Share
A few weeks ago, New York Times reporter Debra Kamin was interviewed for the newspaper’s podcast, “The Daily,” suggesting that real estate commissions have not substantially declined since the National Association of REALTORS® settlement resolving claims from sellers about broker commissions. The podcast draws fundamentally incorrect conclusions about why.
The piece implies that agents are actively working around the settlement to preserve a so-called “standard” commission structure, and even falsely states that sellers are no longer supposed to offer compensation to buyer’s agents. That assertion is not only misleading—it is factually wrong. The NAR settlement does not prohibit sellers from offering compensation; it simply changes how and where that compensation can be communicated. The article also ignores critical market dynamics and oversimplifies complex consumer behaviors.
At its core, the confusion boils down to a misinterpretation of the settlement’s mechanics. Prior to the agreement, NAR rules required listing brokers to post in the multiple listing service (MLS) the precise amount of compensation they were willing to share with buyer’s brokers—it could be any amount—effectively turning that figure into a marketing tool visible to everyone. The settlement stripped away that MLS requirement. However, it allows compensation to be conveyed off MLS—for example, in the listing agreement itself or through direct communication between brokers. Far from reducing the ability of buyers and sellers to negotiate, this change simply pushes those conversations into a more transparent, contractual setting. The old system bundled marketing and commission disclosure into one MLS field; the new regime separates them, cultivating clarity around professional fees without throttling negotiation.
Yet the Times podcast, and the March 15 article that preceded it, treats the persistence of cooperative commission offers as some kind of subterfuge: as though agents are scrambling to recreate a de facto “standard rate” behind closed doors. This narrative obscures a far simpler truth: Most consumers still see tremendous value in having an experienced professional guide them through the labyrinth of contracts, inspections, financing contingencies and closing logistics.
Real estate transactions remain high‐stakes affairs, and the expertise that agents bring—in negotiating, problem‐solving, and safeguarding their clients’ interests—continues to command a fee. If sellers choose to offer compensation to buyer’s agents, it’s because they recognize the importance of attracting qualified buyers and ensuring smooth, reliable transactions. There is no nefarious collusion here, just market participants making rational choices.
Moreover, the Times reporting fails to account for shifting consumer behavior under this new regime. With commission discussions decoupled from MLS listings, buyers and sellers are engaging earlier—often at the very first meeting—with clear, unvarnished conversations about fees. Rather than encountering a decimal point buried in a long list of property attributes, clients are now presented with a frank rundown of services to be provided and their associated costs. This upfront clarity helps prevent unpleasant surprises at closing.
The article also glosses over other market dynamics that influence commission levels. Inventory shortages, fluctuating mortgage rates, regional competition among brokerages, and evolving technology platforms all play critical roles in shaping what commissions buyers and sellers ultimately agree upon. In especially hot markets, where homes move rapidly and multiple offers are the norm, sellers may offer more generous buyer‐agent fees simply to differentiate their listing. On the flipside, in slower markets or price‐sensitive segments, sellers might negotiate lower fees or ask buyer’s brokers to assume part of the cost. These variations reflect the interplay of supply, demand and local competitive pressures—not some grand conspiracy to undermine regulatory reform.
It’s also telling that plaintiff attorneys and certain media commentators have jumped on the persistence of cooperative commission offers as evidence of a so‐called loophole. Their narrative tends to frame the settlement as a toothless reform, when in fact it represents one of the most significant overhauls in real estate practice in decades. The negotiated, bilateral compensation agreement is precisely what the settlement intended: a marketplace in which buyers, sellers and agents freely hammer out terms that reflect actual value delivered.
The very fact that commissions are still negotiated—rather than disappearing entirely—underscores that the value of real estate agents is recognized in the market. Far from being an artifact of outdated MLS rules, commission fees represent a recognition of the tailored expertise that agents provide: market analysis, pricing strategy, transaction coordination, contract drafting, vendor referrals and—perhaps most importantly—advocacy in the face of unforeseen challenges. Whether it’s a title snag, a home inspection issue or a last‐minute financing hurdle, skilled brokers play a critical role in steering deals to successful closings.
That said, with greater transparency comes greater responsibility. Brokerages and individual agents must familiarize themselves thoroughly with the settlement’s provisions, including the need for written buyer agreement, and ensure every compensation discussion is documented according to the new protocols. Training, compliance checklists and audit processes should be updated to reflect that MLS fields can no longer be used for commission disclosures. While these requirements may at first feel burdensome, they ultimately elevate the profession by emphasizing clear communication and ethical standards.
The Times’ portrayal of commission offers as an illicit workaround is both inaccurate and myopic. The NAR settlement did not outlaw seller‐funded commissions for buyers’ representatives; it simply redefined how those commissions may be communicated. What we’re seeing in the market today isn’t a regulatory blind spot being exploited, but rather agents and clients continuing to find mutual value in professional representation—and doing so within a framework designed to enhance transparency and consumer choice. If we embrace this new model with integrity and diligence, we’ll ultimately strengthen public trust in real estate professionals and reaffirm the critical role they play in one of life’s most important financial decisions.
Chris Kelly is the President and CEO of HomeServices of America, which owns the Berkshire Hathaway HomeServices franchise network and offers a range of homeownership services including brokerage, lending, title, insurance and relocation services.
