I believe that reference to steering was before this industry finally admitted GUILT (NAR settlement). I know it is fashionable to pay millions of dollars in 'settlements' and then declare themselves an innocent virgin, but I wasn't born yesterday. This industry has been barebacking homeowners for decades.
@@larryjones9773 oh no doubt there have been plenty of problems. My guess is NAR and the brokers get sued out of business. What I think is bullshit is the idea of steering. I never ran into it in 21 years. But you know what? Now since the lawsuit, there is tons of steering going on. My guess is post the NAR settlement that the risks now for litigation have jumped 10x. I’m frankly very happy I don’t do much business any longer.
@@johnmurphysc My attorney, Michael Ketchmark, presented hundreds of examples of documented steering at trial. I'm a class member in Burnett v. NAR et al. It's only human nature for buyer agents to show homes that pay a higher commission. They have children to feed and rent/mortgage to pay. I'm certainly not condoning it, just explaining the rigged system and human behavior.
What is to keep a seller's agent from simply depositing an offer to buy from an unrepresented buyer, in their trash can? How could an unrepresented buyer ensure their offer to buy, gets to the seller?
@@larryjones9773 why would they do that? The seller agent is getting paid to complete the sale based on the commission in the listing agreement. What do they care if buyer is unrepresented?
@@OnlineRealEstateAcademy Some UA-cam agents are REALLY angry at 'unfit buyers' who choose to be unrepresented. If these agents get two offers, with one being from a represented buyer and the other from an unrepresented buyer (like me), then they have incentive to simply deposit my offer in their trash can. The seller's agent also has to show the home to the unrepresented buyer. If the seller's agent also works as a buyer's agent (on other properties), then he's incentivized to eliminate the unrepresented buyers from the buyer pool. If he kills off the unrepresented buyers, then, over the long term, his income increases.
@@RethinkOpenHouse How would the buyer ever know? How would the buyer ever prove it in a courtroom? How will this corrupt industry monitor this? The whole industry is corrupt, and was proven at trial. The jury's verdict was a unanimous GUILTY verdict. Litigation is very expensive, thus it would be hard to justify suing the agent. It took five long years and millions of dollars in attorney fees to file and litigate the Burnett v. NAR et al case. A single buyer doesn't have the money to sue a giant brokerage, NAR or an single agent. Agents are self employed, and most don't have many assets a court could go after. Agents are VERY angry with the new rules. UA-cam agents are posting a variety of schemes to destroy unrepresented buyers. Agent incomes will probably be cut by 75%. They won't go down without a fight, based on the comments I've seen on UA-cam.
Self steering leads to harming sellers (antitrust violation). Sellers who choose to not pay for the buyer's agent, should not be discriminated against. This was the point of Burnett v. NAR et al: a rigged system that artificially elevates agent commissions. This industry is addicted to a rigged system. The agents/brokers are on both sides of the transactions, and therefore, have the ability to manipulate commissions. If no buyer signs a buyer agent contract, then this becomes a non-issue. I recommend this option.
There’s more manipulation in your last 2 sentences than anything else in this post. If you don’t want to pay a buyer agent, that’s fine. Tell your listing agent that you expect him to work with an unrepresented buyer (they’ll likely charge you more for this) or with a buyer who’s paying their agent out of pocket, and be at peace with the fact that the buyer pool for your home might be smaller than your neighbor who’s offering to take that expense off the buyers plate. As the seller, you already control the asset and you’ve enjoyed years of appreciation. Now you want to control the buyers? Ridiculous
@@LJMarte8 Under the new, unrigged process, there will always be unrepresented buyers. Buyer agents are now obsolete. The Internet replaced them years ago. The Internet also replaced travel agents. The only reason buyer real estate agents didn't go extinct, at the same time, is because of your industry's illegal, rigged system. Note: it will take time for buyers to learn that they are no longer forced to hire an agent (previously for FREE, which was a lie, as buyers get hit will all agent fees via a higher sale price). I tried to buy my home in 2008 without an agent, but was forced to, under the illegal process. Your statement, 'the fact that the buyer pool for your home might be smaller than your neighbor who’s offering to take that expense off the buyers plate.' will get you a MLS citation and a fine. This was the whole point of the last five years of litigation. You agents can no longer manipulate the process and cause damage to homeowners. Agents can no longer STEER prospective buyers to homes that pay higher agent fees and away from homes that pay lower agent fees. That behavior can get you ten years in prison, per the Sherman Antitrust Act. If I'm the seller, and if a buyer puts in an offer that asks me to pay his agent's fee of $1,000, then I will simply agree, but add that $1,000 to my sale price. In the end, all agent fees get included in the sale price, which means, the buyer pays all agent fees, which has always been true.
totally agree Thanks Jack!
Thank you, Jack. Great video.
4:20 mark - 100% steering. There is now way more steering going on post NAR lawsuit than prior to the lawsuit.
