Commissions Come Under Fire In 2024

nicolebeauchamp

Well-known member
New commission lawsuit targets REBNY and 26 NYC firms...

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member
Almost all Real Estate brokers trade organizations have made it clear the represent Seller's Brokers. It's been apparent for quite a while that there is a need for more equality for Buyer's representation. When Department of state came out heavily against "dual agency" and supported Buyer's Brokers with alternative commission models the writing was on the wall. But like with most things REBNY/NAR/etc the guy reaction is "my way or the highway."
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Here’s how the Sitzer verdict could hit NYC resi commissions​

Rising scrutiny on compensation arrangements could reshape payments everywhere
The verdict last week in a Kansas City class-action case has the potential to shake up New York City’s residential brokerage community.
The jury in the Sitzer/Burnett antitrust lawsuit zeroed in on the National Association of Realtors’ Cooperative Compensation Rule requiring a seller’s agent to make a commission offer to a buyer’s agent in exchange for listing service access. The defendants were found guilty of colluding to keep commissions high and ordered to pay $1.78 billion in damages.

The judge still has to issue a final decision in the case, leaving its implications for the industry group’s regulations unclear, but the trial triggered a change before it even began. NAR backed off its previous interpretation of the rule, changing it to require listing agents to “communicate an offer of compensation to other MLS participants and that offer can be any amount, including $0.”
However, commentary by the Department of Justice on a similar case in New England suggests it won’t be that simple for industry groups to comply with antitrust laws, and larger changes are likely coming for buy-side broker commissions.

Residential sales data analyzed by Crain’s sized up the billions of dollars in commissions in the Big Apple, which could be at stake if the legal action succeeds in prompting rule changes around compensation and Realtor-owned listing services.
The specific amount of commissions paid in New York City is difficult to glean. The Consumer Federation of America, however, said last year that brokers typically receive between 2 percent and 6 percent of the total home purchase price from sales in the city. There were $30.3 billion in sales reported from Oct. 11, 2022 to the same date this year.
Taking the low end of that range, estimated commission fees across Manhattan, Brooklyn and Queens could total up to $1.2 billion in the past year, including $607 million in Manhattan alone. The upper end of that range brings the total estimated commission fees across the three boroughs up to $3.5 billion. Again, that’s just for a single year.

New York’s brokerages may not need to fret yet. The result in Kansas City — which will likely be appealed for years — directly affects only home sales in Missouri. But the landmark verdict has already prompted a copycat suit filed against some of the country’s largest residential firms.

The brokerage industry in New York also isn’t as enmeshed as its Missouri counterpart with the National Association of Realtors, one of the defendants in Kansas City. Instead it is centered around the Real Estate Board of New York and the Residential Listing Service.
Even so, REBNY implemented rules last month in response to the growing backlash against NAR and its controversial “participation policy.” The board now prohibits listing brokers from paying buyers’ agents and will require sellers to pay them directly. Listing agreements will also need to clearly outline the seller’s offer of compensation to buyers’ agents.
If the recent litigation doesn’t send a shiver down the spines of New York’s brokerages, other forthcoming developments might. A nearly identical antitrust case known as Moehrl is set for trial in early 2024 and poses the possibility of larger damages, perhaps more than $40 billion.
The Department of Justice, meanwhile, is considering a case of its own against NAR after years of investigations into potential antitrust behavior. If the department takes action against the commission-sharing system and other aspects of the trade group, it could upend residential real estate across the country.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

How the $1.8 Billion Real-Estate Commissions Lawsuit Came to Be​

For years, lawyers prodded at the rule on how buyers’ and sellers’ agents share fees. But two lawsuits finally took aim at it head on.​

