by Jim the Realtor | Nov 9, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop, The Future, Zillow |
The copycat lawsuits are pouring in now, with attorneys from across the country looking to get their piece. The latest, called Batton 2 (other versions were filed previously), is for buyers from the last 27 years:
“All persons who, since December 1, 1996 through the present, purchased in the Indirect Purchaser States residential real estate that was listed on an NAR MLS.” For this class, the plaintiffs are asking for damages under “antitrust, unfair competition, consumer protection, and unjust enrichment laws.”
The class will include millions of people! If NAR goes out of business (which is likely), it won’t change much because we’ll still have state and local associations. We’ll have less lobbying, but lower dues!
All plaintiffs have momentum now, and the lead attorney from the first lawsuit doesn’t just want money. “One of our goals in filing the case is to make sure any changes are brought nationwide,” said Ketchmark. “We’re extremely focused on making sure any change that comes from this is real change.”
But the NAR is taking it lightly, just like they have from the beginning:
“We are currently reviewing the new filing, and it appears to be a copycat lawsuit,” Mantill Williams, NAR’s vice president of communications. “We continue to assert that the practice of listing brokers making offers of compensation to buyer brokers is best for consumers. It gives the greatest number of buyers a chance to afford a home and professional representation, while also giving sellers access to the greatest number of buyers.”
Here’s our corporate viewpoint:
Compass spokesperson Devin Daly Huerta said the company doesn’t comment on pending litigation, but provided comments from the company’s earnings call on Monday, saying the company “will respond accordingly to the complaints filed against us at the appropriate time” and that the company feels “confident that Compass is well-positioned.”
Compass pointed to rule changes at Northwest MLS that made listing broker compensation to buyer brokers optional and didn’t result in any decrease of offers of compensation or the amounts offered. “So we have evidence in a major U.S. market of what this change might look like that gives us confidence,” the company said.
“Secondly, we believe we are positioned well because we have the combination of some of the most productive agents and the only end to end technology platform in our industry. Third, we currently have agents that successfully ask their buyers to sign buyer broker agreements in order to work with them. We are in the process of launching trainings to all of our agents to empower them to successfully get buyer broker agreements signed with their buyers.
“Lastly, we operate largely in the luxury segment, where we think buyers will always want the help of an advisor through their home-buying journey.”
Similar statements from other brokerages are downplaying the impact. Yes, we will probably have better presentations of what realtors do and why we are worth the money, but anyone who thinks that will fix everything will be sorely disappointed. Consumers will be empowered to consider other options.
The only people who think that buyer-agents are needed are the agents. Buyers find homes for sale online, and they are proud about finding them before their agent does. They wonder why they need their own agent, when they can just contact the listing agent. The listing agents will be enouraging those thoughts!
Here’s a paragraph from the red team – the first to publicly mimic my prediction:
But if buyers’ agents become less common, Redfin will prosper in that world too. We run the largest brokerage website in America. We’ve built self-service technology for buyers to set up their own tours and to make offers. We’ll use that technology to market the properties listed by our agents directly to consumers, taking market share from other brokerages. We may open that platform to other listing agents who work with us as partners.
This is an opportunity for major changes to be implemented on how homes are sold, and these lawsuits are the disruption device. Realtors will roll out fancier graphics that tout the status quo, leaving it wide open for new ideas. Zillow and Homes.com have surged ahead of what should have been the dominant search portal, realtor.com, which NAR also screwed up when they sold it to an outside company.
Zillow has been amassing the pieces to build a super app, and create one-stop shopping for homes. If they add an auction component, it will be O-V-E-R for realtors.
by Jim the Realtor | Nov 6, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop, Why You Should List With Jim |
Did you know that none of the jurors had sold a house before?
It was part of the screening too, and the defense attorneys were so cocky that they didn’t think it would matter. Their witnesses were a smart-aleck NAR CEO on his way out the door, and an elderly gazillionaire. Is anyone surprised we lost?
This is the American legal system, so there will be talk of settlement. Two brokerages already settled before the trial, and the other two would be smart to settle now – and leave the NAR to pay the bill. If NAR has to pay the entire amount, there will be trouble. They only have half of the money.
