Justice Department goes after RE Brokers

Plus we have so many things to pay attention to now that no one pays attention to any one thing. 30_years, I am selling an apartment that I own (I am not the broker) and the attorneys sent me a contract for signing that had the wrong address on it.

And you wonder why I say more training? How do you fully negotiate terms if you don't even know what the elements of a contract are? When I was at Belmarc as part of the training we had to memorize the paragraphs in the standard Blumberg Coop contract.

Hours of study required in NY:

Series 7: 90 (plus probably other licenses)
Property insurance: 90
Masseuse: 1000
Barber: 540
Drivers license: 50 + classroom
Interior designer: 4 year degree + 3 years practical
Realtor: 77

One of these professions cuts hair, and one sells people the most expensive asset they'll ever buy.

Congrats on the (imminent) sale, FP!

TY nada! Halfway there...

I wonder if apprenticeships aren't better for many jobs. A year basic courses and then the rest of their time would be spent working with a lawyer, news organization, real estate agency or whatever. Abstract learning in a classroom is not necessarily the best way to learn everything. We've put so much emphasis on having a university degree for everyone that we've lost sight of what a those degrees were originally for- real acacemics not professionals. And in real estate I imagine a lot of the job is in building contacts. Anyway, my two cents...

https://quillette.com/2020/12/15/journalisms-ivory-towers/

It's interesting how many great journalists had very little formal education. It's possible that's the case for brokers, too - the best might have minimal formal training. And a 2 or 4 year degree wouldn't ensure they were good or even ethical. I don't think you can escape the very local and interpersonal nature of the RE business. (And why would we want to?)

MTH,
Take a look at the career track at many of the large commercial brokerage houses. Also see the progression in some teams in large residential brokerage firms (like shower, assistant, junior agent, etc)

@30yrs Do those roles teach apiring brokers the ropes through in service training? Or is it just a toehold in the industry and it's up to them to train up or quit (sink or swim)? It definitely sounds like the ranks of brokers are swollen. I just question whether requiring a 2 or 4 year degree is the answer. It might please higher education admin and banks offering gov't backed student loans but not sure it would solve the problem of too many brokers, at least not in the long term. It might also lead to many defaults along the way, particularly for young and dynamic working class people.

In some societies (Germany?) the government actively subsidizes small businesses that want to mentor young talent. The aspiring broker takes a short course, a pass or fail test, interivews with firms and they're in or they're not. There might be tests they have to take later as well, not really sure. This isn't for RE as far as I know, but could be.

If real estate transaction representation becomes as competitive as people fear, it's going to lead to a million surplus agents competing for the bottom dollar the way rental agents already compete in NY. Then we might see calls for enhanced licensure requirements to get rid of the riff-raff and protect the pay of the better agents. Or we might see a two tier system formalized where lower tier helpers can only do showings or schedule meetings, and licensed agents who have 4+ years of experience do the presentation of offers and closings. This already exists but it might become more formal.

Curious, how would you define a "better agent?" Over 35 years I've worked at 4 major real estate firms in New York City. The reality, real estate agents, are commissioned sales people that only get paid when a sale takes place. I've very rarely come across, if ever, an agent that was discouraging a buyer or a seller from transacting. Or telling them they'd be better off renting than buying based on the poor returns of New York City real estate versus the stock market.

Analyzing a purchase of a residential home in New York City (or anywhere) is pretty straightforward. However, we're prohibited from giving legal opinions/ advice, We must tread lightly when commenting on neighborhoods, can't discuss schools with clients. That's why we just drill down on data, and talk about the liquidity of one neighborhood versus another. Even co-op financial statements are more or less straightforward, one of the people on my team has a degree in accounting. I think it's a overblown to equate the purchase price of a home with the actual complexity of the transaction. I think to buy or not to buy is the bigger, and possibly the more important question (not just an individual property, in general).

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Except Keith, you're on the boards with 30, who routinely tells people not to buy.

As someone who does more buying and selling on my own account than brokerage it's fairly straightforward for me: I tell them exactly what I am doing personally and I have a clear conscience. Having bought and sold hundreds of pieces I have a lot better sense of what buyers and sellers are going through as opposed to.... say.... someone who says "it's always a good time to buy" but AFAIK has never bought a single piece of property in NYC and doesn't even live here.

Coop financial statements are so straightforward that after reading one someone couldn't tell that the Coop owned the retail space and that's why the maintenance was so low.