By
Laura Kusisto
Follow

Nov. 26, 2023 5:30 am ET



im-891505
Many home buyers do more of the work today finding a property rather than leaving it to their real-estate agents. PHOTO: MARIO TAMA/GETTY IMAGES
The litigation that could end up changing how millions of Americans buy and sell homes was hiding in plain sight for three decades.
The current set of rules governing how agents are paid, which effectively mean sellers are the ones who set compensation for buyer agents, date to the 1990s. Those rules have come under significant scrutiny, particularly as commissions have remained around 5% to 6% of the sale price even as home values have skyrocketed and many buyers do more of the work finding a home themselves online.
 

nicolebeauchamp

Well-known member

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

REBNY vows to fight antitrust lawsuit​

Assocation slams claims, gears up for legal battle

NOV 30, 2023, 12:33 PM
New York City’s governing real estate authority vowed to get tough on the Big Apple’s edition of a series of antitrust lawsuits targeting residential commission rules.
The Real Estate Board of New York told members in a Thursday morning email it would dispute an antitrust lawsuit filed by a New York home seller against it and 26 area real estate firms. The lawsuit filed earlier this month alleges REBNY’s Universal Co-Brokerage Agreement violated antitrust laws with its rules requiring sellers to pay buyers’ agents.

“REBNY will vigorously defend the litigation and respond to the complaint, which is laden with numerous inaccuracies regarding the RLS, the UCBA, and the business of real estate,” the board said in its notice to agents.
The group declined to comment.

The organization updated the UCBA in October, including a change to prohibit listing brokers from paying buyers’ agents, instead requiring sellers to pay them directly. The new rules take effect January 1.
The lawsuit in New York City was filed less than two weeks after a verdict in Sitzer/Burnett, an antitrust case filed in Missouri agains the National Association of Realtors and two residential brokerages, HomeServices of America and Keller Williams.

The trial centered on the trade group’s commissions requiring brokers to offer compensation to buyer’s agents in exchange for access to Realtor-controlled MLSs. T jury found the firms liable of colluding to inflate commissions andawarded $1.8 billion in damages, which the judge can treble to more than $5 billion. NAR vowed to appeal the verdict, which is awaiting final approval by a judge.
REBNY said in its message to members the huge sum won by the plaintiffs in Missouri likely inspired the lawsuit filed in New York, which is in good company with copycat complaints by sellers and buyers targeting firms in a slew of markets, including in Illinois, New England and Texas.

REBNY’s fellow defendants in the New York complaint have also been named in antitrust suits across the country. The pressure is mounting for national brokerages named in multiple suits, which pose enormous costs because of the massive amount of discovery they entail and potential settlement or damages, which can total in the tens of millions or billions of dollars.
Anywhere Real Estate and RE/Max proposed settlement deals before the Sitzer case headed to trial, agreeing to pay $84 million and $55 million, respectively. The deals, which are expected to be approved by a judge in mid-2024, also sought to exclude the firms from Moerhl v. NAR, a similar suit in Illinois set to go trial next year.
Executives at the parent company of Corcoran, Coldwell Banker, Century21 and Sotheby’s International Realty were quick to brag about during the company’s recent third quarter earnings call, months after saying litigation costs had “meaningfully” impacted the company’s bottom line.

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Amended settlement agreement in Nosalek suit not enough to appease the DOJ

The DOJ filed a letter on Monday objecting to the second amended settlement agreement proposed by the home seller plaintiffs and MLS PIN

The home seller plaintiffs and MLS Property Information Network’s (MLS PIN) efforts to address the Department of Justice’s “significant concerns” about their proposed settlement agreement in the Nosalek commission lawsuit were not enough.

In a letter filed on Monday, the DOJ told Judge Patti Saris that it had concerns about the second amended settlement agreement.

“On Wednesday, Dec. 13, plaintiffs’ counsel shared the Second Amended Settlement with the Department of Justice and indicated that they intend to file a renewed motion for preliminary approval on Monday, Dec. 18, 2023,” Jessica Leal, the DOJ’s trial attorney, wrote in the letter. “While the Second Amended Settlement makes some proposed changes, the Department of Justice continues to have concerns with the proposed settlement.”

The amended agreement has not yet appeared on the court docket as of Tuesday morning.

