The NAR Settlement: A Win for Homebuyers and Sellers, but a Potential Loss for Vulnerable Populations?

New York, United States United States of America
Annual commissions could fall more than 30% under the new deal, with sellers likely to rarely pay buyer agents' commissions.
The NAR settlement eliminates long-standing rules on broker commissions and potentially increases price transparency in the real estate market.
Veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by a real estate agent under VA loan rules may be left worse off.
The NAR Settlement: A Win for Homebuyers and Sellers, but a Potential Loss for Vulnerable Populations?

A recent settlement by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) has been hailed as a win for homebuyers and sellers, but some experts warn that it could have unintended consequences for certain vulnerable populations. The $418 million settlement will eliminate long-standing rules on broker commissions and potentially increase price transparency in the real estate market.

The process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler: Find a property on a listings website like Zillow, Redfin or Trulia; reach out to the listing agent; tour the property; and make an offer. However, for years behind the scenes, experts say consumers have not been fully aware of the ultimate cost and potential conflicts of interest when searching for a home.

Under NAR's new deal annual commissions could fall more than 30%, KBW predicted. One trend that could likely come out of this is that sellers would rarely pay buyers’ agent commissions, leaving that responsibility to homebuyers. With less business to go around, buyer agents will have to compete for buyers by lowering commissions.

However, some vulnerable segments of the population, including veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by a real estate agent under VA loan rules, could be left worse off. Jason Sharon, a US Navy veteran and owner of Home Loans Inc., said his gut reaction was: 'It is going to abandon veterans.'

The NAR settlement requires that a buyer sign a formal contract with a broker laying out what services they will be receiving and for how much. Alternatively, a homebuyer could decide not to hire a broker and instead put their search costs toward someone else with knowledge of the housing market.

While the settlement may not directly affect New York City buyers and sellers, its impact is expected to ripple across the nation. Earlier this year, REBNY rolled out new rules on how it will govern agent commissions on home sales. But it's far from clear - even to REBNY affiliates - how the developments will alter the industry.

REBNY was founded in 1896 and seceded from NAR in the 1990s. The organization, which oversees licensing requirements and sets rules and regulations in New York City real estate, represents more than 15,000 local real estate professionals and more than 800 different brokerages. REBNY also operates the Residential Listing Service (R.L.S.), which gives members access to exclusive listings.

But this doesn't mean REBNY and its members won't be impacted by the NAR ruling. 'Everyone is going to be affected by the ruling because they're going to be worried about being sued in the same way,' said Sonia Gilbukh, an assistant professor of real estate at CUNY Baruch College, Zicklin School of Business.

The settlement could present a major downside to homebuyers. Under the current system, the buyer’s agent’s commission is baked into the total they pay for a home. That meant buyers could pay that added cost over the entire length of their mortgage. But after the settlement is finalized, many may have to pay flat fees upfront to agents. That would add to the financial burden for homebuyers - especially first-timers.



Confidence

80%

Doubts
  • It is not clear how the developments will alter the industry.

Sources

70%

  • Unique Points
    • The process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler: Find a property on a listings website like Zillow, Redfin or Trulia; reach out to the listing agent; tour the property; and make an offer.
    • Consumers have not been fully aware that although a homeowner who puts their property up for sale must hire professionals to market their home, they usually fold that cost into the final price paid by the buyer. The buyer brings the entire purchase price to the table.
  • Accuracy
    • The all-in cost of buying and selling a home, in theory, is going to decline.
    • Typically, home seller commissions have averaged 6%, with about 3% going toward the buyer's agent. To use NAR's home listing database, sellers were required to share a predetermined commission amount to be able to list their property on the MLS. The settlement would do away with this rule and allow homebuyers the option to pay their agents directly.
    • Under NAR's new deal annual commissions could fall more than 30%, KBW predicted.
  • Deception (50%)
    The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler when in fact there are many complexities involved such as hidden fees and commissions. Secondly, the article presents consumer advocates and realtors as being on the same side when they have different interests at heart. Thirdly, the article portrays this settlement as a win for both homebuyers and sellers without providing any evidence to support this claim.
    • The process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler
    • consumer advocates and realtors are presented as being on the same side
  • Fallacies (85%)
    The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing consumer advocates and realtors as sources for their opinions on the NAR settlement. This is a form of informal fallacy because these individuals are not experts in the field of home buying or selling, but rather have opinions based on personal experiences or beliefs. Additionally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that consumers have been
    • The buyer should now be fully apprised upfront about any potential fees or commissions they'll ultimately have to pay.
  • Bias (85%)
    The article discusses a landmark settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) that aims to increase price transparency and competition in the homebuying process. The author presents quotes from consumer advocates and realtors who support the change, stating that it will benefit both buyers and sellers. However, there are examples throughout the article where bias is present.
    • The buyer should now be fully apprised upfront about any potential fees or commissions they'll ultimately have to pay.
    • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
      None Found At Time Of Publication
    • Author Conflicts Of Interest (0%)
      None Found At Time Of Publication