MTH,
When I speak of education requirements I am speaking of specifically in Real Estate not general. I don't care if someone has a PhD in Physics or even a BS.

George,
It has been expressed numerous times by posters here that "all brokers are the same" and my personal attempts to refute that have been mostly met with derision. Y'all get the agents you deserve.

And by that I mean the one's who look good on Reality TV and dance the best on TikTok.

I have to say everyone on this board sounds exceptionally fair minded and ethical. I don't know if that is reflective of the NY RE industry in general, but you all sound committed to best interests of your customers even if it means not making an honest buck. I don't know what to say - it's humbling.

Here's an early discussion regarding real estate commissions. Although the times has written quite a few pieces going all the way back to the 80s regarding the commission structure in New York City and civilians or professionals trying to bring some new ideas to the table, mostly unsuccessfully.

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/30/realestate/30cov.html

Is RealDirect still in business?

I think Doug may have sold it? And that was quite a while ago, I just don't remember the details.

As prices have skyrocketed holding fast to 6% makes less and less sense. In my mind certainly anything $10 million and over doesn't need to be paying that much to properly incentivize me to work on the deal. In my career I've sold over 100 deals where my compensation after cobroke, split, etc was under $1,000. Although admittedly today I wouldn't work on deals at those numbers.

This is an issue because buyer's brokers want to get paid and the buyer doesn't want to do it. Leave it to the real estate industry to obfuscate a payment. This should have always been a cash payment between the seller and his personal broker. The court ruling was absolutely the correct one. If the broker working on behalf of the buyer received value there shouldn't be a question about paying. The current arrangement is rife with conflicts of interest and that's exactly what's been going on.

I'd bet a large amount of money that if buyers have to pay their own brokers that almost all of them will make the decision on price alone. Someone will charge $100 per transaction to do nothing other than a rubber stamp signature and get the majority of the business. And the result will be the exact opposite of the intent of having both parties "represented."

Correction:

This is an issue because buyer's brokers want to get paid and the buyer doesn't want to do it. Leave it to the real estate industry to obfuscate a payment. This should have always been a cash payment between the BUYER and his personal broker. The court ruling was absolutely the correct one. If the broker working on behalf of the buyer received value there shouldn't be a question about paying. The current arrangement is rife with conflicts of interest and that's exactly what's been going on.

I see significant added value in what a buyer's broker brings. People should be ready to pay for it. One thing most buyers have no way of knowing is what was really paid for a place and what was really paid for similar places and and whether it was all cash or financed, whether there were closing credits or similar rebates and for how much. A 'good' broker would also know market conditions at the time of previous sales on the place under consideration and similar places all sold at various times. Were there bidding wars at the time? Was it stagnant? How long was it (and were similar places) on the market? How many offers did they receive? What kind of board is it? I'd go with local knowledge and local experience, be ready to pay for it and trust I was dealing with an honest person - there's no way around that. How you put a price on that I do not know but it's not like waiting on a table.

MTH,

Not sure if any Licensed Real Estate Sales Person (that is the official job function but commonly known as Broker or agent) can meet the standard below unless they were party in the actual transactions. In addition, for most (90% plus) of the transacations, public recorded price is what the real transaction price is in NYC.

Assuming you don't get the above information, what are you willing to pay for say $400k-$500k transaction as a buyer? And how much of that upfront to an agent whether you do buy or not?

Fundamental issue is that a lot of potential buyers don't buy or buy from the same agent whose services they may have used to look at the apartments they didn't buy and actual buyer effectively pays for the free loading of lookers but non-buyers / non-buyers via a particular agent (perfectly legal). Technically, it is not that different from retail where there are a lot of window shoppers or people who go to physical retail to look and use services of retail sales person to understand the product and then buy from the internet.

-----
One thing most buyers have no way of knowing is what was really paid for a place and what was really paid for similar places and and whether it was all cash or financed, whether there were closing credits or similar rebates and for how much.

Some general observations / opinions across industries:

To contrast, you go to a lawyer as an normal individual (not very wealthy), they will consult with you for 30 minutes for free but after that they want to get paid.

So the success based payment model to brokers in real estate leads to certain undesirable behaviors and high commissions/transaction fees just like it does in investment banking M&A and Underwriting.

To be clear, I mean undesirable behaviors by service provides/brokers not the Customers/Clients who are just using the services at whichever payment structure the service provider has decided to provide them. A service provider has a choice not to be in that industry if they don't like the compensation structure.

>>> How do you fully negotiate terms if you don't even know what the elements of a contract are?

