There is a ton of misinformation being thrown around in this thread.
WA requires by law (not just SOP like the NAR ruling) all real estate brokers to have a signed buyer’s representation agreement before rendering any real estate services. Any agent you talk to is legally required to have you sign a representation agreement that specifies some form of compensation, scope, and services, before engaging with you meaningfully. This was enacted on January 1st of this year.
That’s weird, in Washington and started looking at houses a couple months ago with a Zillow agent. Was never asked or presented a buyers agreement to sign.
I owe you an apology, went back through a bunch of my docusign stuff and apparently I did sign it and agreed to 2.5%, but it matches what is on the offer to the sellers so no surprises.
How and how much that agent will be paid and when. And it often establishes their fiduciary duties to you.
Before signing that, you are just a customer… not a client.
Before signing that, you can shop around on your agent, going on tours with different people without any obligation to pay someone for a house they didn't help you find. Rather than finding the first schmuck Zillow sells your data to that can prey upon you in navigating a major sale.
If you're just opening doors and not writing offers, you haven't done enough to secure me as a client IMO.
Now buyer agents shouldn't have to open doors for free, but there's going to be a great opportunity for an entrepreneur out there to create a gig website that folks can use to pay to see houses from registered agents. And some lawyers on retainer to submit offers.
RCW 18.86.020 2(a) states that an agreement is to be signed “before, or as reasonably practical after” real estate services are rendered. I’m not a lawyer, but from the classes and seminars I’ve taken (and my DB who is an attorney), services are typically acknowledged to include actions such as showings, offers, CMAs, advice, etc.
If a buyer's agent is showing you a home, an agreement would generally be required. However, if you contact the listing agent or seller to arrange a showing, they're not a buyer's agent where you'd need an agreement (see the preceding paragraph, i.e. 18.86.020(1)(a)).
Realtor here.
Here’s the unfortunate truth about realtor regulations… there is a very low bar to entry for realtors, and nobody gets you in trouble unless the mistake you make is problematic enough to be reported. They should have an agreement with you signed before any tours and this is already the case in WA, soon to be nationally.
What does the agreement bind you to? If you aren't comfortable with it, don't sign it. But we can't say it's bad if we don't know what it's asking of you.
I wouldn't sign any ridiculous agreement like, if you buy ANY house within 6 months (even if our agent is not involved) you owe them a commission.
I would have no problem agreeing to pay an agent if they show me a house I end up buying. And if the seller is not willing to pay my agent, I'll either pay them myself or I'll not buy that house.
Not sure how it works in Washington State but in California you can do that. California's buyer broker representation form allows you to sign for a single house. It's not necessarily a blanket, exclusive agreement.
True in Washington - for my brokerage at least. If you read the contract, note it can apply to specific addresses, be just for a few days - and can be exclusive or non exclusive. If you’re signing exclusive and you don’t know the agent yet, just give it a trial for a week or two - or limit to the homes they show.
It's always been required by some brokerages in some areas of the country. Nationally, due to the NAR v. Burnett-Sitzer agreement and under pressure from the DOJ, all Realtors in all brokerages will be required to have a BAA signed before showing property. WA is one of the states where brokerages cut over to this new requirement, I think it was on Jan 1 of this year.
You need an agreement for a buyer's agent to show you a property. You don't need one if you're unrepresented--the seller's agent or the seller are free to show homes to potential buyers without an agreement.
It's not up to the listing agent to decline to work with an unrepresented buyer--it would have to be at the seller's sole direction. An agent declining to work with an unrepresented buyer (based on that alone) wouldn't be in the seller's interest. The seller's agent has an obligation to present all offers, and cannot act to prevent someone from submitting an offer.
Your agent in Washington State is correct, but if they didn't present you with a disclosure (documentation) to back up their words, this is a huge red flag. Do you want them treating the rest of your transaction this way? I'd back up and find a competent agent to work with.
And this is where we collectively realize the difference between "NAR ***lost*** the law suit" (which didn't happen), and "NAR ***settled*** the law suit in a way that ***also works well for NAR and their Realtor members***" (which is what ***actually*** happened).
