This Insta was pretty funny.
Industry Relations Podcast: Bravery and Impact of the MLS
Have you been keeping up with the latest updates in MLS policies? Rob and Greg break down the key details of Bright MLS’s clear cooperation policy and NWMLS’s decision not to remove compensation data from their system. But it doesn’t stop there. They also dive into the potential legal consequences for fair housing violations and federal antitrust claims.
They also touch on the Department of Justice’s involvement, implications for the industry, and potential risks for Northwest MLS and other players in the market.
Watch us on YouTube!
Connect with Rob and Greg:
Our Sponsors:
This podcast is produced by Two Brothers Creative 2024.
CRMLS first out of the gate with new “concessions in price” fields
“In 2023, nearly 40% of CRMLS’s Closed listings included concessions, i.e., monetary payments that a seller agrees to contribute towards the buyer’s expenses and other costs a buyer is responsible for in the transaction. Historically, concessions were only included in Closed listings. The new CiP fields will provide concession information at the listing level and be directly available in the MLS, so seller agents can fill them out when adding a listing. CiP fields will benefit all parties as those on the selling side can more easily market listings while those on the buying side receive a clearer idea of financial options.”
CRMLS
CRMLS has taken the leadership position on these “CiP” fields. Very smart of them to launch prior to the deadline. This will give them some real world experience on implementation and make necessary adjustments if need be.
NWMLS stands tall
NWMLS Leads the Industry in Providing Consumers with Transparency, Choice and Options to Negotiate
“NAR’s removal of compensation transparency from the MLS pushes consumers and brokers to make secret deals off MLS, inviting deceptive practices, discrimination and unfair housing. Depriving buyers of information about the transaction risks harming buyers, especially those buyers who are already disadvantaged, including first-time home buyers and members of protected classes. Prohibiting offers of compensation in the MLS also unnecessarily restrains the seller’s choice and absolute right to offer compensation to a brokerage firm representing the buyer. “
NWMLS
Bravo!
T3 Sixty will not publish 2024 rankings of brokerages
Prudent.
Another miss
Anybody else getting a ton of calls/texts/forwards from your “non-real estate” friends about the NAR settlement? My friends are saying that a lot of their social media feeds are crazy with anti-REALTOR messages. Mostly in their social media feeds, with a ton of memes and “quick takes”. I think all of us are still digesting these changes but in the end as Redfin CEO, Glenn Kelman wrote in a recent blog post (NAR Settlement: Kaboom!) “…perception is reality…”
“Even if the letter of the settlement allows for cooperation, how the settlement is perceived may still re-shape agent attitudes about cooperation, and consumer attitudes about fees. The result could be that agent-to-agent cooperation on fees is weakened but not killed. “
Glenn Kelman, Redfin
I want to say upfront that I think NAR did a tremendous job on the settlement for their membership. But, and I may be beating a dead horse here, this feels like another miss in messaging/marketing from NAR. Based on what I’ve seen on Twitter and elsewhere NAR took everyone by surprise, even at their own event, AEI.
How about pumping the brakes a bit? Create some good content that puts a positive spin on things. Give all those assets to share with your local MLS and associations (so they can pass it on) and mirror that with some sort of nationwide “we hear you” campaign.
But releasing the news when all of their association leadership was offsite? Plus, has anyone seen anyone from NAR in the national news?
WTF?
NAR settles….
Powerful Realtor Group Agrees to Slash Commissions to Settle Lawsuits
“The settlement includes many significant rule changes. It bans N.A.R. from establishing any sort of rules that would allow a seller’s agent to set compensation for a buyer’s agent, a practice that critics say has long led to “steering,” in which buyers’ agents direct their clients to pricier homes in a bid to collect a bigger commission check.
And on the online databases used to buy and sell homes, the M.L.S., the settlement requires that any fields displaying broker compensation be eliminated entirely. It also places a blanket ban on the longtime requirement that agents subscribe to multiple listing services in the first place in order to offer or accept compensation for their work.”
Debra Kamin, New York Times
Story is developing. I’ll try and get more details.
Industry Relations Podcast: DOJ Drops Statement of Interest in the Nosalek Case
What impact will the Department of Justice’s stance on the MLS settlement have on the future of buying and selling houses? In this important episode of “Industry Relations,” Rob and Greg talk about a big message from the Department of Justice (DOJ) about the MLS PIN settlement. The DOJ seems to want the court to say no to the settlement. Selling agents might not make as much money as before, and buyers agents might need to show why they’re worth their commission more than ever. It’s time to start thinking about how we can prepare for change and innovate new approaches in serving buyers and seller.
Watch us on YouTube!
Connect with Rob and Greg:
Our Sponsors:
This podcast is produced by Two Brothers Creative 2024.
DOJ urges industry to make a clean cut. Wants Buyers to negotiate compensation directly with their agent.
0290.-02-15-2024-AMICUS-BRIEF-filed-by-UNITED-STATES-OF-AMERICA-Statement-of-Interest-of-the-United-StatesDownload
Well we were all speculating whether or not the DOJ would give any clear direction on how they picture compensation to be handled thru the MLS. The DOJ did, and it’s a whooper. Basically they don’t think reducing offers of compensation down to zero matter at all. They want the industry to make a full break from seller setting the buyers agent commission at all. And site “steering” as a concern. So, more like a commercial model. This is something listeners of Industry Relations have heard Rob Hahn echo since the beginning, that steering was the main issue.
In a huge surprise this “Statement of Interest” references the Industry Relations podcast and Rob, myself and Ed Zorn directly,
“Rob Hahn & Greg Robertson interviewing Ed Zorn (VP & General Counsel atCalifornia Regional MLS), Burnett v. NAR: The Lawsuit That Could Upend the Housing Market, Industry Relations (Oct. 18, 2023), starting at 43:40, www.youtube.com/watch?v=pw39NB3w_0o&t=11s (“You do realize under this system (of the seller paying the buyer’s agent directly inside the contract) you do realize a closing statement at a title company or an escrow company looks 100% identical as it does today. With both commissions on the seller side. Nothing changes. The only thing that changes is the number that shows up for the buyer’s agent in that closing statement was negotiated between the buyer directly and the buyer’s agent and had nothing to do with the seller or the listing agent. That’s the one thing that’s different.”
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES, Department of Justice (DOJ)
I’m not sure whether to be honored or scared shitless that the DOJ listens to our podcast!
For clarity I’ve embedded the YouTube video so that you can see what the DOJ was referencing on our podcast, I started it a bit earlier so you can get some context ( I also think this is good primer to understand what the DOJ is asking for.)
Rob and I record our Industry Relations podcast today at 10AM. Should be a good.
HomeServices wants SCOTUS to decide
HomeServices wants US Supreme Court to weigh Sitzer | Burnett case
“On Friday, Feb. 2, HomeServices of America filed a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a “writ of certiorari,” asking the court to review an August ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirming a lower district court ruling that HomeServices can’t enforce arbitration agreements signed by seller clients of its franchisees because the contracts the sellers signed were not directly with HomeServices.”
Andrea Bramila, Inman News
Interesting angle. Doesn’t really go to the heart of the case, but more that they, (HSofA) shouldn’t be included in the case at all.