The letter did not elaborate on what the DOJ’s concerns are.

Leal also asked Saris to give the DOJ until Feb. 15, 2024, to file a statement of interest, if the court wishes to hear the department’s views before making a decision about granting preliminary approval.

Originally filed in December 2020, the Nosalek lawsuit, alleges that MLS PIN, Keller Williams and HomeServices of America have colluded to artificially inflate real estate agent commissions.

Since it is broker-owned, MLS PIN is not directly required to abide by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) rules, including is Participation Rule, however, MLS PIN has nonetheless adopted a similar rule requiring listing brokers to offer a blanket, unilateral offer of compensation to buyer brokers in order to submit a listing to MLS PIN.

Both RE/MAX and Anywhere had also been named as defendants in the lawsuit, but the two firms have entered into joint settlement agreements with the plaintiffs in this suit, as well as the Sitzer/Burnett and Moehrl commission lawsuits. Judge Stephen Bough, who oversaw the Sitzer/Burnett trial, granted preliminary approval for the two settlements in November.

MLS PIN, however, has not been as fortunate. New England’s largest MLS filed its proposed settlement agreement in the Nosalek suit in late June.

In the proposed agreement, MLS PIN said it would pay $3 million, change its commission policies and cooperate against the remaining defendants in the lawsuit. According to the proposed settlement, of the $3 million MLS PIN has agreed to pay in the settlement, up to $900,000 will go toward attorney’s fees, up to $200,000 will go toward expenses, $250,000 will go toward notifying settlement class members and each of the three named lead plaintiffs will get up to $2,500 for being class representatives.

The remaining $1.64 million would be used to pay for further expenses for the litigation against the remaining defendants “for the benefit of Settlement Class Members,” according to the filing.

Despite initial skepticism, Saris ultimately granting the settlement preliminary approval in mid-September.

However, in late-September, the DOJ intervened, filing a motion to extend the deadline for the final approval of the settlement.

“The United States makes this request to better enable the Department of Justice to evaluate the Proposed Settlement and its competitive effects,” the motion read. “Pursuant to its mission, the Antitrust Division is concerned about policies, practices, and rules in the residential real-estate industry that may increase broker commissions.”

The DOJ added that rather than open up competition, “MLS PIN’s proposed rule changes still establish an elaborate protocol (under penalty of sanction) regulating buyer-broker commissions, including requiring the listing broker to initially set the ‘total amount of compensation offered’ (including the number zero) in the listing. Thus, MLS PIN would continue to organize and facilitate brokers’ blanket, unilateral offers of compensation to buyer brokers.”

Saris ultimately granted the DOJ’s motion in early October.

Both MLS PIN and the DOJ declined to comment on this latest development in the lawsuit.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Here’s why commissions vary for buyers’ agents​

Study from Realtyhop examines 20,000 New York City listings

With the brokerage world focused on commissions for buyers’ agents, a New York City-based listing service set out to find how much those agents are earning.
The answer: It depends.

RealtyHop discovered that except for co-ops, the higher the asking price, the larger percentage that sell-side agents offered to buy-side counterparts. The pattern held in boroughs with higher home prices, according to the study published Tuesday.
“Every home is in some way unique, based on the location and on all the features that come with it,” report author Shane Lee said. “What we’re trying to argue is that the fee actually reflects the amount of work somebody has to put in.”

The report looked at buyer’s agent commission offers across 20,000 listings on the Real Estate Board of New York’s RLS and OneKeyMLS in Manhattan, the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens over the past year.
A month ago, REBNY and 26 residential firms in the city were hit with a class-action antitrust suit over broker commissions. That followed a landmark verdict in Missouri that found two brokerages and the National Association of Realtors were colluding to control buy-side commissions. The finding and $1.78 billion judgment triggered a slew of copycat lawsuits.
The complaint against REBNY, filed by an Upper East Side home seller, claims the trade group inflated commissions charged to home sellers by requiring listing brokers to offer compensation to buyer’s agents.
The trade group had changed its rules in October to prohibit sell-side brokers from offering compensation, but still couldn’t avoid the wave of antitrust litigation over broker commissions aimed at brokerages, listing services and trade groups across the country.
Though the RealtyHop report claims to disprove allegations that the trade group colluded with brokerages to inflate commissions (it was headlined “Study Finds No Collusion Between Brokerages and REBNY”), the evidence it cited does not quite do that.