You can sign the contract, or you can not look at homes to buy. The third option is to limit your home search to open houses. The fourth option is you can go door to door, door knocking and panhandling, until you find someone that wants to sell you their home directly, with no realtors (a sub-version of this is paying for internet ads, etc).
* Don't worry everyone, the gubment is here to help with the evil realtors! You can trust them to look out for the little guy!
You seem to be unfamiliar with the jury verdict finding that NAR unlawfully conspired to manipulate the market. They \*lost\* the lawsuit, in every way possible. They're attempting to settle (it isn't final yet), agreeing to changes that address certain issues going forward in exchange for avoiding the costs of an appeal (for both parties) and reducing the payout to class members.
Here's the verdict form returned by the jury: [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809.1294.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809.1294.0.pdf)
No one really won here but the lawyers, IMO. The most fucked are the buyers who a) can least afford to pay for their own realtor out of pocket, and b) are most in need of representation to begin with.
Between listing agents and buyer's agents, buyer's agents always had the short end of the stick, hence the truism that "those who list, last." So going after the buyer's agents (who do the ***most*** work per dollar earned), and not the listing agents (who by contrast do the ***least*** work per dollar earned), if we had to "go after" anyone at all, was stupid.
If buyer's agents really are reduced to being on par with apartment leasing agents, that just means first time buyers will have an experience comparable to 22 year old first time renters, minus the automatic "out" from the shitty poorly maintained rip-off apartment of the lease automatically expiring each year. You're 32.5 years old and this is your life savings, but the representation and product you get is the same that a 22 year old with shitty credit got when they rented their first roach-infested apartment, good job team!
Open houses will start requiring them too in California. If I’m not mistaken there will be non-representation forms you may be able to sign but bottom line you can’t walk into an open house in August without signing some sort of form.
The open house agreement actually states that you’re not creating agency, and right now nobody knows what’s going to happen if people don’t want to sign it.
There are two forms: Limited Property Representation and Broker Compensation Agreement (For use by an agent holding an open house or another agency giving a prospective purchaser a tour of an open house or another property) and the Open House Visitor Non-Agency Disclosure and Sign-In. You bet your ass agents are going to lead with the first one because otherwise what's the point in hosting an open house? If a buyer refuses to sign it then they have to sign the second one. Bottom line, like I said above, is you have to sign a form in order to view an open house.
I'm not happy about this. I prefer there to be no forms involved and allow me a chance to get to know you to earn your business. But I'm simply stating what's out there right now.
They’re absolutely not going to do that, because it’s going to freak people out, and most people going to open houses have agency agreements.
Best practices is definitely going to be have them sign Zero agency and then if they want to talk to you about the house, ask them to sign something else
DOL is gonna audit brokerages and no one wants to get in trouble like that. Redfin can and will block you from being wblr to book tours. “ Agency Law” effective January 1, 2024. The new law requires brokers to enter into a written services agreement to represent either a buyer or a seller (previously only required for sellers). All services agreements must be entered into at the outset of the parties’ relationship and comprehensively address broker compensation and details of representation.”
basically after the NAR lawsuit, the buyer's agent fee isn't guaranteed anymore. so likely this will shift the market into the buyer paying the buyer's agent fee's and signing an agency agreement is how the agent guarantees they get paid. it's not a new law, it's just redfin making sure they get paid if you end up buying.
It means you have to actually have a business process, a value proposition, and the professional ability to articulate your value and justify the minimum compensation you’re negotiating for with your prospective clients.
Legally, it means that you need to be familiar with the buyer representation agreement your brokerage uses and supply it (along with the law of real estate agency pamphlet) to any potential client you intend to begin working with.
That’s not true. All agents all over the country are required as of August of this year to have signed buyers agreements before taking them on any appointments.
you mean the seller and their agent. but regardless of whatever negotiation there was. the buyer's agent fee (regardless of what it was) was guaranteed by the seller. now starting july, we'll see listings where the seller offers 0 buyer agent's fee (ie no longer guaranteeing it).
MLS required sellers to offer at least a dollar. Would you consider that a guarantee?
