It's not over till it's Over

Everyone is preparing to implement the current proposed NAR settlement, but perhaps it is not over yet...

Starship - It's Not Over ('Til It's Over)We don't call the shots here

And we don't make the rules

We take what we get and get what we can, yeah

And it's learning the hard way

Here on the streets

You can't build a dream, without a plan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVVCUuxStww

What if the seller and the agent of the seller are prohibited from paying anything to the Buyer's Broker? What will the DOJ have to say about the proposed NAR Settlement, now that the handcuffs are off and the DOJ is allowed to continue its focus on dismantling NAR?

This is a decades old feud and the DOJ attorneys are out for blood...your blood if you are If you read the Statement of Interest the DOJ filed in the Nosalek vs MLS PIN case, it is obvious that the DOJ prefers that both sellers and listing agents not be allowed to compensate agents of the buyers.From the DOJ (United States) Statement of Interest in the Nosalek Case:

? As long as sellers can make buyer-broker commission offers, they will continue to offer “customary” commissions out of fear that buyer brokers will direct buyers away from listings with lower commissions—a well-documented phenomenon known as steering. When sellers make such offers, buyer brokers need not compete on price to attract buyers. The settlement does not ameliorate these dynamics at the heart of Plaintiffs’ complaint. As a result, commissions on home sales will remain inflated, reducing the net amount the seller receives for the home and driving up the purchase price paid by the buyer. The proposed rule therefore raises serious antitrust concerns in its own right.

? ...It makes cosmetic changes while authorizing the seller to continue to set compensation for the buyer's broker. Instead, the parties could propose an injunction that would prohibit sellers from making commission offers to buyer brokers at all. That injunction would promote competition by empowering buyers to negotiate directly with their own brokers.

? The seller’s offer of compensation to buyer brokers is set without regard to the experience of the buyer-broker or the services or value they are providing[.]”

? All told, these proposed changes will not alter the structure alleged in the complaint that currently drives sellers to offer the “customary” commission to avoid the threat of steering. To address the competitive problem alleged by Plaintiffs, the Settling Parties could agree to an injunction that prohibits offers of buyer-broker compensation by MLS PIN participants.

? Preventing sellers and listing agents from setting buyer-broker commissions would promote greater price competition and innovation in the market for brokers’ services. If buyers set the compensation for their own brokers directly, some buyer brokers might choose to offer flat fees or hourly rates in lieu of percentage commissions, since the amount of time and effort required by a buyer broker has a weak correlation, if any, to the ultimate sales price of the house. And most, if not all, buyers would likely prefer a fee structure that does not reward their broker for helping them to pay more for a home.

? The option to list zero dollars as the buyer broker’s commission is little more than a smoke screen, giving the appearance that actors in the market are free to negotiate and compete on price, when in fact they are not.

https://www.housingwire.com/articles/doj-will-intervene-in-nars-commission-lawsuit-settlement-kbw-analysts/