Brandon Donnelly

Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.

Subscribe

Tag: real estate agent

  • What the NAR’s $418 million settlement could mean for the real estate industry

    The $418 million commissions lawsuit that was settled last week with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is certainly a big deal. The NAR is trying to sound positive, but all signs point to this outcome being meaningful for the industry. TD Cowen Insights is forecasting that commissions paid in the US each year could fall by some $25 to $50 billion (from a total of ~$100 billion). And this is the headline you’ll see everywhere right now. But how might this actually happen?

    As we’ve talked about before, the status quo commissions set up is a good one for agents:

    • Sellers are typically the party who pays 100% of the commissions
    • But sellers don’t pay until the agent sells and they have fresh cash
    • Money being deducted from proceeds (a “take rate”) is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out of pocket
    • Buyers kind of don’t pay — or at least that’s how they’re supposed to feel

    This is “good” because it perpetuates the existing model. If buyers feel like they’re mostly not paying, they’re just going to go to the marketplace with the most supply of homes. And that marketplace is the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). However, this marketplace also does things like tell buyer agents how much commission they will make as part of each deal. And the belief is that practices like this are anticompetitive.

    So as part of the above settlement, the following new rules are expected to go into place by July 2024 in the US:

    • Seller agents will no longer be able to set compensation for buyer agents
    • All fields on MLS displaying broker compensation will need to be removed
    • Furthermore, agents will no longer even need to subscribe to an MLS in order to accept compensation
    • Buyers working with an agent will need to enter into their own buyer broker agreement and negotiate compensation separately
    • However, there’s nothing stopping buyers and sellers from negotiating whatever commission structure they want; the idea is simply that it will be more transparent and negotiated by each participant

    Why this is meaningful is that it decouples buyer agents and seller agents in a way that they aren’t today. Instead of everything originating from the sell side, each side of the transaction is now going to — theoretically at least — negotiate what they believe is fair compensation for their representation. At the same time, there’s no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS.

    This leads us to, at least, two important things to think about:

    1. What is fair compensation? Well, it should depend. If I’m a first-time buyer, I may want someone to walk me through the entire process. But if I’ve done it many times before, maybe I need very little. Or, if I’m an investor looking to renovate homes, maybe I want representation that is also an expert on construction. The point is that, in a truly open market, one should be able to find an agent and pay them based on the value that they’re creating. And this is presumably why everyone is expecting commissions to fall precipitously.
    2. If there’s no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS, does this then open the door for new and more open listing platforms? Right now, I don’t know how this will play out. I’d like to better understand more of the details around this settlement item and what it could mean for the landscape. But I do know that the way to spur the most amount of innovation would be to have the marketplace run on something like a blockchain, and then allow anyone to create their own listing platform on top of it. One day.

    This will be fascinating to watch play out. And I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it spurs similar changes here in Canada. Expect further coverage of this topic on the blog.

    Photo by Tom Rumble on Unsplash

  • Wonderful real estate

    At the highest level, I agree with the premise of this tweet from The Real Estate God. The overarching argument is that one’s main criteria for selecting a real estate market in which to enter should be “the place with the least competition.” And the reason for this is that less competition equals less price discovery, which then equals more mispriced assets and more opportunities to generate outsized returns.

    Going even further, the argument here is that you’re actually taking on less risk by buying mispriced assets in less competitive markets because you can model reality (things like in-place cash flows and market rents) as opposed to betting on the future (things like rental growth and/or cap rate compression). Said in a different way, it’s easier to find deals and “make money on the buy”; and, once again, I would mostly agree with this.

    But in my mind there’s a very important caveat. And it’s akin to the advice that the late Charlie Munger supposedly gave to Warren Buffet: “Forget what you know about buying fair businesses at wonderful prices; instead, buy wonderful businesses at fair prices.” While it is true that you might find wonderful pricing in less competitive markets, there remains the question of whether you’re also buying wonderful real estate.

    And I think that’s an important consideration.

  • Rent-controlled apartment

    It is estimated that about 1% of the total housing stock in New York City is rent controlled (2019 figure), which is something different than rent stabilized.

    Generally the way the former works is that you have to have been living continuously in the home since July 1, 1971, and the building itself needs to have been constructed before 1947. If this is the case, then in theory, you should have seen relatively minor rent increases over the years.

    This was the case for the late real estate agent, Alice Mason, who died at the beginning of this year at the age of 100:

    She never left the rent-stabilized [controlled?] apartment where she held her storied dinners, in a century-old building on East 72nd Street. (In Manhattan real estate parlance, it was a classic eight, a gracious prewar layout that included three bedrooms and two maid’s rooms.) In 2011, the developer Harry Macklowe bought the building for a reported $70 million and began to turn the units into condos, buying out the tenants to do so. But Ms. Mason refused to give up her apartment. When she moved there in 1962, the rent was $400 a month. At her death, it was $2,476. The apartment below her, in the same line, was recently on the market for just under $10 million.