RealtyHop found that for homes listed for $500,000 or less, buyers’ agents earned an average commission of 2.2 percent and a median of 2 percent. For homes asking $2 million and above, they received an average of 2.8 percent and a median of 2.5 percent.
“Luxury homes sometimes do come with higher commissions because there’s more work,” Lee said.
There is also more money to be made by the seller’s agent on those deals, so offering a higher commission to buyers’ agents is an incentive for them to show clients the home. Buyers of lesser-priced homes may be more likely to shop on their own.

The report showed that buyer’s agent commissions varied from borough to borough, in line with price differential. In Manhattan, where the median asking price is $1.4 million, buyers’ agents earned an average commission of 2.9 percent and a median commission of 3 percent.

In Queens, where the median asking price is about $690,000, the median buy-side commission was 1.5 percent and the average was 1.8 percent.
The study did find a glaring exception to the correlation between price and commission percentage.
Co-op buyers’ agents received a median commission of 2.5 percent, although the median sale price was only $545,000. The median commission on single-family or multifamily houses was just 1.5 percent, despite their median prices being higher ($739,000 and $1.08 million, respectively).
Buyers’ agents were offered the same median commission and a higher average commission on co-op and condo listings versus townhouse listings, which had a $1.8 million median price.
“The co-op market offers a higher rate because there’s board approval,” Lee said. “The process is a lot longer before somebody can get paid for the work they put in.”

Some co-op boards favor certain agents, and it can be more difficult to gain board approval without one. Higher commissions could also be a way for a seller’s agent to attract buyers to co-ops, which have become less attractive to buyers in recent years.
Buyers’ agents who worked on condo deals earned the highest commissions — 2.6 percent on average — which is in line with the relationship to asking prices.
It is possible that studies such as RealtyHop’s could be part of brokerages’ defense in pending antitrust cases.
“At the end of the day, how this is negotiated or determined is really by the parties involved,” Lee said. “That’s why with single-family homes, you see a lower commission rate for buyer’s agents because it’s relatively easy in terms of having a transaction done from start to end.”

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

One of two REBNY commission suits withdrawn​

Lead plaintiff voluntarily dismissed case without prejudice

The Real Estate Board of New York has one fewer lawsuit to worry about.

Lead plaintiff Robert Friedman voluntarily dismissed without prejudice a lawsuit he filed regarding commissions last week, HousingWire reported. The move, which came only weeks after filing, means Friedman can refile the lawsuit at a later date.
The suit echoed claims by homesellers in a slew of other class action cases against the National Association of Realtors over rules concerning commission payments to brokers. Friedman claimed commissions in the 2021 sale of his Park Slope home were artificially inflated by a REBNY rule similar to NAR’s Participation Rule, which requires the listing broker to split a commission with the buyer broker.

Before the case was filed — and shortly before NAR headed to trial in the Sitzer/Burnett case — REBNY updated its rules to bar listing brokers from paying buyer brokers as of Jan. 1.
Other defendants in the Friedman case included a plethora of residential brokerages, including Compass, The Agency and Christie’s International Real Estate.

None of the parties involved commented to HousingWire regarding the dismissal. Voluntarily dismissing a case without prejudice may signal that settlement talks are being held behind the scenes.
REBNY still has other fires to put out in regards to commission cases. In November, a class-action complaint was filed on behalf of homeseller Monty March against REBNY and 26 firms that allegedly inflated commissions by way of its rules requiring sellers to pay buyers’ brokers. That case is ongoing.

The federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation is considering combining some of the antitrust broker commission cases across the country into one district, which would lead into pre-trial discovery. The March lawsuit is named in the motion.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

“Unfair” broker fees are really bargains​

Why it’s smart to pay $15K to nab a low-rent apartment for life

No story is easier to write than one about a broker charging a $19,500 commission to rent an Upper West Side apartment for $1,725 a month.
Or a $15,000 fee to snag a Flushing pad with a rent of $1,100.

Finding quotes of outrage is like finding water from a boat.
“Totally not fair,” Christian Garbutt told Gothamist after passing on the Flushing apartment because he couldn’t afford the fee. “Normal New Yorkers, a lot of people, don’t have that type of money saved up.”
But all is fair in love and war, and the competition for drastically underpriced, rent-stabilized apartments is indeed war-like — for good reason. Their vacancy rate is well under 1 percent, and they are tremendous bargains.
From a financial standpoint, shelling out $20,000 to lease a $1,725 unit makes perfect sense when the alternative is leasing a market-rate equivalent for $4,000. In the first scenario, the cost after nine months is $35,525. In the second, it’s $36,000.
After breaking even in the ninth month, you’re saving $27,300 a year. These savings continue until you die, at which point you can pass the apartment on to your kid, who can keep it for the rest of his life as well. Rent-stabilized leases come with succession rights.
Over 80 years at that rate, the total savings would be $2,184,000. Given that market-rate rents will grow faster than stabilized rents, the savings could easily be $3 million or $4 million. In that context, a $20,000 rental fee is a terrific investment. It’s like buying a lottery ticket that is guaranteed to win.
The law does not specify what a broker can charge, but when tenant-friendly politicians and regulators get wind of a high fee, they come down heavy. The Upper West Side fee and others charged by City Wide Apartments was brought to the state’s attention, and the Hochul administration got the brokerage to return $210,000 to tenants and pay a $50,000 penalty.

“Excessive broker fees are not just unfair — they’re a threat to hard-working families looking to call New York home,” Gov. Kathy Hochul said in a press release.
“A broker’s fee must represent charges for actual services provided,” the release said. “Real estate licensees are obligated to act with honesty in their dealings with the public and cannot charge exorbitant commissions that have no reasonable relationship to the work involved in earning the commission.”

But as explained above, it’s perfectly reasonable to pay a big commission for a permanently underpriced apartment. “These deals are a steal for the tenant, and legality aside, they are foolish not to take them,” tweeted Stephen Smith, who has 49,000 followers @MarketUrbanism.
When someone answered that most tenants can’t afford five-figure fees, Aaron Carr, the tenant advocate who runs the nonprofit Housing Rights Initiative, replied, “Perfect response.”
But more than one in five rent-stabilized tenants earns more than $100,000, and the law says people of any income can lease rent-stabilized apartments. A broker with a winning lottery ticket will have no problem finding someone willing to pay for it.
Andrew Barrocas of the brokerage MNS said he charges the standard 15 percent of the annual rent even for low-priced units. On a $1,000-a-month apartment where the government controls the rent, the commission would be $1,800. But he said some “bad apples” will charge $10,000, then kick some back to the landlord.
“I’m sure that happens,” he said.

In fact, it happens everywhere in the world where the government sets an artificially low price for a high-demand, low-supply product. Economics are like gravity.

Government officials, or at least the people who write their press releases, like to pretend otherwise.
“For those who think they can take advantage of tenants seeking housing, you can rest assure[d] the Department [of State] will hold them accountable,” said New York Secretary of State Robert Rodriguez, crowing about the City Wide settlement.
Time for a reality check, Mr. Secretary.

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member


California Homeseller Sues NAR, CAR, and Redfin for Antitrust Violations Over Broker Commissions


California Homeseller Sues NAR, CAR, and Redfin for Antitrust Violations Over Broker Commissions

A California resident has initiated a class-action lawsuit against the National Association of Realtors (NAR), California Association of Realtors (C.A.R.), and Redfin, alleging antitrust violations that purportedly inflated buyer-broker commission costs. Filed in the Central District of California, the lawsuit represents individuals who engaged Redfin or its agents for residential property sales from October 2019 to October 2023, following Redfin's departure from NAR amidst controversy.