Given how quick the plaintiffs settled with ReMax and Anywhere (for only $130 million), a settlement could come flying down the pike any minute. Who knows? Are the NAR attorneys seeing the big picture, and crafting a settlement agreement that solves all the problems?
Probably not.
Can we package up all the things that can be manipulated into class-action lawsuits while we are at it?
Dual agency ensures that every buyer and seller in a transaction gets represented by an agent. But just the sound of ‘dual agency’ is nebuous – it sounds like realtors are up to something. There isn’t anything wrong with dual agency – in California, it is legit, legal, and practiced regularly by me and others. We like it!
But as we enter the single-agency era, only one agency/brokerage will be handling the sale. There will be two agents, but they are both employed by the same brokerage.
Today it’s called dual agency – because the broker represents both parties. The agents can give sound advice separately to their clients which qualifies as legitimiate represention, but lawyers could make it sound shady in front of inexperienced jurors.
If there will eventually be the Big Settlement, let’s find a way to include dual agency in it too so we can get on with the future of selling homes.
Going forward? After a settlement that absolves all previous dual agency, we should better describe the choices. In Colorado, there are transaction agents who don’t represent either side, but that sounds like it could cause a smaller commissions. Can we find the in-betweener that makes everyone happy?
As more buyers go direct to the listing agent to avoid paying a buyer-broker fee, they will be assigned a junior agent for assistance. A box needs to be checked here. Currently, you have to call it either single agency where that buyer is officially unrepresented, or call it dual agency.
While the listing agent is fully representing the seller and their best interests, the buyer only gets enough help from the junior-agent to make it to the finish line. Instead of dual agency, it’s more like single+ agency. Call it Agency 1.5.
Later a buyer could claim dual agency was the cause of all his troubles in the world, and sue realtors to get even. Did he get full representaion from his junior-agent that was comparable to the representation provided to the seller by the agent’s boss? It would sound unlikely and beg of another class-action suit.
Are agents going to call it single agency (only one side represented) and hope for the best?
Because it’s more than single agency, but not strong enough to be called dual agency.
Let’s add a third box for when the buyer gets the in-house junior agent: dingle agency.
If we don’t, we’ll be facing more class-action lawsuits shortly.
by Jim the Realtor | Nov 6, 2023 | 2023, Jim's Take on the Market, Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop, Why You Should Hire Jim as your Buyer's Agent, Why You Should List With Jim |
The first week after the realtor-lawsuit verdict went as expected – chaos, doom, and no sexy alternatives. It will take years to appeal, but it won’t matter how it turns out. Buyers are going to be paying their agents.
If sellers aren’t obligated to pay any commission to the buyer-agents, will they appreciate the benefit of incentivizing buyer-agents with a bounty, or reward? Probably not, unless their listing agent makes it very clear, and insists on it.
It is more likely that listing agents won’t push it, and because sellers naturally will want to pay less commission and not more, they will list for 2.5% or 3% and hope for the best. Both will shrug it off, and joke about how it’s about time commissions came down!
It will be a grave mistake.
Why? Because the buyer-broker agreement is a disaster:
- Buyers won’t like it.
- Agents won’t like it.
- The market won’t like it.
Today’s buyers are picky, and you can’t blame them. They’ve had to endure +40% on prices, +200% on interest rates, and -50% on inventory…..talk about challenging!
The buyer-broker agreement will be a disaster because both agents and buyers will sign a short-term arrangement and hope the seller might kick in some of the commission. But then everyone will go back to doing it the same way we always have – refreshing your feed every hour and praying!
The real opportunity will be for buyers to hire an aggressive buyer-agent who does more than just watch the MLS. When a seller hires a listing agent, they get a thorough marketing campaign to source every potential buyer in the market. Buyer-agents can do the same, in reverse!
The buyer-agents who offer a rifle-shot soliciting of specific homes that fit the needs perfectly of their buyers will eventually find one. If an aggressive buyer-agent brings the complete package to the seller’s table without having to mess with a full listing, they will likely get an audience. It could even take the place of listing agents!
Because auctions aren’t close yet, this could be what changes the world of residential resales!