    Green, Penelope. “Alice Mason, Real Estate Fixer and Hostess to the Elite, Dies at 100.” The New York Times, 13 Jan. 2024, www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/style/alice-mason-dead.html.

    For better or for worse, this is an obviously awesome deal, and reason enough to never move and have family members move in with you before you die so that you can try and pass down this asset for generations to come.

  • Toward positive ZOPAs

    This example, by Matt Levine, is a funny way to understand how many negotiations work:

    In negotiations, it is often helpful to have someone else, some “absent principal,” to blame for your position. You go to a car dealership, the salesperson says “this car costs $25,000,” you say “I want to pay $21,000,” she says “I like you, I want you in this car, but my boss won’t let me go lower than $24,000,” you say “$22,000,” she says “I really want this to work out, let me check with my boss,” she goes into the break room and watches TikToks on her phone for five minutes, she comes back and says “my boss is really mad at me but I talked him down to $23,500.”

    The boss is a crutch, an excuse. The salesperson is adversarial to you — she wants to charge more, you want to pay less — but wants you to feel like she’s on your side, so you trust her and agree to her proposals.

    Now, Matt ultimately goes on to talk about how in some situations, such as in the financial industry, this could be considered criminal behavior. But that’s a more nuanced topic for his column, and not for this blog. Here, we’re just going to use it as a lead-in to say that negotiating is kind of important for real estate.

    In fact, when I was in grad school, my mentors used to always say to me, “everyone should take a negotiating class.” And so I went and did that. It was a lot of fun. I remember us being given “positions”, and then we’d have to go out and see what we could negotiate.

    One particular concept that I often find myself coming back to is something referred to as the “ZOPA.” The Russians in my class were quick to point out that this sounds like the word ass in their language, but in the world of negotiating it stands for “Zone of Possible Agreement.”

    What it describes is whether there’s an overlap between what both parties are willing to accept. For example, if a buyer is willing to pay as much as $100 for a particular piece of real estate, and the seller is willing to go as low as $80, then there is a positive ZOPA of $20.

    This means that a deal should theoretically happen. However, interestingly enough, I discovered in my classroom simulations that negotiations can still arrive at an impasse, even with a positive ZOPA. Some people want to do deals, and some people like to extract everything they can from a negotiation.

    Of course, if you have a negative ZOPA (i.e. no overlap in what the parties are willing to accept), then it’s obviously pretty hard, if not largely impossible, to come to a deal. And since 2022, you could say that the real estate industry has been characterized by a greater number of negative ZOPA scenarios.

    But if my predictions for this year are correct, then 2024 will be the year where we start to see some more positive ones.

  • Real estate commissions are probably going to come down

    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.

  • Redfin is rolling out an online purchase option for homes

    There’s a lot of money at work right now trying to reinvent the way that homes are bought and sold. Perhaps the most popular trend is “instant buying” or algorithmic home buying. I have been writing about this for years, mostly because of Opendoor. But now there are lots of companies competing in this space. With this model, home sellers get the benefit of an almost immediate sale, though usually it’s at a slightly lower price.

    Redfin, on the other hand, is returning to something that it first tried out back in 2006: a buy now button on its online listings. It failed back then. But maybe it was simply too early. The feature allows unrepresented buyers — that is, buyers without an agent — to make online offers. Naturally, it’s far from a single click process. But when accepted, the seller ends up paying about half the amount of commission.

    According to the New York Times, the company started testing the feature in late March in the Boston area. Of the 120 homes listed on Redfin with a “start an offer” button, 5 ended up being purchased via an online bid. That’s more than I would have expected. But Redfin positions these offers as being the stronger option because they save sellers money. There’s also an option to tour the home on your own.

    Given this initial response, the company is now working to roll out this feature nationally, market by market. Is this the future of home buying?

  • Real estate startup Knock raises $400 million

    I have been writing about the real estate startup Opendoor for many years here on the blog. Another promising startup in this space is Knock, and today it was announced that they just raised a $400 million Series B round (led by Foundry Group).

    They share some similarities with Opendoor, but they are also different in that their focus is on home trade-ins. They tell you what your current home is worth, help you find a new home, and then coordinate “a seamless swap.” For more on how they work, go here.

    One of the ways in which they are similar to Opendoor is that they front the cash for new home purchases. In the case of Opendoor, they buy your home with the plan of selling it in the future. And with Knock, they buy your home with the understanding that your old home will get sold.

    It is certainly a more capital intensive model compared to the way that home sales are handled today. But many investors are clearly betting that it is exactly what is needed to change the status quo. 

    (Credit to Jeremiah Shamess for sharing the above news with me today.)

