entire letter)
Eligibility Criteria and Key Details:
Moehrl v. NAR Eligibility:
- Sold a home between March 6, 2015, and December 31, 2020.
- Utilized a real estate agent or broker affiliated with specific defendants, including Keller Williams, RE/MAX, and Anywhere Real Estate, among others.
- Paid a commission for the sale listed on a covered Multiple Listing Service (MLS) in certain areas.
- Filing Deadline: The deadline to submit a claim is May 9, 2025.
Burnett et al. v. NAR Eligibility:
- Sold a home within the eligible date range specified in the Long Form Notices.
- Listed the sold home on an MLS in any part of the United States.
- Paid a commission to any real estate brokerage in connection with the sale.
- Not restricted to homes sold using agents from Anywhere, RE/MAX, or Keller Williams.
- Filing Deadline: The deadline to submit a claim is May 9, 2025.
Next Steps for Eligible Home Sellers:
- Verify Eligibility: Sellers should review the detailed eligibility criteria on the settlement websites to determine if their home sale qualifies.
- Submit a Claim: To be considered for a payment, eligible sellers must file a claim by the May 9, 2025 deadline. Claim forms are accessible by clicking the links below:
- Consider Opting Out or Objecting: If you wish to opt out of the settlement, the deadline to opt-out or object to the settlements is April 13, 2024.
You’ve probably heard about these changes happening with real estate commissions, right? It’s been all over the news lately. You might have seen headlines like “Real estate commissions are being slashed!” or “Selling your house will now be less expensive!” Sounds pretty exciting, doesn’t it? And the media has a great track record, right? Let me tell you, there’s a lot more to it than meets the eye.
Even the most informed of us agents and brokers out here are scratching our heads because the lawsuit changed gears so quickly. Nobody really knows exactly how it’s all going to work yet. And those flashy headlines? Well, they’re a bit misleading because the truth is, nobody knows for sure if commissions will go down or up. I can easily make a case for both up and down.
Here’s the deal: if this settlement gets approved by the courts, sellers won’t be able to advertise agent commissions anymore. But they can still offer them, just not in their listing. And for buyers, they’ll have to sign a written agreement with an agent if they want representation—like Missouri License Law has said for over 20 years.
But before you get too excited about saving some cash, there are a few things you should consider. For sellers, allowing your listing broker to offer commissions might still be in your best interest. And buyers, well, going it alone might not be as easy as it sounds. You’ll still have to do all the legwork and negotiations yourself AND the biggest risk in, likely, your largest transaction: you don’t know what you don’t know. Remember, unless the listing agent is hired as a transaction broker, the listing agent represents the seller first and foremost. If they are a transaction broker, they cannot give you advice.
So, while these changes could be a big deal, the reality is, we’re all still waiting to see how it shakes out. If you’re feeling curious or worried about what’s coming, your best bet is to chat with your trusted real estate advisor. They’ll be able to give you the lowdown and keep you in the loop as things progress. And it they can’t, the agents and brokers here at MORE, REALTORS ® certainly can. We’ve been covering this issue since 2019.
Bottom line? Don’t believe all the hype just yet. Real estate, in general, is a wild card. While we’ll just have to wait and see how it all plays out, just know that we here at MORE, REALTORS® have been on top of this issue for years and have been adjusting accordingly. Oh yeah, remember, you can keep your doctor too. 😉
Last week, I wrote an article about the settlement reached by the National Association of REALTORS® in pending litigation concerning buyer agency compensation. This includes the “Sitzer” (now Burnett), “Moehrl,” and “MLS PIN” suits, among others. As mentioned, this is an early stage in the process; the settlement agreement, although agreed upon by the parties involved, has not yet been filed with the court. Given these are large class action lawsuits alleging antitrust violations, numerous hurdles must be overcome. These could necessitate changes to the settlement terms on the path to court approval—if the court approves it at all.
Hurdles include the court holding a fairness hearing to assess if the proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate for class members. This hearing allows class members to express objections and concerns. Moreover, antitrust class action lawsuits like this one, which impact market competition and consumer protection, prompt the court to consider broader public interest implications when approving settlements. This attention often draws input from professional associations, consumer organizations, and, as seen in the MLS PIN suit, the United States, giving their opinion on the settlement’s sufficiency.
Ultimately, the decision rests with the judge, who will consider all these aspects.
I should have led with this, but I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. As a real estate broker with over four decades in the residential real estate industry, I have a keen interest in the legal facets of our business and the issues at hand, closely following these cases since 2019. I’m a staunch advocate for transparency and education for real estate professionals, clients, and everyone involved. The more accurate knowledge consumers have about buying and selling a home, the better choices they can make. This is especially true when selecting a real estate agent, as not all are created equal.
Back to the matter at hand.
What will the DOJ say about the NAR Settlement?
Assuming the Department of Justice files an amicus brief in this case, as they did with MLS PIN—a safe assumption, in my view—it’s intriguing to speculate on their comments regarding this settlement. While I lack a crystal ball or insider information, considering the DOJ’s Statement of Interest filed on February 15, 2024, in Nosalek V. MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN), and assuming their opinion hasn’t shifted in the last five weeks, offers a logical foundation for analysis.
I sought an objective analysis from my trusty AI Assistant, which, for the sake of this discussion, is an outstanding attorney specializing in antitrust law (or at least that is what I’ve told it to think of itself as). Applying the DOJ’s recent statement to this settlement, here’s what it suggests the DOJ might say:
- Inadequate Address of Core Antitrust Concerns: The settlement’s proposed rule changes fail to resolve the fundamental antitrust issues raised in the complaint fully. While allowing $0 cooperative compensation offers and requiring commission negotiation disclosures, the continued practice of blanket unilateral compensation offers to buyer brokers by sellers and listing brokers could perpetuate steering risks and obstruct genuine price competition.
