“…NAR’s MLS policy requires participants to communicate an offer of compensation to other MLS participants and that offer can be any amount, including $0. And to be clear, NAR is not requiring nor encouraging MLSs to change their data fields to permit $0. We are simply advising that doing so would continue to comply with NAR’s MLS policy.” – KJ
So the new definition of participation in an MLS means cooperating around the unilateral offer of compensation which may equal zero. Am I wrong or does an offer of compensation equaling zero mean that you are not cooperating?
I mean, “zero is a number” is a deft, slight-of-hand, quick and easy answer. I like it. I also expect exactly nothing to happen when we change it from requiring a number and not. It is my assertion that Listing Brokers offer compensation for same reason Willy Nelson says divorce is so expensive: because its worth the money.
@Matt Fowler. The thing is, it’s a mandatory offer of “compensation.” Not a mandatory offer of “a number.” While zero is a number, it is not compensation.
My favorite line from companies that offer zero cooperating payout is “We respect your relationship with your client” in general I’d say this whole situation is a good reminder about the importance of a buyer representation agreement
I also strongly agree with Matt’s statement above. As a listing agent, would you want to vet 20+ buyers and coordinate all the showings on your listings? or would you rather cooperate with other agents that will bring their buyers through and share a portion of the commission agreed upon by the seller?
The NWMLS is certainly a good case study on what might happen
Comments are closed.
About The Site
Greg Robertson has been listed both on the Inman 100, an annual list of the most influential leaders in real estate, and the Swanepoel 200, an annual list of the most powerful people in real estate for 5 years in a row
I’m going to infer from this that Rapattoni held firm on the ransomware.
“…NAR’s MLS policy requires participants to communicate an offer of compensation to other MLS participants and that offer can be any amount, including $0. And to be clear, NAR is not requiring nor encouraging MLSs to change their data fields to permit $0. We are simply advising that doing so would continue to comply with NAR’s MLS policy.” – KJ
“Never settle!” – Harvey Spector
So the new definition of participation in an MLS means cooperating around the unilateral offer of compensation which may equal zero. Am I wrong or does an offer of compensation equaling zero mean that you are not cooperating?
Seems like NAR has either changed its position or trying its hand at revisionist history.
I mean, “zero is a number” is a deft, slight-of-hand, quick and easy answer. I like it. I also expect exactly nothing to happen when we change it from requiring a number and not. It is my assertion that Listing Brokers offer compensation for same reason Willy Nelson says divorce is so expensive: because its worth the money.
@Matt Fowler. The thing is, it’s a mandatory offer of “compensation.” Not a mandatory offer of “a number.” While zero is a number, it is not compensation.
“One is the loneliest number” – Harry Nilsson
Is Zero the new loneliest number?
My favorite line from companies that offer zero cooperating payout is “We respect your relationship with your client” in general I’d say this whole situation is a good reminder about the importance of a buyer representation agreement
I also strongly agree with Matt’s statement above. As a listing agent, would you want to vet 20+ buyers and coordinate all the showings on your listings? or would you rather cooperate with other agents that will bring their buyers through and share a portion of the commission agreed upon by the seller?
The NWMLS is certainly a good case study on what might happen