Antitrust Allegations and Industry Impact
The lawsuit accuses NAR, C.A.R., and Redfin of forming a 'cartel' to artificially inflate the costs of brokerage services, directly challenging the NAR's rule requiring listing brokers to offer buyer-broker compensation. This, according to the complaint, stifles competition and unnaturally inflates service costs, potentially affecting tens of thousands of Californians. It further implicates local Realtor associations and Multiple Listing Services (MLSs) as co-conspirators in this alleged scheme.

Defendants' Response and Legal Strategies

In response to the allegations, C.A.R. has engaged defense counsel to represent its interests in court, indicating a preparedness to contest the claims vigorously. The lawsuit's outcome remains uncertain, with significant implications for commission structures and real estate brokerage practices across the industry. Both NAR and Redfin have yet to release detailed comments on the lawsuit's specifics.

Looking Ahead: Implications for the Real Estate Market
This legal battle underscores a growing scrutiny over traditional real estate commission practices, with potential ramifications for how agents and brokers are compensated nationwide. As the case progresses, industry observers, homeowners, and real estate professionals alike await a decision that could herald significant changes to the buying and selling landscape in California and beyond.

For more detailed information on this unfolding story, readers can visit Inman.
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Bid to shift NYC real estate broker fees to landlords heading back to City Council

Councilman Chi Ossé is set to reintroduce a bill on Wednesday that would mostly shift the burden of broker fee costs to landlords, setting the stage for a potentially contentious rematch in the City Council.

The Brooklyn Democrat first unveiled the Fairness in Apartment Rental Expenses (FARE) Act last June, but the measure wasn’t given a hearing last year in the face of stiff opposition from the powerful real estate lobby.

The bill would not ban or restrict broker fees but would instead ensure that whoever hired the broker is responsible for paying them. As it stands, tenants pay the broker’s fees when moving in even if they were hired by the landlord, or if the tenant did much of the work themselves, a situation all but unique to New York.


“I think it’s a bill that’s common sense to a lot of people that hear about it,” Ossé told the Daily News. “This bill is just replicating how the broker industry and economy works in every other city within this country: whomever hires a broker will pay the broker fee.”

The bill may get a boost this time around due to support from unions including DC 37, the city’s largest public employee union and one of several groups he said are backing the FARE Act.

The use of brokers is common given the city’s historically tight rental market and broader housing crisis. But there are no caps on broker fees, which can run into the thousands of dollars.


The real estate industry has largely balked at Ossé’s proposal, with some critics predicting it could undermine brokers and make rents more expensive in the long run.

Perhaps the strongest opposition has come from the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), an influential trade group.

“This bill would make the process of renting an apartment more costly and challenging for New Yorkers, while negatively impacting the livelihood of hardworking agents,” a spokesperson for the board said in a statement. “REBNY is focused on data-driven policy discussions to address New York City’s housing supply crisis.”


Ossé in turn pointed out that about half of New York apartments are rent-stabilized and predicted any rent increases for market-rate apartments would be minimal if they happen at all.

“Rents are set by market forces, not landlords,” he said. “You know, if they could raise it by $1,000 tomorrow or however much they said they would if they were to bake the broker fee in, landlords would do that already.”

The FARE Act previously secured support from a majority of the City Council, which Ossé said it still has despite REBNY campaigning hard against it in 2023. The News reported in August that the group had struck a deal with then-Councilmember Marjorie Velázquez to block the bill from being heard in the Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection, which she chaired at the time; Velázquez, at the time, acknowledged she had spoken with REBNY but objected to the characterization of her actions as a deal. She lost her Bronx seat to newcomer Kristy Marmorato in the November election.