- Broad Release of Potential Antitrust Claims: The extensive release of antitrust claims against a wide range of parties, including NAR, REALTOR® associations, MLSs, and individual brokers and agents, is concerning. Given the settlement’s limited injunctive relief, this broad release might inadequately serve class members.
- Insufficient Monetary Relief: The $418 million settlement fund, potentially inadequate for the damages at issue, may not ensure compensation for class members after litigation expenses and attorney’s fees. The settlement lacks a clear mechanism for maximizing class member payouts.
- Potential Chilling Effect on Future Antitrust Challenges: The settlement could deter or complicate future anticompetitive practice challenges by immunizing modified rules from further scrutiny, making subsequent lawsuits more difficult.
- Comparison to MLS PIN Settlement: Despite more extensive practice changes than the MLS PIN agreement, the settlement doesn’t effectively address core antitrust concerns, marginally improving over the MLS PIN agreement.
In conclusion, despite offering more monetary relief and practice changes than the MLS PIN agreement, the settlement inadequately addresses fundamental antitrust issues. The court must weigh whether the settlement’s limited benefits justify the broad release of claims and the potential chilling effect on future antitrust enforcement. As in the MLS PIN case, a more effective remedy might prohibit the seller-paid buyer broker commission model, fostering genuine market competition.
This is all based on publicly available information. We must wait to see the DOJ’s stance and whether the judge deems the settlement adequate.
Key Points of the NAR Settlement Agreement
- Broad Coverage: The settlement class is expansive, including home sellers who listed properties on MLSs anywhere in the U.S. during specified date ranges and paid a commission to any brokerage. For the St. Louis region, sellers are covered if they sold homes between October 31, 2018, and the date of the official Class Notice.
- Released Parties: The settlement releases a wide range of parties from future claims related to broker commissions, including NAR, REALTOR associations, and MLSs that adhere to the required practice changes. Brokerages with 2022 transaction volumes under $2 billion are also released if they comply with the new rules.
- Practice Changes: The agreement mandates significant shifts in industry practices, including:
- “eliminate and prohibit any requirement by the National Association of REALTORS®, REALTOR® MLS, or Member Boards that listing brokers or sellers must make offers of compensation to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers), and eliminate and prohibit any requirement that such offers, if made, must be blanket, unconditional, or unilateral;”
- “prohibit REALTOR® MLS Participants, subscribers, other real estate brokers, other real estate agents, and their sellers from (a) making offers of compensation on the MLS to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers) or (b) requiring that offers of compensation be made on the MLS to buyer brokers or other buyer representatives (either directly or through buyers);”
- “require that REALTOR® MLS Participants who work with buyers enter into written agreements with their buyer clients that specify the broker compensation and how it will be paid, including if it will be paid by the buyer;”
- “require that REALTOR® MLSs and REALTOR® MLS Participants provide, with any MLS listings that include a listing broker’s offer of compensation to a buyer broker or other buyer representative (either directly or through buyers), (i) disclosure as to the amount of that offer of compensation and (ii) a searchable field that displays buyer broker compensation offers;”
- “prohibit REALTOR® MLSs, REALTOR® MLS Participants, and REALTOR® Member Boards from taking any adverse action against any Person making offers of compensation to buyer brokers at any price, or no price, either on or off the MLS;”
- Financial Payout: NAR will pay a total of $418 million over four years to resolve the claims, with the first payment of $5 million due within 30 days of preliminary approval of the settlement. What This Means for St. Louis
What This Means for St. Louis
For homeowners in the St. Louis area, this settlement could bring more transparency to the commission structure when selling a home. By removing the requirement for listing brokers to offer buyer broker compensation through the MLS, the agreement aims to give sellers more control over how commissions are negotiated and paid.
Real estate agents and brokerages in our region will need to adapt to these changes, focusing on educating clients about compensation options and ensuring compliance with the new rules. At MORE, REALTORS®, we’ve been preparing for these shifts and are ready to guide our clients through the evolving landscape.
The full text of the NAR settlement agreement can be found below. As always, I’ll continue to keep you informed about how these developments impact our local market.
The Proposed NAR Settlement Agreement
(click on image to view entire agreement)
Kevin Sears, NAR President
This morning, Kevin Sears, President of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), unveiled a proposed settlement designed to bring to a close the contentious litigation surrounding broker commissions, a move that could significantly alter the landscape of the real estate industry. This development comes on the heels of the Sitzer-Burnett verdict, which cast the traditional practices of real estate professionals, particularly those concerning hiring and compensation methods, into the spotlight, sparking a series of lawsuits and raising questions about the future of the industry.
A Closer Look at the Proposed Settlement
The core aim of the proposed settlement is to resolve the ongoing litigation against NAR, its members, and associated real estate entities by addressing the claims related to broker commissions. Key components of the settlement include:
- Liability Release: More than one million NAR members, along with various real estate entities, will be absolved from liability for claims akin to those highlighted in the lawsuits.
- Compensation Offers: A pivotal change involves the elimination of compensation offers from MLS listings, a rule set to take effect in mid-July 2024.
- Written Agreements: Starting mid-July 2024, MLS participants working with buyers will be required to engage through written representation agreements.
- Financial Implications: NAR has committed to paying $418 million over a four-year span, a significant financial undertaking that will not result in an increase in the 2024 membership dues according to the release. (Noted is the fact they didn’t commit to no increases as a result beyond 2024)
Kevin Sears Weighs In
Sears articulated the objectives of the settlement, stating, “This proposed settlement achieves our goals to reduce strain on our members and chart a path forward for the industry.” He further emphasized the industry’s resilience and adaptability, expressing confidence that the agreement “allows us to move forward, preserving the right to real property for all.”