They dont: “your atty will do due diligence and the contract.”

Buyer's don't mind using a broker because they think its free and coming out of the seller's commission. Whether the buyer's broker provides value is up to the customer. One could argue it's a time saver. The information provided is largely publicly available, it just takes time.

The court ruling in my opinion is the correct one. the buyer should be required to pay the broker representing him directly. Anything else is obfuscation of a transaction and creates conflicts of interest.

I totally disagree with this. While it does apply to a large number of agents, those are the bad agents. Good agents supply insight and analysis on data. The differentiation in agents comes on everything else besides publicly available information.

Here is and example:
I am working with a buyer who has been looking on and off for a couple of years. She really began looking in earnest this past May because she has to close on the units by April 2024. Back in August she found a unit she was interested in and made an offer. We went back and forth and ended up $50,000 apart. She really liked the unit so she asked if she should just pay what their bottom line was.

I told her it was totally up to her, but that I thought that the market wasn't going anywhere and that if she waited until after Thanksgiving, and the unit was still on the market, that most brokers would have a "come to Jesus" meeting with their sellers after Thanksgiving telling them that they they need to reduce the price to take the unit off the market.

There was a rather substantial price drop after Thanksgiving. We are now in contract for $10,000 less than her previous offer. So listening to my advice saved this buyer $60,000 which is 8% of the purchase price.

I'm not sure how many other brokers would have done this. Of course, she could have used a discount broker and been in contract for $810,000 - 2% = $793,800 instead of $750,000.

Which one do we think was a better choice?

I wonder what Keith would have done in this situation?

@300 Oh interesting. No way to tell then. I guess all that is confidential.
If the actual sales price is usually what it says on the label, the value a broker brings comes with telling a buyer what the price should be more or less given the building, the area, the market, when to hold and when to fold and how to work with a given board. I'd always assumed I was paying ~3% of the sales price in a roundabout way. The incentive of the broker (higher sales price) is inverse to the buyer's interest (lower sales price) so you just have to find someone you can trust.

But what would you pay as a buyer directly to your broker on closing rather than property seller paying your broker? And how much of that would you be willing to pay upfront when the broker starts to work with you?

You can safely assume that in 90% plus cases, brokers claiming inside info, which can/will never be verified, is just BS in property sales price disclosure state.

Wow, y'all hang onto your delusions so tightly that you won't even acknowledge anything which challenges them.

@300 - I'd pay 3% at closing - that seems fair. Upfront? I don't know. I don't feel I need a broker to look at places. It's only once I've found an apartment, building and neighborhood that seem like a place to call home that the broker's knowledge and experience come into play. Hopefully the broker knows, given the state of the market and comparables whether it's fair value or not. If he feels there's room for negotiation, he can help out there. If he thinks it's better to hold off, he can advise me to do so. How did this go from $352K in Jan 22 to $385 today, for example? https://streeteasy.com/sale/1561064 A broker could give me a leg up.

MTH, 3 percent is pretty good. Call it $10-15k. You should be able to get comps, market color, negotiation, and property specific questions answered for that amount.

I wonder if that assessment got folded into the maintenance?

>>I'm not sure how many other brokers would have done this. Of course, she could have used a discount broker and been in contract for $810,000 - 2% = $793,800 instead of $750,000.
>> I wonder what Keith would have done in this situation?

In 2020 a discount broker advised me against overpaying and buying anywhere close to asking prices in Murray Hill, and recommended avoiding some other areas of Manhattan all together (because in their view they were overpriced). Some people are just honest brokers. Also, those that have discount pricing/high volume business model might have very good insights on where values are (and how low some sellers might be willing to go) at cookie cutter coop or condo apartments, especially when compared with high touch but low deal volume brokers.

>>MTH, 3 percent is pretty good. Call it $10-15k. You should be able to get comps, market color, negotiation, and property specific questions answered for that amount.

I feel like you should be able to get that for much less. You definitely do get a lot more for a lot less in the rest of the country (where the fee is less because property prices are much lower).

And pulling comps on an apartment in Manhattan is usually particularly easy, because the same building or a couple of neighboring buildings are almost guaranteed to have few similar transactions. Much easier than finding comps for a house, where there are so many more variables.

>>How did this go from $352K in Jan 22 to $385 today, for example? https://streeteasy.com/sale/1561064

@MTH Maybe it did not. An asking price could be aspirational, not reflective of current value. Sellers are very averse to losses. In my observation, in a down market they tend to list at least for what they bought a unit for, plus broker fee (rather than what the value is as supported by comps).

