Facebook
X
Pinterest
Copy Link
It’s been almost a year since the National Association of REALTORS® settlement reshaped the way agents represent buyers. New rules that once caused confusion and speculation have begun to settle into the daily fabric of real estate transactions, and as with any significant change, clarity is starting to emerge.
At its core, the new rule requires agents representing buyers to establish a formal agreement—on paper—before showing any homes. While several states had already implemented similar policies, Rhode Island had not, making this a significant shift in practice. Gone are the days of casual handshakes and vague understandings. Now, every buyer must clearly identify who’s working on their behalf—and how that agent will be compensated. It’s a long-overdue push for transparency, intended to clear up the ambiguity that has lingered for too long in one of life’s most important financial decisions.
At the same time, NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy continues to require that listings marketed publicly be entered into the MLS within one business day, keeping the market fair, competitive, and—ideally—accessible to all. While this rule hasn’t drawn as much public attention as buyer agency agreements, it’s part of a broader push to ensure accountability in how properties are listed, accessed, and sold.
For agents like me, these changes weren’t earth-shattering, but they were long overdue. “There was always an assumption that buyers understood how we worked,” I said recently, reflecting on the shift. “But many didn’t. And it created a cycle where agents poured time and expertise into buyers without any formal commitment or compensation model. That had to change.”
Buyers, at first, were hesitant. The idea of signing an agreement before even seeing a house felt restrictive, even suspicious. But that sentiment is shifting. In my experience, once I take a moment to explain that the agreement isn’t a trap—it’s a two-way promise of commitment and clarity—most buyers appreciate it. They’re getting an advocate, a strategist, and a negotiator, and they understand that that kind of service deserves structure. It’s not unlike hiring a financial advisor or an attorney. You don’t pay them just to be nice. You pay them because they help you make smarter decisions and protect your best interests.
Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist for NAR, put it well: “Buyers want service, not just access. In a market that remains competitive in many areas, working with a professional who understands valuation, negotiation, and market movement is essential. The new policy reinforces the professionalism of the industry and the expectation of informed representation.”
Buyer sentiment is evolving. I’m seeing more buyers come to the table already asking about agency agreements. That’s new—and refreshing. A recent Redfin survey found that 38% of buyers now say they want clarity on agent compensation before they begin their home search. A year ago, that number was barely 20%. These are small but telling shifts in consumer behavior.
On the seller side, there’s been more speculation than change. Despite headlines predicting a collapse of agent compensation models, the reality is much more grounded. In my business, roughly 9 out of 10 sellers I work with still offer compensation to buyer agents. They see the value. Offering commission to the buyer’s agent is a strategic move—it increases exposure, creates urgency, and incentivizes qualified buyers to show up. Sellers aren’t just trying to “save money” by cutting compensation—they’re trying to sell their homes for the best price, in the shortest time. And cooperation still fuels that outcome.
“Seller-paid compensation remains the dominant model in the majority of U.S. transactions,” noted Bernice Ross, executive editor at Inman News. “What we are seeing, however, is a slight uptick in customization—sellers negotiating commission structures based on service level, market conditions, and agent track record. It’s less about eliminating compensation and more about refining it.”
Still, in rare cases where sellers do not offer buyer-side commission, the buyer agency agreement becomes more than just a formality—it becomes essential. It protects the buyer, yes, but it also protects the agent-client relationship. It allows for open, honest discussions about what it takes to get the deal done—and how everyone involved will be compensated fairly.
There’s no question that the lawsuits challenging NAR and broker compensation shook the industry. While some of those cases are still playing out in the courts, many brokerages and MLS systems are already adjusting their policies to reflect greater disclosure and flexibility. The traditional “seller pays both sides” model may not vanish anytime soon, but it’s clear that the structure of compensation will continue to evolve.
But here’s the thing: real estate isn’t just contracts and policies. It’s people. It’s trust. It’s conversations in kitchens, late-night texts about offers, and celebrating with clients when they finally get the keys. No matter what the rulebook says, the heart of this business is still relationships. And any change that reinforces professionalism and transparency in those relationships? I’m all for it.
So where do we go from here? I believe we lean into the clarity. We educate buyers and sellers not just about the rules, but about the why behind them. We remind people that agents aren’t tour guides—they’re advisors, negotiators, problem-solvers. And we advocate for fair, transparent compensation that reflects the value we bring to the table.
In a way, this past year has been a reckoning—and a reset. It’s forced us to slow down, have better conversations, and build stronger foundations with our clients. For those of us who’ve always operated with integrity and transparency, the new rules didn’t change our behavior. They simply formalized what we were already doing.
And that’s a good thing—for everyone.