MORE, REALTORS® Prepared for the Future
Yes, this might come off as a shameless plug, but it would be a disservice not to mention how myself, alongside our brokerage’s leadership team, brokers, and agents, have been proactively preparing for the anticipated changes. We’ve delved deep into the issues raised by these lawsuits, identifying practices in need of rectification, regardless of the legal outcomes. Thus, while the shift away from MLS compensation offerings may catch many off guard, our team stands ready. We’re equipped to demystify the compensation process for our clients transparently, dedicating our focus to their needs. Discover more about our exceptional team at MORERealtors.com.
The Proposed NAR Settlement Agreement
(click on image to view entire agreement)
In downtown St. Louis, a significant transformation is taking place, not just in the physical landscape but in the very identity of a burgeoning neighborhood. An ambitious initiative led by a consortium of developers aims to rebrand a key area surrounding the new CityPark, home of the St. Louis City SC, as “City Commons.” This endeavor seeks to establish a distinct identity for the neighborhood, distinguishing it from the broader downtown area. CityPark, a $460 million stadium, along with over $1 billion in surrounding developments, serves as the catalyst for this rebranding effort. The objective is to create a vibrant live-work-play district that encapsulates the essence of community and innovation.
The push to designate this area as City Commons reflects a strategic effort to brand and market the neighborhood as a unique destination within St. Louis. Recognizing the city’s residents’ attachment to neighborhood identities, the developers are harnessing this cultural trait to foster a sense of belonging and pride among locals and visitors. The naming initiative represents more than just a cosmetic change; it’s about crafting a narrative that resonates with the vibrancy and diversity of St. Louis itself. By reimagining the neighborhood as City Commons, the developers are not only aiming to attract investment and development but also to create a cohesive community identity that reflects the area’s renewed purpose and potential.
A report titled “Required Buyer Agency Contracts: Impacts On Home Buyers” was recently released by Stephen Brobeck, Senior Fellow with the Consumer Federation of America. In the introduction, Brobeck states, ‘This report will discuss several aspects of buyer agency contracts – important content, unfair provisions, format and timing, and recommended use by consumers.’ He suggests that state governments or the courts should prohibit certain unfair practices, such as allowing ‘buyer agents to arrange, with listing agents, additional compensation from sellers beyond what is negotiated with buyers,’ stating that such practices could ‘thwart any efforts to sufficiently separate buyer agent and listing agent commissions so that both buyers and sellers can independently negotiate the commissions of their agents.’
The Consumer Federation of America (CFA), and specifically Stephen Brobeck, have been notably critical of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) for some time, so it’s not surprising they have issued this report to sound the alarm on buyer agency agreements. While the CFA is not always critical of NAR or the real estate industry’s practices, my observations over the last few years suggest they often focus on criticizing unfair or unjust practices rather than commending good ones. After all, as a consumer watchdog, it’s likely they spend more time looking for problems to address. Despite my lifelong career in the real estate industry, I also take a hard look at it, always seeking areas for improvement.
I went through the report and here is my summary of the major issues it points out, along with my thoughts on each. My section headings match those in the report for those who want to explore further.
- Supplemental Buyer Agent Compensation: The report criticizes situations where a listing agent offers a buyer’s agent commission higher than what the buyer’s agent negotiated with the buyer, keeping the difference. It argues this is unfair and that any excess should benefit the buyer, not the agent. In St. Louis, the standard REALTOR® buyer agency contract specifies a “minimum commission” for the buyer’s agent, usually covered by the seller through the listing agent. With upcoming changes potentially prohibiting sellers from offering compensation to buyer’s agents, this dynamic might shift, but currently, it seems less of a concern here.
- Unreasonable Fees: The report labels “administrative” or “transaction” fees, typically ranging from $200 to $900, as “junk fees” and unjustifiable given today’s high commission rates. My view is mixed. On one hand, I prefer a single, comprehensive charge for services; on the other, a fixed transaction fee could help normalize returns from variable commissions. These fees shouldn’t be blanketly labeled as unfair; total cost for representation should provide fair value, regardless of its structure.
- Requiring Buyer Acceptance of Dual Agency, Designated Agency, or Transaction Brokerage: The report criticizes agreements that pre-emptively commit buyers to accept a change in their agent’s role to a dual agent, designated agent, or transaction broker. I concur on dual agency and transaction brokerage concerns but not on designated agency, as it doesn’t alter the buyer’s agent role but designates them for a specific client within a firm. In our firm, MORE, REALTORS®, we advise against dual agency and switching to transaction brokerage, emphasizing consistent representation and fiduciary duty.
- Not Explaining How Conflicts of Interest Involving Other Buyer Clients Are Resolved: The report points out the lack of clarity in most buyer’s agency contracts on how conflicts of interest with multiple buyers interested in the same property are managed. I agree and believe that with industry changes, including buyers directly paying agents, there will be demand for clearer conflict resolution strategies and perhaps exclusivity agreements, provided they are narrowly defined to prevent conflicts without overly restricting the agent’s business.
An upside to the recent litigation spotlighting the real estate industry is the emergence of reports and analyses that, though not always accurate or impartial, spotlight key issues and foster a more transparent environment for consumers. I personally view this shift toward greater transparency and consumer understanding of the real estate process as one of the major benefits of the industry’s forthcoming changes. Better-informed consumers will be equipped to more thoroughly evaluate the qualifications of the agents they choose to work with. This, in turn, will benefit dedicated and professional agents, while naturally filtering out those who lack the necessary knowledge, ethics, or comprehension to thrive in the business.
