Economy

508 readers

323 users here now

Lemmy Community for economy, business, politics, stocks, bonds, product releases, IPOs, advice, news, investment, videos, predictions, government, money, politics, debate, current trends and more.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

sv1sjp

104

After winning a landmark case against real estate agents, this startup aims to replace them with a flat fee | TechCrunch (techcrunch.com)

submitted 3 months ago by [email protected] to c/economy

32 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 12 points 3 months ago (9 children)

If you haven't read the article, this is terrible news for people trying to buy a home. Touring homes and making offers was previously free for the prospective buyer and entirely paid out by a 3% commission paid out by the seller who was already making money off the sale.

Now, not only do landlords no longer have to pay real estate agents, this startup of theirs would force prospective buyers to pay flat fees per tour and per offer.

[–] Kiwi 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

You don’t really understand how real estate works.

Yes the seller pays the 3% but you are paying the seller as the buyer. You could easily negotiate that 3% the seller traditionally pays to a buyers agent down in the offer as part of your offer. I’ve seen this done hundreds of times

This companies take on flat fee is shit, but not all flat fee ways of doing real estate are this stupid.

[–] Restaldt -2 points 3 months ago (2 children)

And your understanding is outdated based on a recently passed law

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

We just bought our first house and the way our realtor explained it was something like this:

Yes, the new law says the buyer pays the buyer's realtor fees (typically around 3% of the purchase price). Seller's think they're getting more money because, "hey! I don't have to pay both my realtor and the buyer's agent". But the law doesn't say the buyer must pay - it's still negotiable. And if the seller won't pay the buyer's fee, nobody will show their house to potential buyers.

[–] Kiwi 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I literally work in the industry. There is no recently passed law.

There is a recent lawsuit settlement that only applies to members of NAR which is not all agents in the United States but instead only members of a certain trade group.

Stop talking out of your ass.

Edit: NAR = National Association of Realtors just in case that was also confusing for you.

And just to be extra clear I’ve spent the last few months working with different multiple listing services (both run my NAR members and not) to ensure they are in compliance with the settlement or that they are not open to the same liability that lead to the NAR settlement. I am as much of an expert in this area as you are going to find

load more comments (7 replies)