Ossé said having union support and more time to push the bill are cause for optimism.

“Last year was the closest we’ve ever gone to reforming the broker fee system within New York City,” he said. “I think this will be the year that we get it past the finish line.”
 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Ex-REBNY board member talks antitrust lawsuits landing in NYC​

Compass agent and NYRAC co-founder Heather Domi has plenty to say about the state of real estate

New York: the city so nice, commission lawsuits have struck twice.
The lawsuits mimic claims in actions filed against the National Association of Realtors’ participation rule that mandates commission sharing in exchange for access to multiple listing services.

Both suits, one filed in November and the other in late December, hinge on a similar rule by the Real Estate Board of New York requiring the listing broker in a home sale to split commission with the buyer’s broker. The city’s reigning residential real estate authority is joined by 26 New York City residential firms, some of which appear poised to fight the legal action in the Big Apple and beyond.
Change has already sprouted at the organization, which as of Jan. 1 changed buyer’s agent commission rules to prohibit listing brokers from paying buyer’s agents and require sellers to pay them directly.

The rule budge is a small shift for the group as brokers in markets across the United States appear
One year earlier, Heather Domi resigned from her board seat with the city’s top residential agency, going out with a public call for change.
The Compass agent, who in 2018 co-founded agent advocacy group New York Residential Agent Continuum, resigned from her REBNY board position in Oct. 2022 with a fiery letter that accused the group of “taxation without representation.”
Scrutiny has risen over the trade group she disparaged as having “overlooked, disrespected and disregarded” her voice as an agent, as it faces down the antitrust action in New York.
But in an interview with The Real Deal, the veteran agent came to REBNY’s defense and shared her perspective on the changes coming to the industry

The conversation has been edited for concision.
First, what’s your take on the increase in scrutiny over antitrust issues?
I’m not surprised with where we are. There’s been so many changes in our industry over the last decade to 15 years. There are people that have been targeting our industry, and that goes for the corporate side of things, that goes for the tech side of things, that goes for the government side of things. So as far as I’m concerned, it’s just one more thing that we have to work around.
I think there is going to be a wholesale change to the way we do business and there’s going to be some good things that are going to come out of it and some unintended consequences that are going to come out of it.
(Compass CEO Robert Reffkin in the third quarter earnings call referenced a rule change by the Northwest MLS, changed its rules in 2018 to stop requiring sellers to pay buyers’ brokers. )

I actually had a breakfast at the [Compass annual retreat] with a Seattle agent and she was able to explain very clearly what has happened, and not a lot has changed other than it creates a lot more transparency up front with the seller.
It spells it out very clearly with the different scenarios. It brings clarity to the table and then on the flip side of it, we’ve had to prove our worth and sell ourselves to sellers all of these years and now we’re just going to have to prove our worth to buyers.
What are some of the unintended consequences you alluded to, that the rule changes may have?
That remains to be seen, precisely what’s going to happen as far as buyer behavior. I don’t know if it’s going to create a situation where there’s a different percentage in the amount of buyers represented. If there’s a higher percentage of buyers that are unrepresented what are those complications we’re going to start to see? Are they going to have problems with the process?
Do you place the blame on REBNY for the lawsuit?

Sign Up for the National Weekly Newsletter​

SIGN UP
By signing up, you agree to TheRealDeal Terms of Use and acknowledge the data practices in our Privacy Policy.
I just think there was a genealogy of the way the industry evolved and there’s a reason that MLSs and cooperative commissions came into effect to try to create a more fair marketplace.
From my knowledge, and this was before my time, I don’t think the coupling of commissions was created to create an unfair market, but to create more balance and fairness in the market and more sharing. Back in the day before listings were shared and brokerages would hoard them and only sell within their company … there was a reason why we got to where we did.
Are we going to go back to some of those ways which either cause some disadvantage in the marketplace or that lack of transparency in the marketplace?
Moving forward, what do you want to see from REBNY?