Kevin Sears,
2024 NAR President
At a real estate conference in Boston on February 1, 2024, NAR President Kevin Sears addressed a pressing issue facing the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and its members. Sears candidly discussed the aftermath of a $5.4 billion verdict against NAR, drawing parallels to a sports scenario to highlight the disappointment of a loss despite believing in the righteousness of their policy and actions. He emphasized the importance of moving forward, focusing on the legal appeals process and the ongoing challenges with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which has been a persistent adversary for NAR.
Sears detailed the history of NAR’s interactions with the DOJ, including a settled agreement in 2020, which the DOJ later contested, leading to further legal battles. He highlighted a specific case involving MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN) in Massachusetts, which faced a “copycat lawsuit” and encountered DOJ objections to settlement agreements, underscoring the DOJ’s significant influence on the real estate industry’s operations.
Kevin Sears provided a comprehensive overview of the National Association of Realtors’ (NAR) complex and ongoing interactions with the Department of Justice (DOJ), painting a picture of an enduring legal struggle that has deep implications for the real estate industry. He began by recounting a pivotal moment in 2020 when NAR reached a settlement agreement with the DOJ, a moment that seemed to mark the beginning of a resolution to their disputes. However, this sense of resolution was short-lived as the DOJ later contested the terms of the agreement, reigniting a series of legal challenges that have since persisted.
Sears’ narrative then shifted focus to a more recent and illustrative example of these challenges: the case involving the MLS Property Information Network (MLS PIN) in Massachusetts. This particular case, described by Sears as a “copycat lawsuit,” mirrored the broader issues at stake between NAR and the DOJ. The lawsuit led to a proposed settlement agreement between MLS PIN and the plaintiff’s attorneys, which, in a turn of events characteristic of the DOJ’s recent interventions, faced objections from the DOJ. The federal department’s refusal to endorse the settlement underscored its readiness to closely scrutinize and influence the outcomes of legal disputes in the real estate sector.
Through these examples, Sears emphasized the DOJ’s significant and active role in shaping the operational landscape of the real estate industry. He highlighted the DOJ’s apparent commitment to altering traditional practices within the industry, particularly those related to the compensation of buyer’s agents through commissions offered by sellers. This ongoing legal saga between NAR, its members, and the DOJ not only reflects the complexities of antitrust law in real estate but also signals a potentially transformative period for industry practices and professional relationships.
Key Points Made by Kevin Sears:
- Acknowledged the $5.4 billion verdict against NAR, emphasizing the need to move forward through legal appeals and post-trial motions.
- Highlighted the longstanding challenges with the DOJ, including a contested settlement and ongoing legal disputes.
- Discussed the specifics of a lawsuit involving MLS PIN in Massachusetts, illustrating the DOJ’s active role in scrutinizing industry practices and settlements.
- Stressed the importance of adapting to changes in the real estate industry, particularly regarding how businesses operate and how realtors are compensated.
- Urged the audience to consider the future of the industry and the necessity of embracing change, whether willingly or as a result of external pressures.
Today, ATTOM released its ‘2024 Rental Affordability Report,’ presenting a comprehensive analysis of the current state of home rental and ownership in the United States. The report indicates that renting a median three-bedroom home is more affordable than owning a similarly-sized property in nearly 90% of the U.S. markets. This trend continues despite rents growing faster than home prices. A significant finding for our industry is that both renting and owning pose substantial financial burdens on average workers, consuming over a third of their wages in most county-level housing markets.
Data for St. Louis County is consistent with the report.
Since the report covered only counties with a population of 1 million people or greater, St. Louis County was the sole county from our area included. The report highlights that in St. Louis County, MO, renting remains more affordable compared to owning. This reflects the national trend, with median three-bedroom rents requiring only 24% of average local wages compared to higher percentages for home ownership costs. It’s worth noting that the affordability gap between renting and owning in St. Louis County is much narrower than in many counties in the U.S., particularly coastal areas.
Things may change soon though based upon trends shown.
The report reveals that in 2024, median rents for three-bedroom homes have risen more than single-family home prices in a majority of counties. This indicates a shift in the rental market dynamics, emphasizing the growing challenge for renters in finding affordable housing.
Rent vs. Wage Growth
An alarming trend noted in the report is that median three-bedroom rents are increasing faster than average local wages in over half of the markets analyzed. This disparity is a crucial factor contributing to the affordability crisis, as it indicates that wage growth is not keeping pace with rising housing costs.
Buying a Home: Long-Term Certainty vs. Short-Term Instability.
For those who have been following my articles over the past few years, I hope you’ve realized that I don’t blindly advocate for homeownership. I recognize that owning a home isn’t the best choice for everyone. In many cases, renting a home or an apartment is a better fit. However, considering the details in this report, it’s clear why buying a home can be advantageous for those in a position to do so. It offers the long-term certainty of fixed costs, contrasting sharply with the volatility of the rental market. This contrast is especially pertinent in light of the report’s findings that rent increases are outstripping wage growth.
Understanding Your Real Estate Options
At MORE REALTORS®, we pride ourselves on having a team of some of the most skilled and professional real estate agents in the St. Louis area. Our agents are dedicated to providing informed guidance tailored to each individual’s needs. Whether you’re considering buying or leasing, we’re here to offer insights and assistance based on your unique situation. For more information about our agents and the services we offer, please visit morerealtors.com. Alternatively, you can contact me directly at Dennis@STLRE.com, and I’d be happy to connect you with one of our knowledgeable real estate professionals.