@@johnmurphysc 100%
I believe that reference to steering was before this industry finally admitted GUILT (NAR settlement). I know it is fashionable to pay millions of dollars in 'settlements' and then declare themselves an innocent virgin, but I wasn't born yesterday. This industry has been barebacking homeowners for decades.
@@larryjones9773 oh no doubt there have been plenty of problems. My guess is NAR and the brokers get sued out of business. What I think is bullshit is the idea of steering. I never ran into it in 21 years. But you know what? Now since the lawsuit, there is tons of steering going on. My guess is post the NAR settlement that the risks now for litigation have jumped 10x. I’m frankly very happy I don’t do much business any longer.
@@johnmurphysc My attorney, Michael Ketchmark, presented hundreds of examples of documented steering at trial. I'm a class member in Burnett v. NAR et al. It's only human nature for buyer agents to show homes that pay a higher commission. They have children to feed and rent/mortgage to pay. I'm certainly not condoning it, just explaining the rigged system and human behavior.
What is to keep a seller's agent from simply depositing an offer to buy from an unrepresented buyer, in their trash can? How could an unrepresented buyer ensure their offer to buy, gets to the seller?
@@larryjones9773 why would they do that? The seller agent is getting paid to complete the sale based on the commission in the listing agreement. What do they care if buyer is unrepresented?
@@OnlineRealEstateAcademy Some UA-cam agents are REALLY angry at 'unfit buyers' who choose to be unrepresented. If these agents get two offers, with one being from a represented buyer and the other from an unrepresented buyer (like me), then they have incentive to simply deposit my offer in their trash can. The seller's agent also has to show the home to the unrepresented buyer.
If the seller's agent also works as a buyer's agent (on other properties), then he's incentivized to eliminate the unrepresented buyers from the buyer pool. If he kills off the unrepresented buyers, then, over the long term, his income increases.
@@RethinkOpenHouse How would the buyer ever know? How would the buyer ever prove it in a courtroom? How will this corrupt industry monitor this? The whole industry is corrupt, and was proven at trial. The jury's verdict was a unanimous GUILTY verdict. Litigation is very expensive, thus it would be hard to justify suing the agent. It took five long years and millions of dollars in attorney fees to file and litigate the Burnett v. NAR et al case. A single buyer doesn't have the money to sue a giant brokerage, NAR or an single agent. Agents are self employed, and most don't have many assets a court could go after.
Agents are VERY angry with the new rules. UA-cam agents are posting a variety of schemes to destroy unrepresented buyers. Agent incomes will probably be cut by 75%. They won't go down without a fight, based on the comments I've seen on UA-cam.
Self steering leads to harming sellers (antitrust violation). Sellers who choose to not pay for the buyer's agent, should not be discriminated against. This was the point of Burnett v. NAR et al: a rigged system that artificially elevates agent commissions.
This industry is addicted to a rigged system. The agents/brokers are on both sides of the transactions, and therefore, have the ability to manipulate commissions.
If no buyer signs a buyer agent contract, then this becomes a non-issue. I recommend this option.
There’s more manipulation in your last 2 sentences than anything else in this post.
If you don’t want to pay a buyer agent, that’s fine. Tell your listing agent that you expect him to work with an unrepresented buyer (they’ll likely charge you more for this) or with a buyer who’s paying their agent out of pocket, and be at peace with the fact that the buyer pool for your home might be smaller than your neighbor who’s offering to take that expense off the buyers plate.
As the seller, you already control the asset and you’ve enjoyed years of appreciation. Now you want to control the buyers? Ridiculous
@@LJMarte8 Under the new, unrigged process, there will always be unrepresented buyers. Buyer agents are now obsolete. The Internet replaced them years ago. The Internet also replaced travel agents. The only reason buyer real estate agents didn't go extinct, at the same time, is because of your industry's illegal, rigged system.
Note: it will take time for buyers to learn that they are no longer forced to hire an agent (previously for FREE, which was a lie, as buyers get hit will all agent fees via a higher sale price). I tried to buy my home in 2008 without an agent, but was forced to, under the illegal process.
Your statement, 'the fact that the buyer pool for your home might be smaller than your neighbor who’s offering to take that expense off the buyers plate.' will get you a MLS citation and a fine. This was the whole point of the last five years of litigation. You agents can no longer manipulate the process and cause damage to homeowners. Agents can no longer STEER prospective buyers to homes that pay higher agent fees and away from homes that pay lower agent fees. That behavior can get you ten years in prison, per the Sherman Antitrust Act.
If I'm the seller, and if a buyer puts in an offer that asks me to pay his agent's fee of $1,000, then I will simply agree, but add that $1,000 to my sale price. In the end, all agent fees get included in the sale price, which means, the buyer pays all agent fees, which has always been true.
Bingo "This industry is addicted to a rigged system."