As an example, I put in a bid below ask on a certain unit in my building as supported by comps, and got a very negative reaction from seller, as they paid more for the unit few years ago (and the unit was listed for what they paid + broker fee). On the other hand, I put a similar bid on another unit, and the offer got accepted, as this was an estate sale and the seller was not anchored to a price not supported by current market conditions/comps.

@Krolik - That makes sense - so maybe a case of aspirational pricing.

One thing I notice: on the same page it says 'Recorded sale $353,500 sold on 1/04/22' and, below, under 'Property History' that sale isn't mentioned. Is that just an oversight by the seller's broker? Do seller's brokers edit that data?

"In 2020 a discount broker advised me against overpaying and buying anywhere close to asking prices in Murray Hill, and recommended avoiding some other areas of Manhattan all together "

So your "honest broker" broke the law. It's called "steering."

"I feel like you should be able to get that for much less"

Finally we agree on something. If all your broker is providing you with is data, you can get all the data you want over at Urban Digs for less than $100/months. As I said, smart money pays for deal making not data. But when you think you know everything, you won't pay for that. You also think you're getting a 2% discount when you are actually overpaying by 5.5%

@30 @Krolik So what you're really paying for is a skilled negotiator - someone to bargain. That's what I hear you saying and that certainly makes sense.

Is it true you can add renovations you want to make to the equation when negotiating? Most or many places have been overrenovated, imo. Or are in need of extra counter space in the kitchen. I guess there's the potential that proposed renovations be taken as an affront by the person who made those changes (the owner).

In any case, it will be intersting to see how things change. Maybe buyers brokers will be open to being paid an hourly rate, like lawyers? Or something up front (deal or no deal) + a bonus for a successful closing? I guess we'll see how it all shakes out.

Yes, I'm sure the seller will be happy to conclude a deal when you stomp through the place and say "I wouldn't use this kitchen to prepare poisoned cat food, and I will be banished from society if that powder room isn't gutted and properly decorated." This is what the buyers broker is for: translating that into a conversation with the sellers broker: "The buyer is interested, but the place isn't quite a match for what she really wants, but she might be persuaded if there's some negotiating room on price."

Where I get stuck on buyer broker fees is the link to sales price: Is anybody really working much harder on a $5m unit vs a $3m unit?

Maybe all the preliminary work should be by the hour: random questions / education, attending open houses, views on market / neighborhood / building: pay by the hour. Finalizing a transaction, fee dependent on the building: Ordinary transaction (simple building, ordinary renovation, not-too-fussy board): $10k fee, regardless of unit. Complicated building (stuffy coop, unusual financials, unique unit and will require work arounds during reno, difficult board: $30k fee.

@Aaron - I think the challenge would be a mutually agreeable definition of "easy vs fussy" which is why price ends up serving as a simple proxy. Another option would be a condo/coop toggle since that's a bigger difference than trying to define if a given coop will be "ordinary" or "complicated" up front.

And then beyond a listed price, everything is negotiable. Of course, if you are hiring a buyers broker to negotiate on your behalf.. good luck negotiating with them on pricing? I mean, if you out negotiate them maybe you should negotiate the price on the apartment yourself too?

>So your "honest broker" broke the law. It's called "steering."

Based on price / price trend.

We have assisted a few buyers where the seller was not offering a commission. We start at 1%, this includes consulting on board application, valuation report, negotiation, on site visit to properties you're interested in bidding on. Also access to our team of professionals: bankers, attorneys and other home professionals. And regardless of how you engage us, we never accept gifts or referral fees from any of the professionals we refer. We charge a flat rate of $3000 for complete board package services.

It will be interesting to see how much the real estate brokerage industry changes due to these lawsuits. And here in New York how the changes rebny has initiated will affect our industry here? Especially when the market starts to improve.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Keith, Seems like a good model. Clear and upfront. Let the consumer decide.

I'm trying to wrap my head around disaggregation pricing, and failing. So on a $500K apartment, the buyer's brokerage fees are $5K plus $3K for the board package? I fear that would lead me to want to discourage buyers from certain buildings altogether, which would itself be legally problematic. It seems one thing to say, "well, you might want to avoid that building because the board is historically very stringent, and that makes it tough to resell" and another think to say, "well, you might want to avoid that building, because getting you in is going to be a greater than $8K headache that I don't want."