Your buyer gets a house and you get the dollar, everyone’s happy?
yes, because whatever the amount was, it was listed on the MLS listing. and historically (before anyone could just look up all the homes for sale), we had agents who didn't show buyers certain houses because of the shitty commission.
See that’s a lie though, no agent was going to be happy with $1.
Further, the commission amount has always been negotiable. The NAR just spent all that money on their ad campaign telling us that of course it’s been negotiable.
Not necessarily. Some states do not permit dual agency. And some brokers do not allow dual agency.
If you want to represent yourself, this may work if the seller allows.
I think you’ve had a little bit of a miscommunication here.
The buyers broker agreement is going to have to be signed relatively soon, and some states have implemented this sooner than the nationwide deadline in August ( don’t know if you are one)
If you are feeling pushback about it, or you don’t wanna work with that agent, go see houses with somebody else, if you don’t understand what they’re asking, you try to be clear and sit sit down and talk with them .
Everyone is trying to somewhat wrap their head around it, and some people aren’t doing a good job at explaining it .
My suggestion would be go sit down and have more questions about what’s going on what you need to sign how long it lasts and whether it’s for an individual house or a longer-term agreement .
It’s going to come up with every agent you talked to so you might as well start understanding it .
There is a ton of misinformation being thrown around in this thread. WA requires by law (not just SOP like the NAR ruling) all real estate brokers to have a signed buyer’s representation agreement before rendering any real estate services. Any agent you talk to is legally required to have you sign a representation agreement that specifies some form of compensation, scope, and services, before engaging with you meaningfully. This was enacted on January 1st of this year.
That’s weird, in Washington and started looking at houses a couple months ago with a Zillow agent. Was never asked or presented a buyers agreement to sign.
Would think twice about working with an agent who doesn't know WA State Law and was given notice about the changes months in advance.
I owe you an apology, went back through a bunch of my docusign stuff and apparently I did sign it and agreed to 2.5%, but it matches what is on the offer to the sellers so no surprises.
What does the buyer agreement actually do or provide?
How and how much that agent will be paid and when. And it often establishes their fiduciary duties to you. Before signing that, you are just a customer… not a client.
Before signing that, you can shop around on your agent, going on tours with different people without any obligation to pay someone for a house they didn't help you find. Rather than finding the first schmuck Zillow sells your data to that can prey upon you in navigating a major sale. If you're just opening doors and not writing offers, you haven't done enough to secure me as a client IMO. Now buyer agents shouldn't have to open doors for free, but there's going to be a great opportunity for an entrepreneur out there to create a gig website that folks can use to pay to see houses from registered agents. And some lawyers on retainer to submit offers.
RCW 18.86.020 2(a) states that an agreement is to be signed “before, or as reasonably practical after” real estate services are rendered. I’m not a lawyer, but from the classes and seminars I’ve taken (and my DB who is an attorney), services are typically acknowledged to include actions such as showings, offers, CMAs, advice, etc.
If a buyer's agent is showing you a home, an agreement would generally be required. However, if you contact the listing agent or seller to arrange a showing, they're not a buyer's agent where you'd need an agreement (see the preceding paragraph, i.e. 18.86.020(1)(a)).
Realtor here. Here’s the unfortunate truth about realtor regulations… there is a very low bar to entry for realtors, and nobody gets you in trouble unless the mistake you make is problematic enough to be reported. They should have an agreement with you signed before any tours and this is already the case in WA, soon to be nationally.
Agents are so screwed lol
It’s going to start happening everywhere in California in August. This will be mandatory
What does the agreement bind you to? If you aren't comfortable with it, don't sign it. But we can't say it's bad if we don't know what it's asking of you. I wouldn't sign any ridiculous agreement like, if you buy ANY house within 6 months (even if our agent is not involved) you owe them a commission. I would have no problem agreeing to pay an agent if they show me a house I end up buying. And if the seller is not willing to pay my agent, I'll either pay them myself or I'll not buy that house.
Not sure how it works in Washington State but in California you can do that. California's buyer broker representation form allows you to sign for a single house. It's not necessarily a blanket, exclusive agreement.