It will mean more off-market sales, which means more fuzzy comps because not much if anything is known about the home’s condition. But if it catches fire and the MLS or a rogue search portal insists on buyer-agents reporting everything about their sales including photos, we could still have a database full of accurate market data. But if we don’t, we don’t – good luck everybody!
by Jim the Realtor | Nov 3, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Training |
The latest lawsuit will cause people to consider different pay structures for realtors.
If realtors were paid less, could they at least get some of it up front? Yes, if approved by the commissioner:
Before a broker may solicit, advertise for and agree to receive an advance fee, the paperwork material is to be submitted to the Commissioner of the California Department of Real Estate (DRE) for approval at least 10 calendar days prior to use.
If the Commissioner, within 10 calendar days of receipt, determines the material might mislead clients, the Commissioner may order the broker to refrain from using the material.
To be approved, the advance fee agreement and any materials to be used with the agreement will:
- Contain the total amount of the advance fee and the date or event the fees will become due and payable;
- List a specific and complete description of the services to be rendered to earn the advance fee;
- Give a definite date for full performance of the services described in the advance fee agreement; and
- Contain no false, misleading or deceptive representations.
Further, the advance fee agreement may not contain a provision relieving the broker from an obligation to perform verbal agreements made by their employees or agents; or a guarantee the transaction involved will be completed.
It sounds like slipping a few thousand under the table won’t be tolerated! The paperwork involved will probably make the big brokerages shy away from the idea, but we should consider alternative ideas.
by Jim the Realtor | Nov 2, 2023 | Jim's Take on the Market, Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop |
Are realtor commissions negotiable?
Sure….how high do you want to go? 😆
Commissions aren’t all the same, just like agents aren’t all the same. Different agents charge different rates because they do different things for the consumer. Commissions/fees range from $100 to 7%. Nice range!
So if all that matters is paying less for your agent, then shop around – there are plenty of discount agents. You might consider hiring the very best agent you can find – one who pays for themselves, and more.
This is the question that has never been answered by the industry:
“If agents employ different skill sets and services, why do they all get paid the same?
It was mentioned in the recent lawsuit, and they presented it as part of their case:
72. Additionally, because the Rule requires a blanket offer, the Rule compels home sellers to make this financial offer without regard to the experience of the buyer-broker or the services or value they are providing — in other words, the Rule treats all buying brokers and their services the same. The seller is required to offer the same fee to a buyer-broker with little or no experience as that offered to a buyer-broker with twenty years of valuable experience. Accordingly, there is a significant level of uniformity in the payments that sellers must pay to buyer-brokers.
73. As a result, there is little relationship between the commission and quality of the service. “Skilled, experienced agents and brokers charge about the same price as agents with little experience and limited knowledge of how to best serve the consumer clients.” In a price-competitive market, less experienced and less skilled brokers and salespersons would be offering consumers lower commission rates, but they have no incentive to do so because of the Rule.
74. The Rule creates tremendous pressure on sellers to offer the “standard” supra-competitive commission that has long been maintained in this industry. Seller-brokers know that if the published, blanket offer is less than the “standard” commission, many buyer-brokers will “steer” home buyers to the residential properties that provide the higher standard commission.
The changes or fines from the lawsuit(s) probably won’t matter much today. Offering no commissions to buyer-agents is a nice idea, and you’d think it would cause agents to publicize the full set of productive services they offer to their buyers to convince them to pay the fee. Don’t get your hopes up.
Ideally, the consumer would research the detailed resumes and work histories of each prospective agent and make an informed decision. The agent pages on Zillow do provide the basics, but based on results, consumers aren’t using them much.
It’s why realtors have a lousy reputation – consumers keep hiring the inexperienced/bad agents, and the industry doesn’t mind because they make more profit off them.
Get Good Help!
by Jim the Realtor | Nov 1, 2023 | Jim's Take on the Market, Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop |
Now what?
The National Association of Realtors clearly underestimated the chances of losing this case – and the others to come. They must have thought that touting their 100-year old Code of Ethics was all that was needed to impress people, and instead they found out that it doesn’t.
What doesn’t get addressed is the common belief that realtors are overpaid.
It is a wide-spread belief. Even Joe Kernen, a guy who works 15 hours per week and gets paid between $3,000,000 and $22,000,000 per year (depending on the website), has to open his CNBC show today with the declaration that 6% commissions are too much, and 1% would be more like it.