It’s been almost a year since the National Association of REALTORS® settlement reshaped the way agents represent buyers. New rules that once caused confusion and speculation have begun to settle into the daily fabric of real estate transactions, and as with any significant change, clarity is starting to emerge.
At its core, the new rule requires agents representing buyers to establish a formal agreement—on paper—before showing any homes. While several states had already implemented similar policies, Rhode Island had not, making this a significant shift in practice. Gone are the days of casual handshakes and vague understandings. Now, every buyer must clearly identify who’s working on their behalf—and how that agent will be compensated. It’s a long-overdue push for transparency, intended to clear up the ambiguity that has lingered for too long in one of life’s most important financial decisions.
At the same time, NAR’s Clear Cooperation Policy continues to require that listings marketed publicly be entered into the MLS within one business day, keeping the market fair, competitive, and—ideally—accessible to all. While this rule hasn’t drawn as much public attention as buyer agency agreements, it’s part of a broader push to ensure accountability in how properties are listed, accessed, and sold.
For agents like me, these changes weren’t earth-shattering, but they were long overdue. “There was always an assumption that buyers understood how we worked,” I said recently, reflecting on the shift. “But many didn’t. And it created a cycle where agents poured time and expertise into buyers without any formal commitment or compensation model. That had to change.”
Buyers, at first, were hesitant. The idea of signing an agreement before even seeing a house felt restrictive, even suspicious. But that sentiment is shifting. In my experience, once I take a moment to explain that the agreement isn’t a trap—it’s a two-way promise of commitment and clarity—most buyers appreciate it. They’re getting an advocate, a strategist, and a negotiator, and they understand that that kind of service deserves structure. It’s not unlike hiring a financial advisor or an attorney. You don’t pay them just to be nice. You pay them because they help you make smarter decisions and protect your best interests.
Lawrence Yun, Chief Economist for NAR, put it well: “Buyers want service, not just access. In a market that remains competitive in many areas, working with a professional who understands valuation, negotiation, and market movement is essential. The new policy reinforces the professionalism of the industry and the expectation of informed representation.”
Buyer sentiment is evolving. I’m seeing more buyers come to the table already asking about agency agreements. That’s new—and refreshing. A recent Redfin survey found that 38% of buyers now say they want clarity on agent compensation before they begin their home search. A year ago, that number was barely 20%. These are small but telling shifts in consumer behavior.
On the seller side, there’s been more speculation than change. Despite headlines predicting a collapse of agent compensation models, the reality is much more grounded. In my business, roughly 9 out of 10 sellers I work with still offer compensation to buyer agents. They see the value. Offering commission to the buyer’s agent is a strategic move—it increases exposure, creates urgency, and incentivizes qualified buyers to show up. Sellers aren’t just trying to “save money” by cutting compensation—they’re trying to sell their homes for the best price, in the shortest time. And cooperation still fuels that outcome.
“Seller-paid compensation remains the dominant model in the majority of U.S. transactions,” noted Bernice Ross, executive editor at Inman News. “What we are seeing, however, is a slight uptick in customization—sellers negotiating commission structures based on service level, market conditions, and agent track record. It’s less about eliminating compensation and more about refining it.”
Still, in rare cases where sellers do not offer buyer-side commission, the buyer agency agreement becomes more than just a formality—it becomes essential. It protects the buyer, yes, but it also protects the agent-client relationship. It allows for open, honest discussions about what it takes to get the deal done—and how everyone involved will be compensated fairly.
There’s no question that the lawsuits challenging NAR and broker compensation shook the industry. While some of those cases are still playing out in the courts, many brokerages and MLS systems are already adjusting their policies to reflect greater disclosure and flexibility. The traditional “seller pays both sides” model may not vanish anytime soon, but it’s clear that the structure of compensation will continue to evolve.
But here’s the thing: real estate isn’t just contracts and policies. It’s people. It’s trust. It’s conversations in kitchens, late-night texts about offers, and celebrating with clients when they finally get the keys. No matter what the rulebook says, the heart of this business is still relationships. And any change that reinforces professionalism and transparency in those relationships? I’m all for it.
So where do we go from here? I believe we lean into the clarity. We educate buyers and sellers not just about the rules, but about the why behind them. We remind people that agents aren’t tour guides—they’re advisors, negotiators, problem-solvers. And we advocate for fair, transparent compensation that reflects the value we bring to the table.
In a way, this past year has been a reckoning—and a reset. It’s forced us to slow down, have better conversations, and build stronger foundations with our clients. For those of us who’ve always operated with integrity and transparency, the new rules didn’t change our behavior. They simply formalized what we were already doing.
And that’s a good thing—for everyone.