Ali, What does the buying broker get in a typical transaction right now from the commission split from such a transaction?

I really don't see buyers of $500k deals béing willing to pay $3k for board package.

Perhaps that will lead boards to competing for who's the easiest not the hardest. Some of these condo boards think they're coops, requiring multiple letters of reference, bank references, a million forms, tons of financials, etc. When buyers start haggling sellers to reduce price bc their realtor starts charging too much to do the damn board package or charges by the hour, maybe Boards will get the picture. One can hope.

300, typically 50% of commission (so if that were 5 or 6%, that would be 2.5% or 3%) goes to the buying brokerage. For antitrust reasons, the REBNY co-broke agreement does not dictate that the split be 50/50, but it often is. (The local custom is very different in, say, Nassau, where the split is weighted towards the seller's broker.)

And then the buyer's "broker," who is usually actually a "licensed salesperson" (since the title "broker" has a specific meaning) has a negotiated split of the house cut, which varies in usually a 40%-90% range.

I don't have any salespeople; I don't know what Keith pays his. So let's just use 60%, because that's a somewhat typical split. (Although again, the house might charge fees out of that, per transaction, or make the salesperson pay some/all marketing costs, some fee for E&O insurance. The last deal I did, the salespeople were complaining that their brokerage house was squeezing them on fees and costs...everyone's a little different.)

Anyway, you might be looking at 60% of $8K in the hypothetical disaggregated model above, so $4,800, vs. $7,500 - $9,000 in the "older" model. One could also imagine a "brave new world" model where buyer's brokerage gets less than 50% of the total commission split but the splits with the house stay the same.

The point is to come up with a fee structure that can be tailored to the customer, so it's not violating antitrust laws, while allowing the people who work in real estate to make a living.

The Dilbert cartoon, "what the customers want is better products for free" comes to mind here...

ali r.
{upstairs realty}

I think there's some confusion here, this thread has gone off in so many directions, I haven't read everything. My last post was referring to a question regarding what would you pay a buyer agent if they are not automatically compensated as they are today under the MLS/Rebny co-brokerage agreements.

The 1%, we would charge buyers includes consulting on the board package. This is the fee we would charge buyers in a world where sellers are no longer automatically compensating buyer agents. Today this happens very infrequently, however, we have been asked by buyers to provide standalone services on a few deals due to specifics circumstances. However, based on current legal action, perhaps this will be part of the landscape in the future, where sellers don't automatically compensate buyer agents. So in that world I think there would be a few options: if you want a buyer agent you pay them directly, or when you submit an offer, you ask for compensation for the buyer agent in the terms. Or you simply forgo a buyer agent all together.

The $3,000 fee for board package preparation is a standalone separate service. This is meant for buyers who have not engaged an agent in their purchase, however would like an agent too prepare their board package with them. We have been contacted by buyers requesting this service.

Under our typical buyer broker representation where we offer commission rebates, we include full board package preparation along with providing commission rebates that range from 50, 60 and 67% of the commission we receive back to the buyer.

@ali not sure what you mean by steering people away from certain listings? When we represent buyers, we do not do search or provide listings for clients to view, this is the only service we don't provide as buy side agents. I would say 100% of the clients that call us are not interested in having an agent send them listings for various reasons.

Ultimately, the purpose of my business model has been to offer flexibility and optionality to buyers and sellers without compromising service. This is easy to do in a city where prices are exceptionally high along with high commissions. Since I don't have to share a large portion of the commission with 'my broker', It can be allocated back to our buyer/ seller clients.

As I've said many times, this particular model has worked very well for us over the last 14 years. We don't criticize other agents or brokers, there's simply more than one way to skin a cat as they say. This particular model has worked well for us and our clients as evidenced by the growth in our business over the years. We're here to offer an alternative way to transact for both buyers and sellers.

Anyway, I'm not really checking in here that often. And it's easy to lose track of what's being said. There are a bit more details on our website.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG
www.theburkhardtgroup.com

I'm currently working with a buyer who told me she knew what she was looking for and I didn't need to send her listings. After 2 months of not finding what she was looking for I started sending her listings. We are now in contract on one of the listings I sent her.

Buyers telling agents not to send them listings are like attorneys representing themselves.