  • Federal court upholds decision that TREB’s housing sales data should be available online

    The Toronto Real Estate Board (Canada’s largest real estate board) and the Competition Bureau have been fighting for years over whether TREB’s housing market sales data, including realtor commissions, should be publicly available online.

    The Competition Bureau, as well as many forward thinking realtors, believe that gatekeeping historical sales data is stifling competition and innovation. It is. But TREB has been arguing – for a number of years I might add – that it is genuinely concerned about consumer privacy.

    Well on Friday the Federal Court of Appeal ruled that TREB cannot prevent its members from freely publishing data about what properties have sold for. This is a positive, albeit a small, step forward for open data and innovation.

    But perhaps not surprisingly, TREB has already said it would appeal the decision to the Supreme Court of Canada and apply for an order staying the release of the above data until this new appeal gets decided.

    So there’s still more fighting to take place. Nevertheless, I do have a few thoughts.

    The claim by TREB that they are deeply concerned about consumer privacy is nonsense. Call up any realtor in this city and they’ll tell you and send you whatever historical sales data you want. This is about maintaining an information asymmetry that forces more consumers to connect with agents.

    But as many sensible realtors have already explained publicly in the media, if gatekeeping information is such a critical component of the value that TREB members bring to clients – and the board is certainly clinging to it – then realtors and/or the industry have a serious problem on their hands. 

    Time to evolve.

    I would also argue that our current archaic setup distorts the market. There’s simply too much friction associated with accessing good sales records and so the result is greater opacity in the market. Say all you want about the efficacy of realtors, more friction = less engagement. Free the data and empower members to leverage and build on top of it.

    In my view, this is a positive step forward. But it still feels like a small one. I’m actually surprised by how long this status-quo battle has been going on. Hopefully it gets wrapped up soon so everyone can get on with what matters most: innovating.

    Photo by Fernando Reyes on Unsplash

  • Will Zillow’s new “Instant Offers” disrupt real estate agents?

    Last month Zillow.com launched a new feature called “Instant Offers.” Press real estate can be found here.

    It is:

    “…a way for homeowners to sell their homes quickly by providing them with offers from investors and a comparative market analysis (CMA) from a local real estate agent, as an estimate for what the home might fetch on the open market.

    Here is a bit more about how it works:

    “To participate in Zillow Instant Offers, verified homeowners interested in receiving investor offers confirm information about the home (number of bedrooms, square footage, etc.), highlight any updates and provide several photos of the home. From there, select investors who buy homes in the area can present their offers alongside the CMA from a local real estate agent. Any investor offers and the CMA will include an overview of fees associated with each option, to enable sellers to make an informed apples-to-apples comparison.”

    When I first saw the headline, I thought they were copying Opendoor. But it’s not the same model. They aren’t buying the homes, like Opendoor, they are simply working to coordinate an “instant” transaction. Still, I’m sure that Opendoor provided at least some of the impetus for this feature.

    Of course, the most interesting question with these online real estate platforms is: Will they disrupt real estate agents? Mike Delprete wrote a great post about this in the wake of Zillow’s announcement.

    But ultimately he concludes something that I have felt strongly for years:

    “So, while real estate sites are best positioned to disrupt the real estate industry by displacing agents, they’re also the least likely to do so, because agents are their biggest customers and source of revenue.”

    The irony.

    About 70% of Zillow’s revenue comes from real estate agents. So it seems unlikely that they – at least currently – will be the ones that turn the tables on agents. 

    Some real estate platforms have started diversifying their revenue streams for probably this exact reason. But who knows, it may be a new entrant, rather than an incumbent, who pulls this off. 

  • Transparent offer platform

    A new “transparent offer platform” called Haus has just launched in California to serve the residential real estate market. The way it works is that all offers are submitted online. And once an offer has been confirmed, it – along with all of its terms – gets revealed to every other potential buyer. See image below.

    image

    I’ve seen a number of different iterations of this same idea, which tells me that this is a well-identified problem in the real estate market. Here’s a snippet from a recent TechCrunch article announcing Haus:

    “We think the openness will create a more efficient market and that the number of offers and price will ultimately be dependent on demand,” said Haus GM Sarah Ham. “Bidding wars are a common, almost accepted, part of the real estate process today. But with our approach, buyers know where they stand. Buyers will know what they need to offer to make their offer competitive, but they also won’t negotiate against themselves.”

    I completely agree that this is a problem that needs to be solved. It will create a more efficient marketplace. However, in this market, I suspect that the current information asymmetries largely benefit sellers, to the detriment of buyers. So I wonder if the supply-side of the marketplace will be willing to participate at scale. What’s really in it for them?

    Side note: Haus is the latest project from Expa, which is a “startup studio” that works on its own ideas, as well as partners with other founders. I am very interested in this approach to creation because I think you have to try and make a lot of things if you want to do truly innovative things.