Since the suit was first filed in 2019, I’ve been following the the Sitzer v. National Association of REALTORS® case closely and sharing my thoughts on the potential impact it could have on the real estate industry, as well as on home buyers and sellers. This task has been far from dull, as the litigation has been filled with action, especially since the Missouri jury’s ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in October. The past week has seen an increase in legal activity from the defendants, making the situation even more intense. Below is a breakdown of the latest events and their implications, from my perspective (bear in mind, I’m not an attorney, just a real estate broker):
Key Motions Filed:
- National Association of Realtors Seeks a New Trial: This motion contests the fairness of the original trial, highlighting potential procedural and evidentiary errors that might have skewed the jury’s decision.
- Calls for Judgment as a Matter of Law: Various defendants, including Keller Williams and BHH Affiliates, have challenged the verdict based on the argument that it contradicts the evidence presented. They point to possible legal oversights, such as flawed jury instructions.
- Questioning the Class Action Status: A notable move by BHH Affiliates and HomeServices of America, this motion disputes the class action’s suitability, arguing that individual differences overshadow commonalities crucial in such lawsuits.
Analyzing the Legal Landscape:
- The Frequency of Post-Verdict Motions: In complex cases like this, it’s quite typical for defendants to pursue motions for a new trial or a judgment reversal. These legal steps, while common, underscore the high stakes involved, especially in a sector as impactful as real estate.
- Prospects of These Motions: Historically, the success of such motions varies. They can occasionally lead to new trials or judgment alterations. However, overturning a jury’s decision is often a challenging hill to climb, given the U.S. legal system’s respect for jury findings. These motions are more likely precursors to an appeal.
- Real Estate Industry at a Crossroads: The decisions on these motions are critical. Their outcomes could prompt significant changes in how real estate transactions are conducted, especially regarding agent commissions and competitive practices.
What Does This Mean for Home Buyers and Sellers?
Now, you might be wondering, “All this legal talk is great, but how does it affect me as a home buyer or seller?” Well, I have some thoughts on that as well:
- Changes in Commission Structures: The heart of the Sitzer case is about how real estate commissions are handled. Depending on the outcome, we might see a shift in how agents are paid. This could mean more flexibility or different options when it comes to commission rates.
- Increased Transparency: The case also touches on transparency in real estate transactions. We could be looking at a future where there’s more clarity on how agents operate, which means you, as a buyer or seller, would have a clearer picture of what you’re getting into.
- Potential for More Competitive Pricing: If the verdict leads to changes in how commissions are structured, this could open the door for more competitive pricing in the real estate market. It could mean better deals for buyers and more options for sellers.
In short, this trial isn’t just about big real estate companies; it’s about potentially changing the playing field for everyone involved in buying or selling a home. It’s about making sure that the process is fair and transparent for you, the consumer. So, stay tuned – the decisions made in this courtroom could be game-changers for how we buy and sell homes.
Compilation of Motions Filed In The Past Week in Sitzer v NAR
(click below to access the document containing all the motions filed)
The “STL Market Report,” below exclusively available from MORE, REALTORS, provides a comprehensive look at the St. Louis residential real estate market as 2023 ended. This report outlines a mixed array of trends, highlighting a notable decline in the number of homes sold contrasted with a modest increase in median sold prices, offering in-depth knowledge for prospective buyers and sellers to navigate the market.
Decrease in Home Sales Volume
The St. Louis metro area witnessed a noticeable reduction in the volume of home sales year-over-year. A total of 31,704 homes were sold in the year ending December 2023, which marks a 13.13% decrease compared to the previous year’s figure of 36,498. This drop could signal a shift toward a buyer’s market, as fewer transactions typically indicate less competition among buyers.
Modest Rise in Home Prices
Despite the decrease in sales volume, St. Louis saw a modest increase in home prices. The median sold price for homes rose by 2.04% from $245,000 in December 2022 to $250,000 in December 2023. This growth, although not steep, suggests that home values in the region continue to appreciate, offering a silver lining for homeowners looking to sell.
Price Per Square Foot Analysis
The median price per square foot (PPSF) for sold homes remained relatively stable at $173.08 in December 2023, a slight decrease compared to the median PPSF for current listings at $171.87. However, a significant point to note is the 11.02% drop in PPSF for current listings compared to the sold listings from the past 12 months, indicating a possible adjustment in market expectations.
Inventory and Market Supply Dynamics
St. Louis’s home inventory levels also present an interesting narrative. With 2,956 listings currently up for sale and 2,348 homes sold last month, the market is experiencing a supply of approximately 1.26 months. This figure represents a brisk market that favors sellers, as a supply under 6 months typically does. However, it is important to monitor whether this inventory will rise or fall in response to changing market conditions.
Days on Market: A Consistent Pace
Homes in St. Louis are selling at a consistent pace, with the median days on market holding steady at 37 days. This indicates a stable demand for homes, with properties moving from listing to sale in just over a month on average.
What This Means for You
For sellers in the St. Louis area, the market still offers a favorable environment with steady prices and a relatively quick selling period. Buyers, on the other hand, might benefit from reduced competition, though they should be mindful of potential value appreciations.
STL Market Report – St Louis MSA
(click on report below for complete report)
The residential real estate industry is facing yet another antitrust lawsuit targeting the long-standing practice of home sellers paying the commissions of buyer’s agents. Filed on December 27th in Missouri federal court, Daniel Umpa v. National Association of Realtors alleges the NAR and large national brokerages like Compass and Keller Williams conspired to maintain inflated buyer agent commissions through anticompetitive practices.
This latest suit comes on the heels of the Department of Justice’s ongoing investigation into potentially anti-competitive industry practices related to real estate commissions and access to MLS listings. It also follows similar buyer broker commission lawsuits brought in the past two years by home sellers against NAR and large brokerages. The new complaint alleges the defendants worked together to enact NAR policies like the ‘Buyer Broker Commission Rule’ which required listing brokers to make blanket, non-negotiable commission offers to buyer brokers. This rule allegedly discourages lower commissions and impedes market competition to the detriment of home sellers.
