Traditional brokerages got 99 problems. They’ve got to compete with iBuyers. They’ve got to compete with 100% commission models. They’ve got to innovate new products and services. They’ve got to figure out a way to make money off those products and services. And they’ve got to worry about potential industry regulations and the insane amount of capital flowing in to would-be disruptors. So, what can brokerages do to address the fundamental flaws in the traditional model—and survive the next five years?
Today, Rob and Greg are discussing the top issues traditional brokerages face and what they can do about it. They address the implications around Compass’ renewed focus on product and Wall Street analyst John Campbell’s comments regarding the tipping point Realogy and other traditional brokerages face.
Rob and Greg weigh in on the fact that brokerages LOSE money on top producers and the challenge of monetizing products and services for agents. Listen in for insight around the future of traditional models like that of Realogy and RE/MAX and learn how agents and brokerages might adapt to the disruptions facing the real estate industry.
The public interest argument for representing the buyer’s side
The implications around Compass’ renewed focus on product
John Campbell’s comments on the tipping point Realogy faces
The issues around productivity in a traditional brokerage model
Why brokers need to make money through products + services
How brokerage iBuyer initiatives are really listing lead programs
Why Upstream doesn’t address the problems brokers face now
The fundamental flaws in the traditional brokerage model
The future of Realogy, RE/MAX, Redfin, eXp and Home Services
What agents might do in a world with 60% iBuyer market share
Connect with Rob and Greg:
Gradually … Then, Suddenly! Podcast
The Tom Ferry Podcast Experience
Glenn Kelman on Scratch That EP010
‘Is a Compass IPO Coming Soon?’ in Inman
John Campbell’s Comments in MarketWatch
The DOJ’s Scrutiny of Cooperating Compensation on IR EP035
Rob’s Future of Brokerage Black Paper
Industry Relations has just been nominated by Inman News Innovator award under the INNOVATIVE VIDEO/PODCAST SHOW category! Thanks for everyone’s support!
And now on with the show....
When Moehrl v. NAR was introduced in March, the industry response was largely… meh. Then in April, the Department of Justice reached out to the top MLS platform vendor, requiring documents and testimony about MLS data—with a specific focus on cooperating compensation. What is the DOJ likely to find? How might this information impact the class action suit? And what does it all mean for the real estate industry as a whole?
Today, Rob and Greg are discussing the Civil Investigative Demand (CID) CoreLogic recently received from the DOJ. They address the possibility of getting compensation data in the absence of a search feature on the MLS and predict whether the DOJ will find buyer-steering to be a widespread phenomenon.
Rob offers his take on why a directive requiring the disclosure of sold information would be more likely than new regulations, and Greg speculates that the industry is unlikely to stand by while the government eliminates cooperating compensation. Listen in to understand how the plaintiff attorneys in Moehrl v. NAR might use the DOJ’s findings and learn why organized real estate needs to take the lawsuit seriously.
The Civil Investigative Demand CoreLogic received from the DOJ
Getting compensation data without a feature search on the MLS
What a DOJ study demonstrating buyer steering might achieve
Why disclosure of sold info is more likely than new regulations
How many brokers + agents script for the commission question
How DOJ findings might be used by attorneys in Moehrl v. NAR
How the Canadian Competition Bureau handled this issue
The potential impact of eliminating cooperating compensation
How it could take up to 10 years to resolve the class action case
Connect with Rob and Greg:
Rob’s Post on CoreLogic & the DOJ
Rob’s 2015 Post on the NBER Study
Randy Ora’s Live Listing Presentation
Rob’s Post on the Brookings Institute Panel
Competition Bureau of Canada Resolution