This is what needs to be addressed. Can agents explain their value?
Listing agents are used to making a presentation to homeowners, but 80% of the time, the sellers have already decided on who they will hire so the presentation doesn’t have to be great. Buyer-agents rarely discuss what they do – they just have people jump in their car and go look at houses.
The judge and/or the Department of Justice will rule on future sellers paying the buyer-agent commission. If sellers are allowed to pay a commission to the buyer-agents, then their listing agent can counsel them properly on what rate to offer, and the status quo will endure. But it will be a game-changer if the sellers are no longer able to offer ANY commission to buyer-agents.
With the former, the listing agents will have to discuss the pros and cons in detail to the sellers, and agree to a comfortable amount. With the latter, the buyer-agents will have to create a presentation to convince their buyers to pay them directly. This will be a new practice, and they won’t be very good at it.
By the end of the day yesterday, I had already been notified of three different seminars being offered about using the Buyer-Broker Agreement. It sounds simple enough to the ivory-tower types – just get your buyers to pay you the commission! But they underestimate both sides.
Agents aren’t jumping at the chance to work with buyers in the current market.
It takes months or years for buyers to finally win the right home at the right price, and the abuse from the listing agents is mean and nasty along the way. Nobody plays by the same rules, and multiple offers are mishandled regularly, which delays the buyer finally getting a house.
The 2024 Selling Season will begin with buyer-agents pleading with their prospects to sign a contract to pay them a commission. It will only take a few months for this practice to get exposed. The buyers will be reluctant to sign, and those that do sign a contract will find out that it won’t change the outcome. It is still going to take months to find the right house, at the right price. There will still be the typical aggravations and shenanigans with the listing agents – most of whom now insist on buyers providing a bank statement and lender pre-approval letter just to see a house.
Because the local inventory is will be ultra-low, the desperation will cause buyers to blame their agent. It is a fact of life with both sellers and buyers – if they don’t get the outcome they want, it’s too easy to blame their agent (especially when it is true most of the time).
Will sellers and buyers be more diligent about who they hire?
They never have been – they just grab an agent and hope for the best. They don’t know the right questions to ask; they don’t want to waste time investigating thoroughly; and besides, the buyers just want a house, and the sellers just want their money.
This is where each agent and the industry at large could go a long way towards providing a solution.
If there was an outpouring of explanations on how the business works, what to expect, and why a consumer should pay the fee, it would help. Maybe write a blog or something!
Without a delberate attempt to educate everyone, the business will gravitate to the lowest common denominator – single agency, where buyers go direct to the listing agent, and the benefits of buyer-agency are slowly forgotten. Next year will be the phase-out stage.
It will be the next step towards auctions becoming the way to sell houses!
by Jim the Realtor | Oct 31, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop |
A federal jury today agreed with the plaintiffs that organizations such as Keller Williams, Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices of America, and the National Association of Realtors had violated the law by conspiring to inflate commission rates.
Their attorney then filed an additional lawsuit against the other large brokerages, including Compass.
There’s enough for several blog posts here! Let’s begin with the first problem:
In this trial, the defense was pathetic, and the realtors will likely lose in appeals court too.
The defense attorneys rode in cocky and notched it up on the first day when they said the plaintiffs have the burden of proving their case…..and the defense may not even call a witness! Then when they did call a witness, it just had to be the CEO of NAR, Bob Goldberg, whose arrogance may be unrivaled.
He offered the following:
The CEO returned to the stand on Tuesday to face cross-examination from plaintiff party’s attorney Michael Ketchmark. During the cross, Ketchmark tried making an analogy — not for the first time — between the allegations facing NAR and the hypothetical of chicken producers inflating prices.
Goldberg argued the analogy was “apples and oranges” because real estate agents offer a service, not a product. When Ketchmark continued his analogy and pressed Goldberg on whether he needs an explanation of antitrust law, the CEO responded, “No. I need you to explain to me the chicken law.”
What the defense never considered was that the jury came into the courthouse with the same biases/prejudices that every American has considered – realtors are overpaid, and it’s a racket. The industry never bothers to educate the public, so you can’t blame the jurors or anyone else for thinking that we need to be taken down a notch…or two.