If successful, the plaintiff seeks injunctive relief under antitrust laws forcing changes to current industry practices, as well as damages related to overcharges paid by class members stretching back to late 2019. With the DOJ investigation ongoing and buyer broker commissions under continued legal scrutiny, pressure mounts for transparency and reform in how real estate agents are compensated. Though the industry justifies maintaining the status quo to ensure access to listing data critical for buyers and sellers, critics argue new technologies make this argument increasingly dubious. One thing is clear – more antitrust litigation is brewing which could profoundly reshape residential brokerage.
Umpa vs The National Association of REALTORS, et al
(click on image to view entire complaint)
The National Association of Realtors (NAR) is facing unprecedented difficulties, including antitrust lawsuits and charges of sexual harassment, according to a lengthy report published in the New York Times today by Debra Kamin. The analysis by Kamin offers a perceptive look at the internal turmoil and external challenges that NAR is facing.
The customary practice of listing agents paying buyers’ agents fees is called into question by a landmark lawsuit in Missouri that resulted in a $1.8 billion verdict against NAR. The report quotes Compass’s Jason Haber as saying, “This is an extinction-level event,” highlighting the seriousness of these occurrences. The situation is made more complicated by the exit of important NAR executives, like as President Kenny Parcell, amid allegations of sexual harassment. These developments could have a big effect on the real estate market, even in our St. Louis market.
Readers of St. Louis Real Estate News are familiar with my analyses on these issues over the past years. At MORE REALTORS®, we have been proactively addressing these industry changes. Our agents are well-informed and prepared for the evolving landscape, ensuring we stay ahead in the game.
Kamin’s article serves as a reminder of the ongoing transformation in the real estate sector. As we navigate these changes, our commitment at MORE REALTORS® remains steadfast: to uphold the highest ethical standards and adapt swiftly to serve our clients best in the St. Louis area.
Recently, the real estate industry has found itself under increasing legal scrutiny, with multiple lawsuits challenging established norms. A critical point of debate is the REALTORS’ Clear Cooperation Policy. This policy mandates that within one business day of marketing a property to the public, agents must list the property on the MLS. While designed to promote transparency and cooperation among real estate professionals, it’s worth asking: Is this policy partly to blame for the industry’s legal challenges, or does it genuinely foster a fair and open market in compliance with the Sherman Antitrust Act?
The Sherman Antitrust Act, a cornerstone of U.S. antitrust law, prohibits any contract or combination that restrains trade. The Clear Cooperation Policy, by restricting agents’ freedom to market properties outside the MLS, potentially limits competition. Centralizing all listings within the MLS could be seen as creating a monopolistic environment, contrary to the principles of free trade the Sherman Act seeks to protect. On the other hand, proponents argue that the policy ensures equal access to property listings for all agents, thereby benefiting consumers by offering a comprehensive market view.
As legal battles unfold and regulatory bodies like the DOJ and FTC weigh in, the real estate industry awaits clarity. The coming months are crucial, and they will likely reveal whether the Clear Cooperation Policy aligns with the ethos of the Sherman Antitrust Act or contradicts it. As we navigate these complex legal waters, stay tuned to St Louis Real Estate News for the latest developments and insights. We’re committed to keeping you informed about how these critical issues will shape the future of real estate marketing and market fairness. Moreover, you can rely on the professional agents at MORE, REALTORS. They possess not only the knowledge and expertise to navigate through all the rules and regulations but also deliver exceptional results to their clients.
Highlights of the Clear Cooperation Policy
- Mandatory MLS Listing: Properties must be listed on the MLS within one business day of public marketing.
- Scope of Public Marketing: Includes flyers, yard signs, digital marketing, and more.
- Office Exclusive Listings: Allows keeping listings off the MLS if not publicly marketed.
- Filing Requirement: All exclusive listings must be filed with the MLS if publicly marketed.
- Enforcement: Imposes fines and reporting mechanism for non-compliance.
Key Components of Sherman Antitrust Act Relevant to the Policy
- Restriction on Trade: Prohibits practices that restrain trade or commerce.
- Legal Consequences: Includes fines and imprisonment for violations.
- Focus on Competition: Aims to maintain free and competitive markets.
- Application to Real Estate: Includes practices affecting inter-state commerce.
- Interpretation in Courts: Requires judicial determination on trade restraints.
Earlier this week, on Tuesday, December 19, 2023, the Moehrl v. National Association of Realtors (NAR) lawsuit saw a flurry of activity. Motions for summary judgment were filed by the remaining defendants, including the National Association of REALTORS® (NAR), Keller Williams Realty, Inc., BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., HSF Affiliates, LLC and HomeServices of America, Inc. Notably, two other defendants, Realogy (now known as Anywhere) and Re/Max, had previously reached a settlement agreement with the plaintiff, which is currently pending court approval.
With the exception of Keller Williams Realty, Inc., all of the real estate brokerage defendants jointly filed a single motion for summary judgment. In contrast, Keller Williams Realty, Inc. submitted their own separate motion, which, while distinct, shares similarities with the collective motion of the other brokerages in its arguments and legal stance.
- The National Association of Realtors defended its model rules and policies, asserting they’re not conspiratorial and are instead standard practice in the industry, aiming to facilitate transparency and efficiency in real estate transactions.
- Keller Williams Realty, Inc. focused on their lack of involvement in the alleged conspiracy, emphasizing no direct role in NAR’s Cooperative Compensation Rule.
