What if?
Seems like it’s at least possible at this point that buyer agency could cease to exist in the next year or two. A lot of people make the majority of their income from working with buyers.
What if there was no more need for buyer agency?1
Maybe the seller could save 2-3%. I’m of the mind that it would mean they’d get less activity on the property, at least until if/when this became the norm. Then, maybe, buyers will have found a more direct way to find the home and then the listing agent would benefit. But even then, if the listing broker can’t represent the buyer (or doesn’t want. to because they’re not incentivized and they’re otherwise just incurring more liability), who helps them negotiate? Even if a seller did have multiple buyers wanting to buy their house, how would those buyers negotiate well on their own behalf without representation? The listing broker can’t do it without establishing Dual Agency (permissable in NH), and I know I wouldn’t want to without money to justify both the work and the risk.
Maybe everyone will just have to hire attorneys on the buyer side.
The prevailing argument of the class-action lawsuits is that sellers had to unjustly pay for buyer agency, and that the fees paid for buyer agency were inflated and that the whole situation was anticompetitive.
From my perspective and that of many people I know, buyer agency was effectively a marketing expense for sellers. Anywhere (formerly Realogy) settled for north of $80m, and ReMax settled for around $55, but NAR, Home Services, and Keller Williams have yet to settle.
If buyer agency continues to diminish, it’s going to make for an interesting world in the real estate industry.
There is already a glut of agents that are picking up one deal here, two deals there. But when you factor in how many of those agents there are (many), it becomes easy to see how they affect the bottom line for everyone else who does this to make a living.
The end-result situation of no buyer agency could potentially be more lucrative for listing agents, even if the double-siding transactions goes away. Listing agents would be more likely to secure representation of the sale of the buyers’ homes and that would yield more business. Having to work both sides of a transaction (even if the buyer is self-represented) means more work overall.
I don’t think the industry is so unsophistocated to let buyer agency fall between the cracks without some company rolling in to disrupt the real estate industry even more with some “solution” to the problem. This could get worse before it gets better though, for people in the industry as well as for the consumer.
It will be interesting to see how things play out. I’m not sure whether articulating a really great buyer agency value proposition is going to cut it for buyer agents. Money talks and bullshit runs the marathon, as Nino Brown said in New Jack City. If buyers have to come out of pocket for $8-$10k on a $400,000 purchase (or $4-6k on a $200,000 purchase), they might decide not to come out of pocket at all.
- I think the need is there until something better replaces it, but from the consumer’s perspective, if the seller can save money by not paying out buyer agency and still sell their house, then I think they’re going to see it as unnecessary. It’s up to us to accentuate the value of having buyer agents because of their incentive to bring qualified buyers to the listing in the first place. ↩︎