Real estate commissions on homes in the US are typically between 5-6%. And it is usually split between the seller's agent and the buyer's agent (or it goes all to one agent in the case of dual-ended deals). It is also customary for this commission to be paid entirely by the seller (through the proceeds of their sale), though you could argue that buyers end up paying for it indirectly. All of this is generally true in Canada as well.
This is a good set up:
Sellers don't pay until they sell and have fresh cash
Money being deducted from proceeds (the "take rate") is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out
Buyers kind of don't pay
This last point is one of the most important features of how real estate commissions work. Because you have one side of the transaction that feels as if they're mostly not paying, it generally helps to perpetuate the status quo. If both sides had to directly fork out cash, you'd likely have a lot more people saying, "hey, why don't we consummate this transaction over here, on the side, and not pay these fees."
But it turns out that the US Department of Justice isn't happy about some of these policies and practices. More specifically, when the National Association of Realtors does things like this:
Prohibiting multiple listing services (“MLSs”) from disclosing to prospective buyers the amount of commission that the buyer broker will earn if the buyer purchases a home listed on the MLS (“NAR’s Commission Concealment Rules”);
Allowing buyer brokers to mislead buyers into thinking that buyer broker services are free (“NAR’s Free-Service Rule”);
Enabling buyer brokers to filter MLS listings based on the level of buyer broker commissions offered and to exclude homes with lower commissions from consideration by potential home buyers (“NAR’s Commission-Filter Rules and Practices”); and
Limiting access to lockboxes that provide licensed brokers physical access to a home that is for sale to only those real estate brokers who are members of a NAR-affiliated MLS (“NAR’s Lockbox Policy”).
In fact, these practices were found to be anti-competitive; they were arguably keeping commissions artificially high. So much so that a federal court recently awarded $1.8 billion in damages. It was also decided that no rule or practice should exist that:
Prohibits, discourages, or recommends against an MLS or MLS Participant publishing or displaying to consumers any MLS database field specifying the compensation offered to other MLS Participants;
Permits or requires MLS Participants, including buyer brokers, to represent or suggest that their services are free or available to a client at not cost to the client;
Permits or enables MLS Participants to filter, suppress, hide, or not display or distribute MLS listings based on the level of compensation offered to the buyer broker or the name of the brokerage or agent; or
Prohibits, discourages or recommends against the eligibility of any licensed real estate agent or broker, from accessing, with seller approval, the lockboxes of those properties listed on an MLS.
Some believe that this ruling -- which will create more competition -- could reduce the $100 billion or so of commissions paid each year (in the US) by as much as 30%. This is possible. I have no idea how this estimate was calculated. But it does make intuitive sense that commissions should come down. This ruling gets at the heart of what sustains the industry: one side of the marketplace needs to feel that they're, mostly, not really, paying.
Toronto will soon be home to One Delisle — the first residential building in Canada designed by visionary architect, Jeanne Gang of Studio Gang.
Jeanne Gang is known for challenging the stylistic and technical parameters of architecture. Named one of the most influential people in the world by TIME 100 in 2019, Gang is a MacArthur Fellow and a leading advocate for gender equality in the field of architecture and design.
Gang and her eponymous studio are responsible for some of the world’s most diverse and compelling buildings and spaces. One Delisle, as seen in the rendering above, will break from convention and refresh Toronto’s skyline. The rhythmic exterior maximizes natural light, views, and outdoor living for residents.
One Delisle was revealed this evening for the first time to a select group of Toronto's top real estate brokers. Follow #onedelisle on IG for some of the reactions. It was done online via a livestream, which was exceptional for what it was, but is obviously not as great as being in one room together. That time will return.
At this point, we are thrilled to announce that we are opening up "limited registration" for the project. If you'd like to register your interest, you can do that now at onedelisle.com. However, to register at this phase of the project, you'll need to pay a one-time fee of C$150.
Why are we doing that?
We're doing it to ensure that those who are genuinely interested in a One Delisle residence get first access to the project when it launches next year. Anyone who registers during this "limited registration" phase will be guaranteed a private appointment at our sales gallery before the general public.
So what else do you get?
In addition to first access -- including first access to the project's terrace suites -- limited registrants will receive a copy of Studio Gang: Architecture (retail price, US$100), an invitation to our One Delisle Film Series, an invitation to our launch event (including a talk with Jeanne Gang), as well as other exclusive news and updates.
The other thing I'd like to point out about the project's website is that the animation you see on the homepage (pictured above) will, in fact, change depending on the time of day wherever you are and when you visit the website.
This allows you to get a feel for how the architecture might respond to light and shadow throughout the day and how it might be illuminated at night. What you're seeing above is an artist's impression of that night view.
For more information and to register your interest, visit onedelisle.com.
I’ve written about Opendoor.com a few times. As far as I can tell, they are the furthest ahead in terms of disrupting the residential real estate market. So I like to follow them quite closely.
They’ve recently launched some new features, so I figured it would be a good time to check-in on what they’re up to. But first – for those of you might not be familiar with Opendoor – here’s what they do.
Opendoor offers instant liquidity to homeowners by buying homes site unseen. The fee they charge seems to amount to less than 10% of the value of the home.
They also say that they typically offer prices that are about 1-3% less than the market value of the home 3 months into the future. (Apparently 3 months is the average time-on-market for the cities in which they operate.)
Once they’ve bought the home, they then make improvements and put it back on the market. As of today, they are buying about 10 homes a day in the two markets in which they operate (Phoenix and Dallas). They are spending about $75 million a month buying homes.
To mitigate their risk, they won’t buy a home built before 1960, a home that was pre-fabricated, a home with a solar lease, and so on. They also stick to values that are between $100,000 to $600,000. But apparently this covers off about 90% of homes in the United States. (You can read their full FAQ here.)
To accomplish all of this, they have raised about $110 million in venture capital.
What’s fascinating about all of this is that they are starting to create a seamless marketplace. As they continue to buy more homes (and aggregate supply), more buyers are starting to come to their marketplace. They also allow people to easily find local contractors.
Over time as they gain scale and as their algorithms improve, one could imagine their pricing becoming more competitive, them taking more of the market, and them bearing much less market risk as homes quickly trade.
They liken their model to car trade-ins. Apparently 60% of people who buy a new car are trading in an old one. That’s an interesting comparison that I hadn’t thought about before.
So what’s new?
First, they are offering a 30 day full refund on new home purchases. In other words, if you buy a home through their platform and, for whatever reason, you end up not liking it, they’ll buy it back (minus some transaction costs and so on).
Second, they are providing a 180-point inspection report to buyers and if anything breaks in the first two years of ownership (presumably it is something that contravenes the inspection), they’ll come and fix it.
These additions are helpful because it starts to target buyers, which will help them fill out the other side of their marketplace. It also promotes greater transparency because now they’re partially on the hook for the home’s performance.
I like what they are doing and, again, I can’t think of any other company making such big bets in this space.