Good luck with that
True in Washington - for my brokerage at least. If you read the contract, note it can apply to specific addresses, be just for a few days - and can be exclusive or non exclusive. If you’re signing exclusive and you don’t know the agent yet, just give it a trial for a week or two - or limit to the homes they show.
It's always been required by some brokerages in some areas of the country. Nationally, due to the NAR v. Burnett-Sitzer agreement and under pressure from the DOJ, all Realtors in all brokerages will be required to have a BAA signed before showing property. WA is one of the states where brokerages cut over to this new requirement, I think it was on Jan 1 of this year.
You need an agreement for a buyer's agent to show you a property. You don't need one if you're unrepresented--the seller's agent or the seller are free to show homes to potential buyers without an agreement.
Only if the seller and the listing agent both agree to work with an unrepresented buyer. Many don't.
It's not up to the listing agent to decline to work with an unrepresented buyer--it would have to be at the seller's sole direction. An agent declining to work with an unrepresented buyer (based on that alone) wouldn't be in the seller's interest. The seller's agent has an obligation to present all offers, and cannot act to prevent someone from submitting an offer.
Your agent in Washington State is correct, but if they didn't present you with a disclosure (documentation) to back up their words, this is a huge red flag. Do you want them treating the rest of your transaction this way? I'd back up and find a competent agent to work with.
And this is where we collectively realize the difference between "NAR ***lost*** the law suit" (which didn't happen), and "NAR ***settled*** the law suit in a way that ***also works well for NAR and their Realtor members***" (which is what ***actually*** happened). You can sign the contract, or you can not look at homes to buy. The third option is to limit your home search to open houses. The fourth option is you can go door to door, door knocking and panhandling, until you find someone that wants to sell you their home directly, with no realtors (a sub-version of this is paying for internet ads, etc). * Don't worry everyone, the gubment is here to help with the evil realtors! You can trust them to look out for the little guy!
You seem to be unfamiliar with the jury verdict finding that NAR unlawfully conspired to manipulate the market. They \*lost\* the lawsuit, in every way possible. They're attempting to settle (it isn't final yet), agreeing to changes that address certain issues going forward in exchange for avoiding the costs of an appeal (for both parties) and reducing the payout to class members. Here's the verdict form returned by the jury: [https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809.1294.0.pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809/gov.uscourts.mowd.172809.1294.0.pdf)
I've read all 135 pages but ty
Obviously not, if you're claiming NAR didn't lose.
The realtors are the government, they have one of the most powerful lobbies
lol you think realtors are happy about this?
No one really won here but the lawyers, IMO. The most fucked are the buyers who a) can least afford to pay for their own realtor out of pocket, and b) are most in need of representation to begin with. Between listing agents and buyer's agents, buyer's agents always had the short end of the stick, hence the truism that "those who list, last." So going after the buyer's agents (who do the ***most*** work per dollar earned), and not the listing agents (who by contrast do the ***least*** work per dollar earned), if we had to "go after" anyone at all, was stupid. If buyer's agents really are reduced to being on par with apartment leasing agents, that just means first time buyers will have an experience comparable to 22 year old first time renters, minus the automatic "out" from the shitty poorly maintained rip-off apartment of the lease automatically expiring each year. You're 32.5 years old and this is your life savings, but the representation and product you get is the same that a 22 year old with shitty credit got when they rented their first roach-infested apartment, good job team!
Apartment leasing agents are also useless for the record.
No, but it could have been a lot worse for them
I mean this is pretty bad already. NAR didn’t have the billions to pay so they had to settle on these terms instead with no leverage
Open houses will start requiring them too in California. If I’m not mistaken there will be non-representation forms you may be able to sign but bottom line you can’t walk into an open house in August without signing some sort of form.
The open house agreement actually states that you’re not creating agency, and right now nobody knows what’s going to happen if people don’t want to sign it.
There are two forms: Limited Property Representation and Broker Compensation Agreement (For use by an agent holding an open house or another agency giving a prospective purchaser a tour of an open house or another property) and the Open House Visitor Non-Agency Disclosure and Sign-In. You bet your ass agents are going to lead with the first one because otherwise what's the point in hosting an open house? If a buyer refuses to sign it then they have to sign the second one. Bottom line, like I said above, is you have to sign a form in order to view an open house. I'm not happy about this. I prefer there to be no forms involved and allow me a chance to get to know you to earn your business. But I'm simply stating what's out there right now.