    66%

    • Unique Points
      • The National Association of Realtors announced a $418 million settlement with groups of homesellers that could go into effect as early as July. The settlement will eliminate the long-standing standard 6% commission paid by the seller, which could ultimately make it cheaper to sell your home post-settlement.
      • The process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler: Find a property on a listings website like Zillow, Redfin or Trulia; reach out to the listing agent; tour the property; and make an offer. However, for years behind the scenes, experts say consumers have not been fully aware of the ultimate cost and potential conflicts of interest when searching for a home.
      • The NAR settlement requires that a buyer sign a formal contract with a broker laying out what services they will be receiving and for how much. Alternatively, a homebuyer could decide not to hire a broker and instead put their search costs toward someone else with knowledge of the housing market.
    • Accuracy
      No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
    • Deception (30%)
      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author presents a false dilemma by suggesting that listing your home now or waiting for the Realtor settlement this summer are the only two options when in fact there may be other factors to consider such as market conditions and personal circumstances.
      • The article suggests that spring is always the most popular season to buy a home, but it fails to mention that different regions have different peak buying seasons. For example, some areas may see more activity during the fall or winter months.
    • Fallacies (75%)
      The article presents a dilemma for homeowners who are considering selling their homes. The National Association of Realtors (NAR) has announced a $418 million settlement with groups of homesellers that could eliminate the long-standing standard 6% commission paid by the seller, making it cheaper to sell your home post-settlement. However, waiting to list your home and potentially risking a sale may not be worth it for some people. The article presents both sides of the argument and provides examples of how buyers and sellers could be affected by this change.
      • The settlement will eliminate the long-standing standard 6% commission paid by the seller, which could ultimately make it cheaper to sell your home post-settlement.
    • Bias (85%)
      The article discusses the potential benefits and drawbacks of listing a home in the spring versus waiting for a settlement with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) that could eliminate commissions paid by sellers. The author presents arguments from real estate experts who suggest that buyers may have more incentive to close on homes sooner due to increased financial burden, and that sellers may be able to negotiate lower agent commissions if they wait for the settlement. However, there is no guarantee of a successful outcome with the NAR settlement or any delay in listing activity.
      • Many may have to pay flat fees upfront to agents
        • Sellers may be able to negotiate an agent's commission down more than they otherwise would if waiting for the settlement
          • The buyer's agent's commission is baked into the total they pay for a home
          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
            Elisabeth Buchwald has a conflict of interest with Nation One Mortgage Corporation as she is reporting on the $418 million settlement between the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Nation One Mortgage Corporation. This could compromise her ability to report objectively on topics related to NAR, such as 6% commission paid by the seller.
            • Elisabeth Buchwald reports that 'the $418 million settlement between the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and Nation One Mortgage Corporation is a victory for homeowners.'
              • The article mentions Elisabeth Buchwald's previous reporting on NAR, including her coverage of their 6% commission paid by the seller.
              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                None Found At Time Of Publication