- BHH Affiliates, LLC, The Long & Foster Companies, Inc., HSF Affiliates, LLC, HomeServices of America, Inc. similarly argued for their non-participation in any actions related to the NAR rule they’re accused of conspiring to adopt.
As I’ve mentioned in many previous articles, this legal battle, along with other similar cases across the country, is poised to have significant implications for the real estate industry and profession. At the heart of these challenges lies a foundational method of conducting residential real estate transactions, including the compensation of agents (particularly buyer’s agents). Regardless of the outcomes of these lawsuits, the industry is set to undergo significant changes. This is partly due to the heightened attention these cases have attracted, which will likely lead to a better understanding of the transaction process by home buyers and sellers, as well as greater transparency, especially in terms of the roles and compensation of real estate agents involved. Personally, I believe these developments are positive. They will benefit dedicated, professional agents and their clients, and may disadvantage those who are underperforming or, frankly, should not be in the business in the first place.
Find complete information on this lawsuit as well as all the other related lawsuits as well as a wealth of information on the St Louis real estate market at the MORE Resource Center by clicking this link or the button below.
Traci Casper, NAR President
In a recent interview with CNBC, Traci Casper, the President of the National Association of Realtors (NAR), shared her views on the current state of the housing market and the implications of recent commission lawsuits. Her remarks provide an insight into the challenges and changes shaping the real estate industry, particularly relevant for the St. Louis market.
Casper highlighted the impact of fluctuating mortgage rates on the housing market, mentioning, “We do have still such a pent-up buyer pool that’s just been waiting on the sidelines… we are starting to feel them come back in.” This observation reflects the interconnectedness of mortgage rates and buyer activity, a significant factor in real estate market dynamics.
Regarding the commission lawsuits, Casper spoke about the potential effects on buyers and sellers. She explained, “Our buyers are already struggling to come up with a down payment… We don’t want to see is the marginalization of those buyers.” This statement is in line with the NAR’s consistent message suggesting that lower-income buyers might be negatively impacted if sellers stop paying buyer agent commissions. I counter Casper’s position, highlighting the disagreement within the industry. Many argue that buyers are indirectly paying the commission since it is generally factored into the home’s selling price. If the payment structure shifts to where buyers directly pay the commission, this could lead to a decrease in the seller’s price, as they would no longer bear this cost. This change might not increase the overall cost to the buyer, but it could affect sellers’ pricing strategies. Additionally, I believe that lenders will adapt to these changes. Institutions like Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, FHA, and VA are likely to revise their policies to allow commissions paid by buyers to be included in closing costs, counted as part of the down payment, or financed.
A recent national migration study by Atlas Van Lines sheds light on the movement patterns across the United States in 2023. For Missouri, and by extension, the St. Louis real estate market, these insights are particularly revealing.
While the study highlights various states experiencing significant inbound or outbound moves, Missouri stands out for its balanced migration pattern. With 51% outbound and 49% inbound moves, this balance has been consistent since 2018, indicating a stable demographic flow in Missouri. This steadiness is an essential factor for real estate professionals in St. Louis, as it suggests a continuous opportunity to cater to both new arrivals and existing residents.
The migration map shown below, illustrating these trends, serves as a visual guide to understanding how Missouri compares with its neighboring states and the nation. Unlike states with heavy inbound or outbound flows, Missouri’s balanced migration pattern presents a unique market scenario. Here, the focus for real estate professionals should be on sustaining and enhancing the region’s appeal to both potential newcomers and current residents.
Missouri’s stable migration pattern implies that while we may not experience dramatic shifts in population, there is a consistent demand for housing and real estate services. This demand is driven by a variety of factors, including economic stability, job opportunities, and quality of life – all critical aspects that influence people’s decisions to move.
The balanced migration in Missouri underscores the importance of focusing on holistic development and marketing strategies that address the needs of a diverse population. For the St. Louis real estate market, it’s about striking a balance between welcoming new residents and serving the needs of those who have long called Missouri home.
2023 Migration Patterns By State – Based on Interstate Household Goods Moves
(from November 16, 2022 through November 16, 2023 – click on map for full report)
The real estate industry stands at a pivotal juncture, where longstanding practices are being questioned and re-evaluated. Central to this introspection is the structure of the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), a tool indispensable to our trade. Current legal challenges (such as the Sitzer v NAR lawsuit) and scrutiny from the Department of Justice, particularly concerning policies like clear cooperation and offers of compensation, have brought to the forefront a crucial question: Is the current MLS system, tied as it is to REALTOR® association membership, serving the best interests of our clients and the industry?
The traditional model, which intertwines MLS access with REALTOR® association membership, implies that an agent or broker not aligned with the REALTOR® association is denied access to the MLS. This setup, while historically effective in maintaining a standard of practice and ensuring a level of oversight, now faces criticism for potentially limiting competition and choice in the market.
In the St. Louis area, like in many parts of the country, this structure has been the bedrock of real estate transactions. The MLS, governed and in many times owned by REALTOR® associations (such as is the case in St Louis), has long been a symbol of professional adherence to ethical standards and cooperation. However, the landscape is changing. The industry is evolving with technology and a more informed consumer base, leading to questions about whether this model still serves its intended purpose effectively.
In an ideal scenario, the MLS should be a tool that enhances the market by ensuring wide visibility of listings, fostering competition, and upholding professional standards. But when access to this crucial tool is contingent on association membership, we must ask if we’re inadvertently creating barriers that go against the very principles of open market competition and consumer choice.
As we delve deeper into this issue, a compelling argument arises for decoupling the MLS from REALTOR® association memberships. Such a change could potentially open the market to a broader range of professionals, encouraging innovation and perhaps even leading to improved services and tools. This decoupling could also align with antitrust laws, addressing legal concerns around competition.