Or medical patients diagnosing themselves by surfing the Internet.

as a homeowner and an active buyer in current market, I want to add some of my thoughts: the embedded forced commission split for buyer agent does not make sense to me. If I am a buyer that know what I want (which building, which block, which apartment), understand building financials, not new to the targeted market, have long term relationship of real estate lawyer than can do due diligence, I should have the flexibility to get a cheap buyer broker to submit an offer or even self represent in some case. If I am a buyer that need hand holding for every steps, by all means the buyer can hire the best buyer agent that helps him to do everything and pay a coast that over the split commission if he wants.

Sean, you do have that flexibility. You can self-represent, submit an offer, and ask that the commission be reduced by the amount that a buyer's broker would be paid, and let the seller and the listing agent decide what they want to do.

Exactly: That is what the lawsuit is about. Buyers should pay directly even though that is not happening any time soon as seller is still and will be allowed to pay the buyer’s broker.

“
the embedded forced commission split for buyer agent does not make sense to me.”

as far as I am aware, that is not an accepted practice in current market, as soon as the listing agent sees I have no buyer broker, they hand me the duel agent form.

The seller's agent will do everything in their power to prevent that:

"You can self-represent, submit an offer, and ask that the commission be reduced by the amount that a buyer's broker would be paid, and let the seller and the listing agent decide what they want to do."

The law really should be changed so that buyer should pay their own broker/licensed sales person, otherwise there is a conflict of interest between who pays and who the broker/licensed sales person is supposed to represent. I don't see that happening.

@keith your model seems way more affordable than what I've been led to expect which is more like 3%

Here's another rookie question (and thanks for indulging me): what % of coops for sale appear on Zillow/SE? I've assumed it's a 95% apart from the odd private sale.

@MTH: (# co-ops on SE): I'd say it's 95% of all sales. The other 5% is either "never listed because e.g., 'a neighbor bought out a neighbor' or 'family member bought out family member'" - true private sales - or "never listed because broker who got listing had a ready buyer and so didn't need to list".

Sean, you should just be able to ask "what's your commission if I have a broker? What's your commission if I'm unrepresented? If I'm unrepresented, can I lower my offer by the difference?", but if you are discouraged from asking the counter to that (and I've seen this plenty) is to bring in a family member/friend who's an NYS lawyer and therefore automatically a broker, and to have them hand you the buyer's broker commission.

> but if you are discouraged from asking the counter to that (and I've seen this plenty)

should people be buying in New York if they can't advocate for themselves?

@ front _porch, I never met any listing agent who transparently discuss with me on their commission or commission split with me, they always tell me either I bring a buyer broker, or they become duel agent automatically, in one case, I even tried to give two offers at same time, a higher offer with no buyer broker, and a lower offer with a buyer broker ( said can give me some portion back by rebate ), this way the seller and seller broker can decide for themselves, however this innovative ideal seems make the listing agent very irritated, considering she is also a gate keeper of the deal, I eventually gave up and offered without buyer agent. I did not get the apartment for some other reasons, but that was my closest try to challenge this stupid system.

the reality is a bit more complex than that, at one case, I even tried to give two offers , one offer higher but without buyer broker, another offer lower with a buyer offer ( that said can give me some rebate), because I dont know if

Ali,
Do you think a listing agent has a legal obligation under licensing rules to answer below to an individual buyer? I would think they don't as the individual buyer is not a party to the listing agreement between the seller and their agent. The commission arrangements between seller and the selling agent beyond what a buying agent will get don't even need to be legally disclosed to the buyer's licensed agent.

-----------------
Sean, you should just be able to ask "what's your commission if I have a broker? What's your commission if I'm unrepresented? "

@sean @300 if you don't know anyone with access to the RLS, streeteasy lists the buy side commission. But you need to have a broker account.

Sean definitely hits the nail on the head, it's not so seamless as a buyer to get an automatic discount because you're not represented. Also, bringing in a friend that's an attorney is not a guarantee. I've spoken with many clients that have tried to do this as attorneys themselves/with friend and received a great deal of animosity from many of the listing agents. The other issue with this approach, most attorneys are not members of the real estate board of New York. So listing agents (that are) are not obligated to share the commission with non-rebny members. So it gets a little sticky.

Starting January 1st, the universal cobrokerage agreement (UCBA) is changing the language regarding how commissions are paid. However, I don't think it will change how non REBNY agents are dealt with.

Keith Burkhardt
TBG

Keith I don't know what listing agents you're dealing with. I have some clients who use me to sell but not to buy, but I do hear their buy-side stories, and they've never had problems.

"How will the ruling affect your business?
I ultimately think that it doesn’t overall."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/16/luxury-real-estate-agent-nar-settlement/