When Bob made his crack about chicken law it had to make every juror hate him even more. Sure, it was kinda funny but this is no time for wisecracks when billions of your members’ money is on the line!
Gary Keller is a nice guy but his soft-spoken testimony didn’t sway the jury – and you can blame his defense attorneys for asking questions that were too lame and indifferent:
Keller’s was the final testimony in the defense’s bid to argue that broker commissions vary and are not set by real estate companies.
Keller denied in his testimony that a “standard commission” existed, saying agents are responsible for setting their own commissions. He said the company had no say in the commissions charged by agents.
While it is true that realtors are independent contractors and each sets their own commission rates, having a gazillionaire state it towards the end of the trial isn’t going to persuade anyone.
The two most important facts of the case were never brought up:
- The sellers should have the right to pay a reward, or bounty, to persuade agents to sell their house.
- Every seller pays the listing brokerage the full commission, and it’s the LISTING AGENT who decides how much commission the buyer-agent gets.
For the defense to not bring up these points just shows how arrogant and unprepared they were for this trial. The NAR president didn’t exactly give us a reason to think it might be different next time:
This matter is not close to being final. We will appeal the liability finding because we stand by the fact that NAR rules serve the best interests of consumers, support market-driven pricing and advance business competition. We remain optimistic we will ultimately prevail. In the interim, we will ask the court to reduce the damages awarded by the jury.
In court, NAR presented evidence that consumers are better off and business competition is able to thrive because of our rules and how well local MLS broker marketplaces function. In fact, the NAR cooperative compensation rule for local MLS broker marketplaces ensures efficient, transparent and equitable marketplaces where sellers can sell their home for more and have their home seen by more buyers while buyers have more choices of homes and can afford representation. NAR also presented that REALTORS® are everyday working Americans who are experts at helping consumers navigate the complexities of home purchases and advocates for fair housing and wealth building for all.
Is that all you got? With leaders like this, any future trials will be decided in the same 2.5 hours that it took the jury to decide this one. The only hope is that Compass will hire our own attorneys, and they call on a part-time blogger from San Diego to testify!
by Jim the Realtor | Oct 31, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Training |
Many think this won’t change much about commissions. They might have to go higher to pay for the damages!
A jury in Kansas City, Missouri, sided with a group of homeseller-plaintiffs Tuesday, ruling that real estate’s biggest names participated in a conspiracy that helped keep agent commissions inflated.
The jury found that all of the defendants, which include the National Association of Realtors as well as franchisors such as Keller Williams and Berkshire Hathaway participated in the conspiracy.
The jury awarded $1,785,310,872 in damages, which will be automatically trebled to $5.356 billion.
Just minutes after jurors sided with the homeseller-plaintiffs in the Sitzer | Burnett trial Tuesday, their attorney Michael Ketchmark filed a new class action lawsuit against another group of big-name real estate industry entites.
Ketchmark filed the suit on behalf of three new homesellers, who like those in Sitzer | Burnett claim to have suffered from a real estate industry conspiracy that inflated agent commissions. In this case, however, the suit names as defendants Compass, eXp World Holdings, Redfin, Weichert Realtors, United Real Estate, Howard Hanna, and Douglas Elliman. The suit also names the National Association of Realtors as a defendant.
Ketchmark said, “Our hope and goal is to free the grip they have on homesellers across the United States. It’s time that the free market and the internet is allowed to do its work and to bring the savings to homeowners that they’re so entitled to when they sell their homes.”
“This is an earthquake,” said Jason Haber, a real estate agent with Compass who has been one of the most outspoken critics of N.A.R. in recent months. “I’m disappointed in today’s verdict and I’m even more disappointed in N.A.R. This was their Super Bowl and World Series rolled up into one and not even Taylor Swift could have saved them.”
Mr. Haber, who created a grass-roots organization demanding the resignation of N.A.R.’s top leadership after the sexual harassment allegations came to light this summer, said he believed that there was no conspiracy when it comes to agent commissions, and that N.A.R. had let down its members by failing to present a stronger defense in court.
by Jim the Realtor | Oct 1, 2023 | Jim's Take on the Market, Realtor, Realtor Post-Frenzy Playbook, Realtor Training, Realtors Talking Shop |
I have mentioned repeatedly that the buyer-agent is a dead man walking. All forces within the industry are combining to push the buyer-agent out of the equation, and home buyers will be worse off because they will only have faux representation when buying directly from the listing agents.