However, this proposed change is not without its challenges. The association-MLS model provides a framework for ethical standards and professional conduct. Decoupling might require the development of new systems to ensure these standards are upheld, which could be complex and resource-intensive.
While currently there are more questions than answers with regard to the issues of race, I think one thing that is certain is that we are likely to see changes to the current system on some level in the coming months.
In yet another pivotal moment for the real estate industry, oral arguments were made yesterday before a three-judge panel at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in the ongoing battle between the National Association of REALTORS (NAR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). The panel, consisting of Circuit Judges Henderson, Walker, and Pan, will now deliberate and make a ruling in the future, a decision that could significantly impact the industry.
The case centers on NAR’s attempt to prevent the DOJ from reopening an investigation into the organization’s commission-sharing policies. The dispute revolves around a 2020 closure agreement, which NAR interprets as barring any future investigations. However, this interpretation faced scrutiny from the judges, particularly Judge Florence Pan, who questioned the permanence of the agreement.
Representing the DOJ, Frederick Liu argued that there was never an intention to indefinitely halt the investigation. He emphasized that during the negotiation process, the DOJ’s antitrust division did not make explicit commitments to end the probe permanently.
This legal showdown is crucial for NAR, an association with more than 1.5 million members. Just last month, NAR, along with other defendants, lost a nearly $1.8 Billion anti-trust lawsuit here in Missouri (Sitzer v NAR) and NAR is currently facing multiple other antitrust lawsuits, including a substantial class-action suit in Illinois, potentially leading to damages of $40 billion.
NAR’s attorney, Christopher Michel, stressed the significance of the closure agreement, arguing that reopening the investigation would render it meaningless. Judge Justin Walker, however, highlighted the inherent risk NAR took in depending on the continuity of the DOJ’s personnel after the election.
The decision by this appellate court will be closely watched, as it could herald significant changes in how real estate transactions are conducted, affecting agents, buyers, and sellers alike. Stay updated with St Louis Real Estate News for the latest on this critical legal development.
The real estate industry is potentially on the cusp of a significant shift, one that could redefine the relationship between homebuyers, sellers, and their agents. Several class-action lawsuits, including the Sitzer v. NAR case decided in favor of the plaintiffs last month, have brought considerable attention to how real estate agents representing buyers are compensated. Consequently, many in the industry, myself included, anticipate that changes prompted by either court order or regulation could significantly impact everyone involved in the home buying and selling process
For Buyers: Empowerment through Transparency
Historically, buyer’s agents have been compensated by the seller, creating a perception of “free service” for the buyer. This arrangement often obscured the true cost of services provided by buyer’s agents. The anticipated changes would likely result in a direct payment model, where buyers would pay their agents directly.
What does this mean for you as a buyer? Firstly, it brings transparency. You will have a clearer understanding of what you’re paying for and why. It’s an opportunity to engage more deeply with your agent, understanding their role and the value they bring to your home-buying journey. This shift encourages informed decision-making and could lead to more personalized, high-quality services, as agents strive to demonstrate their worth.
For Sellers: A More Level Playing Field
Sellers, you’re not left out of this equation. The change could level the playing field, making the process fairer. You might find that the costs of selling your home become more predictable, and the overall market dynamics more balanced. However, sellers may experience a bit of ‘sticker shock’ initially. When selling, and basing the value of their home on recent sales, they will need to remember that those prior sale prices included the cost of the buyer’s agent. If now the buyer has to incur this cost, it will effectively add to the buyer’s overall expenses and, consequently, lower the perceived value of the home compared to listings where the seller paid the commission. In other words, sellers, you can’t have your cake and eat it too.
For Agents: A Call to Elevate Services
To the real estate professionals reading this: the proposed changes are a call to action. This is an opportunity to showcase the value and expertise you bring to the table. By focusing on quality service, specialization, and client satisfaction, you can navigate these changes successfully. Remember, a more informed consumer is an opportunity to build deeper, trust-based relationships.
A Forward-Looking Industry
Change is often accompanied by uncertainty, but it also brings growth and progress. As we navigate this evolving landscape, our focus remains on empowering you with information and insights. Whether you’re buying, selling, or simply exploring the market, remember: the value of a skilled real estate professional is undisputed. The right agent is your ally, advocate, and expert. If you are looking for such an agent, a good place to start is my firm, MORE, REALTORS® as those are the only kind of agents we surround ourselves with (shameless plug).
In the ever-shifting sands of the real estate market, timing can be the key to unlocking exceptional value. A recent comprehensive study by ATTOM Data Services, which analyzed over 47 million home sales, uncovers a surprising twist specific to the Missouri housing market. While the national trend leans towards October for optimal home buying, Missouri charts a different course, offering a unique window of opportunity for prospective buyers.
Discovering Missouri’s Seasonal Advantage
This extensive study paints a vivid picture of real estate trends, providing invaluable insights for both buyers and sellers. For Missouri, the findings point to December as a golden month for home purchasing, differing from the national trend. This divergence presents a strategic opportunity for buyers in the state to potentially secure better deals.
What This Means for St. Louis Home Buyers and Sellers
In the St. Louis real estate market, the latest data presents a compelling narrative for immediate buyer action. With December’s arrival, historically marked as the most advantageous month for home purchases in Missouri, buyers are positioned to capitalize on potentially lower prices. This trend aligns closely with the findings from my recent analysis on interest rates dropping to their lowest in over two months. Together, these factors create a prime environment for buyers in the current market. For sellers, this period warrants a strategic review to align with the unique opportunities that December offers.
Best Month to Buy a Home in Missouri
(click on chart for live, interactive chart)