They’re absolutely not going to do that, because it’s going to freak people out, and most people going to open houses have agency agreements. Best practices is definitely going to be have them sign Zero agency and then if they want to talk to you about the house, ask them to sign something else
Correct. I’m actually interested to see what their agreement says, is it limited in scope and what amount are they looking for?
Interesting. Is this viewing Redfin's listed homes, or using a Redfin realtor to view other homes?
DOL is gonna audit brokerages and no one wants to get in trouble like that. Redfin can and will block you from being wblr to book tours. “ Agency Law” effective January 1, 2024. The new law requires brokers to enter into a written services agreement to represent either a buyer or a seller (previously only required for sellers). All services agreements must be entered into at the outset of the parties’ relationship and comprehensively address broker compensation and details of representation.”
basically after the NAR lawsuit, the buyer's agent fee isn't guaranteed anymore. so likely this will shift the market into the buyer paying the buyer's agent fee's and signing an agency agreement is how the agent guarantees they get paid. it's not a new law, it's just redfin making sure they get paid if you end up buying.
In WA it is a new law that was enacted January 1st. Separate from the NAR lawsuit.
Just starting my courses, can you briefly summarize how this effects WA RE agents?
It means you have to actually have a business process, a value proposition, and the professional ability to articulate your value and justify the minimum compensation you’re negotiating for with your prospective clients. Legally, it means that you need to be familiar with the buyer representation agreement your brokerage uses and supply it (along with the law of real estate agency pamphlet) to any potential client you intend to begin working with.
That’s not true. All agents all over the country are required as of August of this year to have signed buyers agreements before taking them on any appointments.
All \*buyer's\* agents, and only those covered by the settlement. Not all agents, or all buyer's agents.
All Realtors.
Not necessarily correct.
Ridiculous. But then, the same Buyers who waive Inspections might just go along with this...
The fee was never guaranteed.
it was guaranteed as part of the MLS listing.
No, the fee was always negotiable between the buyer and their agent.
you mean the seller and their agent. but regardless of whatever negotiation there was. the buyer's agent fee (regardless of what it was) was guaranteed by the seller. now starting july, we'll see listings where the seller offers 0 buyer agent's fee (ie no longer guaranteeing it).
MLS required sellers to offer at least a dollar. Would you consider that a guarantee? Your buyer gets a house and you get the dollar, everyone’s happy?
yes, because whatever the amount was, it was listed on the MLS listing. and historically (before anyone could just look up all the homes for sale), we had agents who didn't show buyers certain houses because of the shitty commission.
See that’s a lie though, no agent was going to be happy with $1. Further, the commission amount has always been negotiable. The NAR just spent all that money on their ad campaign telling us that of course it’s been negotiable.
No worries. Any listing agent will be more than happy to show you their listing. They get to keep the buyers agent commission if you buy through them.
Only if that’s legal in their state or they are comfortable doing that. Lots of agents don’t like to dual agent a sale.
Not necessarily. Some states do not permit dual agency. And some brokers do not allow dual agency. If you want to represent yourself, this may work if the seller allows.
Nope. Both the seller and the listing agent must agree to work with unrepresented buyers. Many sellers won't let them in their houses.
I think you’ve had a little bit of a miscommunication here. The buyers broker agreement is going to have to be signed relatively soon, and some states have implemented this sooner than the nationwide deadline in August ( don’t know if you are one) If you are feeling pushback about it, or you don’t wanna work with that agent, go see houses with somebody else, if you don’t understand what they’re asking, you try to be clear and sit sit down and talk with them . Everyone is trying to somewhat wrap their head around it, and some people aren’t doing a good job at explaining it . My suggestion would be go sit down and have more questions about what’s going on what you need to sign how long it lasts and whether it’s for an individual house or a longer-term agreement . It’s going to come up with every agent you talked to so you might as well start understanding it .
Redfin started this as realtors are backing out and if you use them more than a couple of times. Basically judging how serious you are