Tennessee, Oregon, and the State of Real Estate
This started as a reply to Greg’s post on the Tennessee legislature, which apparently insists going backward is the new going forward. But then I had The Conversation, and it’s developed into a post of its own.
Involved is someone I respect, a friend, a mentor, perhaps the one person more responsible for getting me into real estate than anyone. In the business over twenty years, he knows RE law better than most principal brokers, and has helped me enormously in the first three years I’ve been around.
Oregon is one of the eleven states that has a “Thou shalt not share commission!” law, passed at least fifteen years ago, notwithstanding Glenn Kelman’s Sixty Minutes inference that it was all about him. I wanted to know why it was passed in the first place: Assuming consumer protection against graft or corruption, I couldn’t figure out how that worked. The answer dumbfounded me:
“That protects us, our commissions. I’m glad it’s there.”
Oh, dear. Thank you for the candor. Elaborate?
“Look, I know you’re a free market kind of guy, but there’s nothing wrong with laws protecting us from consumers. People try to hack away at my commission every day on the listing side. This prevents the same kind of hacking on the buying side.”
Wait. Aren’t you worth the commission you charge? “Of course. That’s my point.” Then when someone asks you to cut your commission, what’s wrong with: No. Why do you need a law, especially a law that reinforces the public perception that we’re all self absorbed troglodytes?
“Twenty years ago, before the internet, we didn’t have that reputation. Now 80% of transactions don’t even really need a buyer’s agent.”
Say what?
It went on, defensively and testily. The internet’s the problem, we’re the victims. When I brought up separating buyer commission from listing commission, he said he hoped he was well out of the business before that happened.
It’s occurred to me: his opinion isn’t an anomaly; as I said here the biggest problem we face as an industry is our industry. I can’t begin to get my mind around treating clients as adversaries, but the “Buyers are liars!” meme is constant. (I’ve run into it only once in three years, when I gently suggested she find new representation.) A seriously uncomfortable percentage of our peers think doing it the same way it’s always been done is the only way, that it’s us vs them, that suggesting anything else is heresy. By definition, according to my friend, I’m a pariah.
I only know this: it’s not twenty years ago. And it never will be again.
The divorced real estate commission file: This is an organic compendium of weblog posts and internet-based articles arguing for and against the idea of divorcing the residential real estate commission — eliminating the co-brokerage compensation from the listing agreement, with buyers contracting for and arranging compensation for their own representation. One way this might be effected: Lenders could permit buyers to expense representation on the HUD-1 form as sellers do now. The entries collected here represent the full gamut of opinions on what may be the most important issue facing Realtors today. To submit additional posts or articles for inclusion on this list, fill out the form at this link.
- 11/11/07, Greg Swann: A consumer’s guide to the divorced real estate commission: Why buyers and sellers each paying for their own representation is the most significant reform that can be made today in residential real estate
- Part I: How we got into this mess in the first place
- Part II: How buyers can finally take a seat at the grown-up’s table
- Part III: The who-pays-whom of real estate is not as simple as you might have thought…
- Part IV: Divorcing the real estate commissions will result in benefits not just for buyers but also for their agents and for the real estate market as a whole
- Part V: Why arguments for the current method of compensating real estate agents and against divorcing the real estate commissions must fail
- 10/03/07, Greg Swann: Ask the Broker: How can the seller paying the buyer’s broker’s commission be fair to the seller?
- 09/24/07, Dan Melson: Why the Real Estate Buyers Agent’s Commission is Paid by the Seller
- 07/22/07, Russell Shaw: Top Buyer Agents Unite To Put Themselves Out of Business – Russell Shaw Tries to Save Them
- 07/17/07, Galen Ward: Does the pope condone Divorcing Commissions?
- 07/16/07, Kris Berg: Who does the buyer’s agent’s commission belong to? Maybe… the buyer’s agent?
- 07/16/07, Jim Duncan: More on separating the commissions
- 07/16/07, Jonathan Dalton: Divorcing Real Estate Commissions III: Return of the Rhetoric
- 07/16/07, Todd Tarson: Divorcing commissions
- 07/15/07, Greg Swann: Divorcing the real estate commissions is simply a matter of HUD-1 bookkeeping effected by the mortgage lender
- 07/15/07, Russell Shaw: Greg Swann Joins Redfin – Kelman Rejoicing!
- 07/15/07, Jonathan Dalton: Divorcing Real Estate Commissions, Redux
- 07/15/07, Jonathan Dalton: The First Time Always is Awkward
- 07/14/07, Jeff Kempe: The Imperative of Divorced Commissions, Part 2: The Inherent Value of Free
- 06/22/07, Jeff Kempe: The Imperative of Divorced Commissions, Part 1: Fundamentals of Narcissism.
- 05/28/07, Russell Shaw: Separating the Buyer Agent Commission From the Listing Commission is a REALLY stupid idea
- 05/27/07, Jeff Kempe: Tennessee, Oregon, and the State of Real Estate
- 05/21/07, Jim Duncan: A call for an end cooperative compensation
- 05/21/07, Greg Swann: If lenders divorce the commissions, they’ll be divorced
- 05/18/07, Greg Swann: By withholding the secrets of the mystical MLS system are we betraying the home-buyer’s interests?
- 04/09/07, Greg Swann: Who pays the buyer’s agent? Once we’ve divorced the commissions, we can stop worrying about it
- 04/02/07, Greg Swann: Redfin.com’s Real Estate Consumer’s Bill of Rights: A wolf in sheepskin clothing…
- 03/05/07, Greg Swann: True reform in the real estate industry will not result from undermining buyer representation
- 10/20/06, Greg Swann: The Divorced Commission and the MLS: Building a much better home search tool…
- 10/19/06, Greg Swann: Defining the Divorced Commission: A short-hand term for understanding alternative real estate compensation models…
- 10/17/06, Greg Swann: Smashing the idols: Understanding market value in full context…
- 10/16/06, Greg Swann: What replaces the MLS? Advertising is a given. Compensation/ cooperation can be addressed separately. But the quality and quantity of the data is irreplaceable…
- 10/15/06, Greg Swann: Why the traditional real estate commission model is broken and needs to be replaced…
- 10/07/06, Jim Duncan: The solution to many of real estate’s problems
- 10/07/06, Greg Swann: The seller really pays for the buyer’s agent? Definitely not when the buyer pays out of pocket. But what if the buyer really did pay for the buyer’s agent from the buyer’s side of the HUD-1?
- 09/29/06, Greg Swann: Butterflies might be free, but home-buyers pay for real estate advice — whether they know it or not…
- 09/06/06, Greg Swann: Securing the home-buyer’s place at the table: How two simple reforms can finally result in a full, uncompromised form of buyer representation…
- 08/15/06, Brian Larson: The End of MLS As We Know It
2 comments
2 Comments so far







































Yes we have to change with the “times”
Can you suggest the link or links I can go to and find out more info regarding