the NWMLS says it is policy that site registrations are for use by “development sites and new construction”. Further, variable commissions may not be against NWMLS rules, but the NWMLS’s June 6th Monday Update comments (with examples) on SOC Remarks with Variable Office Commissions make implementation difficult with the remarks field limit size and no use of site registrations.

“Some agents and offices became creative by adding in the MLS listing the note, that if the listing agent/office had shown the property to the other agent’s client, the commission will be cut with 1%.. According to NAR this is illegal.”

One of the benefits of a large real estate forum is you get to see what happened, when others have tried what you are thinking about trying. NAR’s position was that it singled out a specific business model, and so was an anti-trust violation. My position is it effectively reduces the Buyers Representation options.

Not one area of the Country has weighed in at being able to keep that extra 1% on the listing side, though several have said it was a deterrent measure, and reduced the number of agents not showing the property.

You just can’t seem to follow this to its ultimate conclusion. The buyer DOES matter to this thread. How can the buyer NOT be involved in an issue that says if the buyer calls a listing agent and after the fact realizes he can’t rely on the person who represents the seller, to represent him, he is SOL!

Historically agents and sellers have eliminated buyers from the equation, except as a pawn to be used to accomplish the goal of selling the house.

The buyer will be affected if the listing agent is permitted to take a portion of the fee to represent them. Many agents will say You SAW it with the listing agent, now I can’t get paid. So you have to go back to the listing agent and accept Dual Agency or no representation at all.

I actually saw that on an EBA website. An EBA, Exclusive Buyer Agent, who is supposed to be an advocate for buyers only. It said if you saw the house with the listing agent, don’t call me, because now you HAVE TO use the listing agent. If the fee is split because the buyer saw the house first at an Open House, the sellers invited them in, any number of ways, you are saying they have chosen a portion of their representation inadvertently.

We do not get paid for services and metres that can be delineated in a contract that has a checklist. We get paid to represent people. And a buyer should have more choice in that, without some mls rule dictating that they “spent” the BA fee without knowing it, on someone they did not choose to represent them.

“Buyers don’t matter”, Russ? I can’t believe you put that in print. We are talking about the Buyer Agent Fee and the Buyer’s seeing houses…how could they NOT matter for purposes of this thread?

It’s not that I don’t care about buyers, it is just that they don’t matter for purposes of this thread. Why do you keep wiggling away from answering the question?

Russ

You know Russ, the RULES haven’t considered the buyer or even the seller for way too long. It is high time for the buyers and sellers to be a large part of the equation. The industry has gotten away with making rules, about themselves only, for 100 years. Well it ain’t gonna fly much longer.

BIG, BIG downside for the buyer is THIS! The buyer is entitled to equal and separate representation no matter when in the process they realize they need equal and separate representation.

This business is not about tasks and services and metres…it is about representaton. No buyer OR seller can be forced into Dual Agency without written and informed consent. Once the Buyer Agent can’t get his piece of the pie because of some “mistake” the consumer made who doesn’t know the rules…then the consumer CANNOT get FULL and separate representation and MAY be forced into Dual Agency.

That is a VERY BIG deal for the BUYER. I have heard many, many Buyer’s Agents say you HAVE to work with the listing agent now because you saw the house with him. If they get paid less, we will hear that even MORE. That forces buyers into Dual Agency and NO STATE can promote that in any way, shape or form and no MLS can promote that in any way shape or form.

That is the downside for the BUYER, though you didn’t ask that…and why don’t you care about the Buyer, Russ? Why are you only looking for the downside for the seller and seller’s agent as if the buyer doesn’t matter? That’s really an atiquated way of thinking.

To single out the “task” of showing a house, and not penalize for any other “tasks” not performed by both buyer agents and seller agents, would indeed look like a boycott or war against a single entity.

Should someone who shows a house three times before the buyer decides to write an offer receive more than if they show it once? Clearly assigning a price to a showing appointment is not the answer.

I appreciate the feedback you received but it is misguided.

Variable rate commissions are NOT a conditional offer of compensation. The offer of compensation just varies depending upon certain pre-published conditions. While I have no idea what the Temecula MLS Rules might say, variable rate commmissions are permissible under NWMLS rules and probably most MLSs across the country.

Also, variable rate commissions have long been enforced in new construction settings. There is absolutely no difference (from an MLS rules standpoint) whether the listed home is brand new or 20 years old.

Drawing the ire of the DOJ? C’mon. What we are talking about is dividing commissions based on how much is actually earned by the tasks performed by the Selling Agent and which is determined by each company independently and applied ACROSS THE BOARD to all cooperating brokers. Exactly how does that violate anti-trust laws? Answer: doesn’t.

Russ

Russ

Here is another response to your suggestion of varying the commission in the mls if the agent who sells it is not the agent who shows it. Others have tried what you suggested and have reversed their position.

This from Temecula CA:

“I read your (question) concerning reduced commission for agents that are not present with buyers. We went through that here, a few years back. It was determined and enforced here, that it violates MLS rules, to have a conditional offer of compensation.”

Of course that others have tried it and found it to be unsuccessful, does not mean that we can’t try it. But it’s like checking out consumer reports before buying a product. If it didn’t work elsewhere…chances are it won’t work here either.

The entire process of showing homes is predicated on the offer of compensation. To make that conditional pulls the rug out from under…question is then…what is under that rug?

A couple of answers in and So.Cal tried the reduced fee if agents didn’t show the house, and it didn’t work out. Apparently that method has now been banned by the mls there, after a trial period. Another responds that their board considered it, but since the majority of those affected would be alternative models, they felt it would draw the ire of the DOJ.

If you say 3%…then you pay 3% regardless and file a PC claim if you have a problem with how it was dispersed, seems to be the continued method even for those who tried your suggestion. Just doesn’t work for some reason.