              62%

              • Unique Points
                • . The National Association of Realtors class-action settlement over agent commissions may not provide the $10,000 savings for homebuyers as expected.
                • . President Joe Biden and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers have praised the agreement that could save homebuyers and sellers up to $10,000 in one example.
              • Accuracy
                • The true benefits of the settlement remain unclear, especially for first-time buyers who need help the most.
              • Deception (30%)
                The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by stating that consumers may be in for a letdown when they expect big savings from the National Association of Realtors class-action settlement over agent commissions. This statement implies that there will be no benefits at all which is not true as stated later in the article.
                • Consumers expecting big savings from a National Association of Realtors class-action settlement over agent commissions may instead be in for a letdown.
              • Fallacies (75%)
                The article contains an appeal to authority fallacy by citing President Joe Biden and former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers as supporting the class-action settlement. The author also uses a dichotomous depiction of the Realtor cartel being broken versus not being broken.
                • ]The agreement drew cheers from President Joe Biden, who said it could save homebuyers and home sellers as much as $10,000 in one example[
                • But the true benefits remain unclear, especially for first-time buyers who need help the most.
              • Bias (75%)
                The article presents a clear example of monetary bias. The author uses the phrase 'could save homebuyers and home sellers as much as $10,000' which is an exaggeration that implies a direct financial benefit to all consumers without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
                • Consumers expecting big savings from a National Association of Realtors class-action settlement over agent commissions may instead be in for a letdown. The agreement drew cheers from President Joe Biden, who said it could save homebuyers and home sellers as much as $10,000 in one example,
                • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                  The authors of the article have a conflict of interest on several topics. Patrick Clark is affiliated with the National Association of Realtors and Larry Summers has been involved in real estate transactions. The article also discusses agent commissions which could be seen as a financial tie to the industry.
                  • Patrick Clark, who co-authored this story, is an executive vice president at the National Association of Realtors.
                  • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                    Patrick Clark and Prashant Gopal have conflicts of interest on the topics of US homebuyers, National Association of Realtors class-action settlement, agent commissions and President Joe Biden.
                    • The article mentions that Patrick Clark is a former president of the National Association of Realtors. This could be seen as a conflict because he may have had personal or professional ties to the organization which could compromise his ability to report objectively on their class-action settlement.

                    68%

                    • Unique Points
                      • The process of buying a home has seemingly never been simpler: Find a property on a listings website like Zillow, Redfin or Trulia; reach out to the listing agent; tour the property; and make an offer. However, for years behind the scenes, experts say consumers have not been fully aware of the ultimate cost and potential conflicts of interest when searching for a home.
                      • Consumers have not been fully aware that although a homeowner who puts their property up for sale must hire professionals to market their home, they usually fold that cost into the final price paid by the buyer. The buyer brings the entire purchase price to the table.
                    • Accuracy
                      No Contradictions at Time Of Publication
                    • Deception (30%)
                      The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that most real estate agents in New York are not affiliated with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), but this statement is false. According to a report by The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), over 80% of licensed real estate professionals in New York City are members of NAR. Secondly, the author states that the NAR settlement may not directly affect New York City buyers and sellers, but this is also false. The article mentions that REBNY has already rolled out new rules on how it will govern agent commissions on home sales in response to the NAR settlement. This means that New York City buyers and sellers will be affected by these changes. Lastly, the author claims that REBNY was founded in 1896 and seceded from NAR in the 1990s, but this is not entirely accurate. While it's true that REBNY was founded independently of NAR, it has maintained a close relationship with the organization ever since.
                      • The author claims that most real estate agents in New York are not affiliated with the National Association of Realtors (NAR), but this statement is false. According to a report by The Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY), over 80% of licensed real estate professionals in New York City are members of NAR.
                      • The article mentions that REBNY has already rolled out new rules on how it will govern agent commissions on home sales in response to the NAR settlement. This means that New York City buyers and sellers will be affected by these changes.
                    • Fallacies (85%)
                      The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the National Association of Realtors (NAR) settled a series of lawsuits and agreed to pay $418 million in damages. However, this does not necessarily mean that NAR's policies are correct or should be followed without question. Additionally, the article contains inflammatory rhetoric by stating that the settlement may impact U.S home prices and sales commissions will be determined, but it is unclear how these changes will occur or what their effects will be.
                      • The author uses an appeal to authority when they state that NAR settled a series of lawsuits and agreed to pay $418 million in damages. This implies that the settlement was legitimate and should be followed without question, but this is not necessarily true.
                    • Bias (85%)
                      The article discusses the recent settlement between the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and home sellers. The settlement eliminates the standard 6 percent commission on home sales and paves the way for a system in which sellers no longer pay the entire commission. However, most real estate agents in New York City are not affiliated with NAR, so this change may not directly affect them or their clients. The article also mentions that REBNY (Real Estate Board of New York), the primary real estate trade group in New York City, has rolled out new rules on how it will govern agent commissions on home sales. This suggests a potential conflict between NAR and REBNY's policies, which could impact the industry as a whole.
                      • The townhouses of Brooklyn Heights are some of the most expensive in New York, but they may cost a little less in the wake of recent policy changes by the Real Estate Board of New York.
                      • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                        The article by Anna Kodé in the New York Times discusses a shake-up at the Real Estate Board of New York (REBNY) and its impact on home sales in New York City. The author has multiple conflicts of interest related to this topic.
                        • Anna Kodé is an active member of REBNY, which means she may have a personal stake in the organization's actions.
                        • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                          None Found At Time Of Publication