I would like to see them offer lots of education and lots of support to the agent community.
There’s a lot of professionals in the industry that haven’t found success, came in at the wrong time or just really haven’t quite figured out the industry and the ones that are willing to work and put their heads down…. Those are the ones that are going to do well and come out of it. It’s going to weed out a lot of agents from the business, I just hope that it makes the industry as a whole stronger in making agents more educated and knowledgeable.
When you’re an attorney it’s really no different. When you’re an attorney, you have to represent agreements on both sides, you take retainers, your clients typically don’t try to negotiate the fees too much because they’re worried you’re not going to work too hard for them.
Has NYRAC done any education outreach for agents?
Yesterday we had a Zoom call where we had 195 agents at peak, and we had Neil Garfinkel at the beginning of the call. He set the stage for what the rules are … some people are still waking up to what’s going on.

And then I had someone from Seattle, a Compass agent from Seattle … and she explained the sell-side component because in Seattle they de-coupled commissions in 2019. So they’ve been selling this decoupled commission on the sell-side. She just went through what her pitch is and what her conversation is for sellers and she sells the decoupled commission and what the added value is. What it does is provide more value for the seller and by explaining it in the right way you’re building trust, so I think it’s very additive and beneficial for the consumer.
On the buy-side, I had Lori Gilmore, who’s at Compass, she coaches with Steve Schulz, the national coach, and she really has that buy-side conversation agreement down pat. So she went over the buy-side pitch and was incredible and one hour into the call I still had 161 people.
Are agents more concerned now that lawsuits have been filed in New York?
I don’t think it’s on people’s radars as much as what we’re actually going through with the decoupling of the commissions and the buyer agreements. I think everybody’s focused on that instead of worrying and projecting about so many unknowns.
Anything else?

There’s things about [the changes] I’m excited about.
At least you know when you’re getting a buyer, you’re getting a commitment. There’s a saying in the business: list to last. With a buyer, when you don’t have any kind of signed agreement, they could be working with somebody else, they could flake out. Now you’re going to have that same opportunity and be building that same relationship where there is a true commitment that’s going to be signed.
With every challenge there is opportunity and I think that it’s important to be positive about this. I think people are going to see this as a huge disruption and I think it’s not going to be that big of a deal.

 

David Goldsmith

All Powerful Moderator
Staff member

Controversial broker fee bill to get a hearing​

Council member Julie Menin commits to session on measure shifting costs

The New York City Council’s broker fee bill will get a hearing, a significant advance from previous attempts to regulate commissions on rentals.
Committee on Consumer and Worker Protection chair Julie Menin committed to holding a hearing on the measure, Crain’s reported. Last year the bill failed to get a hearing, ensuring that it would not come to the Council floor for a vote.

The bill, reintroduced this year by Brooklyn-based Council Member Chi Ossé, would shift the burden of broker fees — typically 15 percent of a tenant’s annual rent — from the renter to the party that hired an apartment’s broker, often the landlord. Broker fees wouldn’t be outright banned, a provision that scuttled an earlier attempt at similar legislation at the state level.
The bill is co-sponsored by more than half of the City Council. But other bills with 26 or more sponsors have failed to come to a vote, usually because of opposition from the Council speaker or the chair of the relevant committee. Also, the Real Estate Board of New York is likely to mount an opposition effort, as it’s done in the past to protect brokers from potential income hits.

“Our members add significant value to the home search process for renters and will fight for fair compensation for their hard work,” Reggie Thomas, REBNY’s senior vice president for government affairs, said in a statement.
One argument made against the bill is that it would result in tenants footing the cost through rent hikes. Ossé disputed that, saying that rent stabilization rules and market forces are more likely to dictate landlords’ asking rents.

The bill has support from several significant unions, including DC37, the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union and the Committee of Interns and Residents.

The vast majority of rental brokers oppose the bill. Some already push for landlords to pay fees, meaning the bill would only enshrine their practices, but most argue the bill would harm their livelihoods and the ability of renters to navigate the market.
 
Top