Everything is negotiable……well, except the buyer-agent commission. From the Code of Ethics:
The Code of Ethics Standard of Practice 16-16 prohibits buyer-brokers from “using the terms of an offer to purchase to attempt to modify the listing broker’s offer of compensation.” Thus, the buyer-broker cannot attempt to condition the purchase of a home on the seller-broker’s agreement to adjust the amount of compensation offered to the buyer-broker.
Second, the Code of Ethics’s Standard of Practice 3-2 requires that any modification in the compensation offered to the buyer-broker “must be communicated to the [buyer-broker] prior to the time that [buyer-broker] submits an offer to purchase the property. And once a buyer-broker “has submitted an offer to purchase the property, the listing broker may not attempt to unilaterally modify the offered compensation.”
Third, Case Interpretation #16-15 advises that any negotiations regarding the buyer-broker’s commission “should be completed prior to the showing of the property.”
The buyer-agent is NOT allowed to negotiate their commission during the offer process!
What’s worse is that any negotiation of the commission must happen BEFORE the home is shown to the buyer. How many listing agents will agree to pay more commission before the buyer sees the home? The answer is zero.
The pending lawsuits against realtors are all about the seller being required to pay the buyer-agent’s commission. Miraculously, ReMax and Anywhere have already settled, and the whole thing could get resolved shortly. But it has been univeral among observers that the end result will be that home sellers will not be required to pay ANY commission to the buyer-agents. It will be optional instead.
Two things will happen:
- The buyer-agents will be even more likely to steer their clients to where they can get a commission.
- There will be even more shenanigans by listing agents.
Rob lays it out here, starting around the 26-minute mark:
https://www.vendoralley.com/2023/09/28/industry-relations-podcast-the-re-max-settlement-and-what-happens-next/
It means that the buyer-agents will have to either live with the commission that the seller is offering (if any) and steer their buyers to those homes, or have an agreement with their buyer to be paid directly by them. While that sounds nice, it is a complete change to the business and most agents won’t be able to justify being paid for their services. When buyers can just go direct to the listing agent for free – which the listing agents will be advertising – they will be very reluctant to be contractually obligated to pay a buyer-agent.
by Jim the Realtor | Jun 13, 2023 | Realtor, Realtor Training, Why You Should List With Jim |
Another phrase you regularly see in the MLS descriptions is, “NO BUYER LOVE LETTERS”.
What is the underlying meaning?
Listing agents are perfectly capable of discriminating on their own, and they don’t need your help.
As long as the buyers’ names are on the contract, discrimination is probably happening. It might be so blatant that sellers make decisions just based on their names, but the more common practice is for sellers to google the buyers’ names and learn everything they can about them from the internet.
It may seem subtle, but make no mistake – homeowners want to sell their house to someone they like. They will decide their favorites early on, especially when the listing agent is a contributing factor.
Here’s an example.
My buyer and I attended an open house on Sunday that appeared to be an ideal match. As we entered, the seller was just leaving and she had the look on her face – and I knew something big was happening.
I already knew that the listing agent had not sold anything in a long time – no sales in the last 12 months. Within the first minute, she mentioned that an all-cash offer had already been received and she said it with the usual agent tone that ‘this deal is done so you are just wasting your time’. She also said she was going to shut down the open house early.
I walked my client out to the car, and then went back in to discuss. I told the agent that we were going to make an offer, and asked, “will that make your afternoon more exciting?”, to which she blurted out, “NO”.
Exactly what I expected.
Knowing that we would need to make a powerful offer just to get her attention, two hours later I sent her an all-cash offer that was 8% over the list price with an 11-day close and free rentback.
Everything that happened after that made it obvious that she had already built up the first offer in the mind of the seller – heck, she even told ME about those buyers!
Once an agent has gushed all over their seller about an offer, it means any other offers don’t have a chance. When a listing agent describes a set of buyers in great detail, it is subtle discrimination because those buyers get favored status – and it’s mostly because the agent is inexperienced or just plain lazy and doesn’t want to field any more offers.
The only hope for any other buyers is to submit a love letter! Give everyone a chance to win!