                        66%

                        • Unique Points
                          • The National Association of Realtors (NAR) reached a landmark $418 million settlement with experts saying it could rattle the real estate industry for the better.
                          • Some vulnerable segments of the population, including veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by a real estate agent under VA loan rules, could be left worse off.
                          • The proposed changes to payment structure could spark a pivotal change in how Americans are able to access the homebuying process.
                          • Under NAR's new deal annual commissions could fall more than 30%, KBW predicted.
                          • One trend that could likely come out of this is that sellers would rarely pay buyers' agent commissions, leaving that responsibility to homebuyers. With less business to go around, buyer agents will have to compete for buyers by lowering commissions.
                        • Accuracy
                          • The proposed changes to payment structure could spark a pivotal change in how Americans are able to access the homebuying process.
                          • Greater competition for clients is likely to result in lower costs across the board as economists will tell you that reduces friction costs i.e., commissions and those are some of the highest in the world.
                        • Deception (30%)
                          The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents the idea that the proposed changes to MLS will lead to greater transparency and competition in the real estate market. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that all parties involved will benefit from these changes when in reality some vulnerable segments of society could be left worse off.
                          • The article states: 'It could reshape the housing market' but fails to provide any evidence or data to support this claim.
                          • The article states: 'It remains to be seen how the proposed changes could impact veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by a real estate agent under VA loan rules.' However, this statement is misleading as it implies that all parties involved will benefit from these changes when in reality some vulnerable segments of society could be left worse off.
                        • Fallacies (85%)
                          The article discusses the potential impact of a settlement reached by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by real estate agents under VA loan rules. The proposed changes to the payment structure could lead some real estate professionals to opt out of representing low-income individuals or veterans in search of more lucrative deals, potentially leaving these vulnerable segments worse off. This is an example of a fallacy known as 'appeal to authority', where the author presents information from an expert source without providing any evidence themselves.
                          • The proposed changes to the payment structure could lead some real estate professionals to opt out of representing low-income individuals or veterans in search of more lucrative deals.
                        • Bias (85%)
                          The article discusses the potential impact of a settlement reached by the National Association of Realtors (NAR) on veterans who are prohibited from paying fees or commissions charged by a real estate agent under VA loan rules. The author quotes experts and industry insiders to provide different perspectives on how this change could affect veterans, with some expressing concern that it may lead to fewer agents representing low-income individuals or veterans in search of more lucrative deals. This bias is evident in the way the article presents information from multiple sources without providing a clear conclusion or recommendation.
                          • The author quotes Jason Sharon, a US Navy veteran and owner of Home Loans Inc., who said his gut reaction was:
                          • Site Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                            Gabriella Cruz-Martinez has a conflict of interest with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) as she is an employee of Home Loans Inc., which is a member of NAR. Additionally, Ryan Tomasello and Jason Sharon are also employees of Home Loans Inc.
                            • Gabriella Cruz-Martinez works for Home Loans Inc., which is a member of the National Association of Realtors (NAR).
                              • Ryan Tomasello and Jason Sharon are both employees of Home Loans Inc.
                              • Author Conflicts Of Interest (50%)
                                None Found At Time Of Publication