As a real estate broker, I am deeply concerned about the upcoming changes due to the NAR settlement, which will significantly impact real estate professionals and consumers. These changes will take effect in Arizona on August 1st, ahead of the national implementation on August 17th. One of the primary concerns is the potential attrition rate and decline in income among real estate agents and brokers.
Why Is This Important?
Beyond self-preservation, the potential decrease in compensation could drive many experienced professionals out of the industry. This attrition might lead to less experienced individuals guiding consumers through one of the most important purchases of their lives. Even more concerning is the possible increase in unrepresented buyers or dual representation, although this practice is banned in some states. It’s crucial to consider whether having less educated buyers serves the best interests of sellers or the market overall.
Additionally, I see the potential for more legal issues arising in a court system already rife with litigation stemming from transactional disputes. This scenario could increase costs and complexities for consumers, while further straining an already burdened legal system. There are numerous questions to be answered, and undoubtedly, new ones will arise as these changes take root in the marketplace.
Reflecting on historical events, we can look at the lending industry changes in 2008 and 2013, specifically the SAFE Act, which mandated licensing requirements, and the 2013 Loan Originator Rule. By examining how government intervention affected employment and compensation for loan officers during these periods, we may gain insights into what might happen for real estate agents and brokers.
The Plan
I am reaching out to my LinkedIn network for feedback on this plan. I will start by analyzing the number of loan officers and their average reported income from 2008 to 2016. This analysis will use data from the Nationwide Multistate Licensing System (NMLS) and the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to calculate employment numbers and income by year. After gathering these figures, I will examine specific dates when policy changes were implemented and correlate them with any observed dips in income and job numbers. Although the compensation plan in 2013 had a phased rollout, its announcement in 2012 could have influenced licensing trends from 2013 onwards. By examining the data from 2014-2016, we can better understand how these policies impacted licensing and income.
Tomorrow, I will discuss the policy changes during those years and begin analyzing labor and licensing statistics. Your insights and feedback on this topic are invaluable as we navigate these uncertain times. Feel free to make suggestions or observations in the Comment section.
Stay tuned for more updates and in-depth analysis.