Brandon Donnelly — Daily insights for city builders. Published since 2013 by Toronto-based real estate developer Brandon Donnelly. — Page 289

The $418 million commissions lawsuit that was settled last week with the National Association of Realtors (NAR) is certainly a big deal. The NAR is trying to sound positive , but all signs point to this outcome being meaningful for the industry. TD Cowen Insights is forecasting that commissions paid in the US each year could fall by some $25 to $50 billion (from a total of ~$100 billion ). And this is the headline you'll see everywhere right now. But how might this actually happen?

As we've talked about before , the status quo commissions set up is a good one for agents:

• Sellers are typically the party who pays 100% of the commissions

• But sellers don’t pay until the agent sells and they have fresh cash

• Money being deducted from proceeds (a “take rate”) is a lot less noticeable and has a lot less friction than cash you just have to pay out of pocket

• Buyers kind of don’t pay -- or at least that's how they're supposed to feel

This is "good" because it perpetuates the existing model. If buyers feel like they're mostly not paying, they're just going to go to the marketplace with the most supply of homes. And that marketplace is the Multiple Listing Service (MLS). However, this marketplace also does things like tell buyer agents how much commission they will make as part of each deal. And the belief is that practices like this are anticompetitive.

So as part of the above settlement, the following new rules are expected to go into place by July 2024 in the US:

• Seller agents will no longer be able to set compensation for buyer agents

• All fields on MLS displaying broker compensation will need to be removed

• Furthermore, agents will no longer even need to subscribe to an MLS in order to accept compensation

• Buyers working with an agent will need to enter into their own buyer broker agreement and negotiate compensation separately

• However, there's nothing stopping buyers and sellers from negotiating whatever commission structure they want; the idea is simply that it will be more transparent and negotiated by each participant

Why this is meaningful is that it decouples buyer agents and seller agents in a way that they aren't today. Instead of everything originating from the sell side, each side of the transaction is now going to -- theoretically at least -- negotiate what they believe is fair compensation for their representation. At the same time, there's no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS.

This leads us to, at least, two important things to think about:

1. What is fair compensation? Well, it should depend. If I'm a first-time buyer, I may want someone to walk me through the entire process. But if I've done it many times before, maybe I need very little. Or, if I'm an investor looking to renovate homes, maybe I want representation that is also an expert on construction. The point is that, in a truly open market, one should be able to find an agent and pay them based on the value that they're creating. And this is presumably why everyone is expecting commissions to fall precipitously.

2. If there's no obligation to even subscribe to an MLS, does this then open the door for new and more open listing platforms? Right now, I don't know how this will play out. I'd like to better understand more of the details around this settlement item and what it could mean for the landscape. But I do know that the way to spur the most amount of innovation would be to have the marketplace run on something like a blockchain, and then allow anyone to create their own listing platform on top of it. One day.

This will be fascinating to watch play out. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time before it spurs similar changes here in Canada. Expect further coverage of this topic on the blog.

Photo by  Tom Rumble  on  Unsplash

This is a familiar story that is, of course, not unique to Japan:

“Danchi”, or apartment blocks built by Japan’s housing agency during the country’s high-growth period, may look grim and outdated in today’s Tokyo, where flashy glass and steel towers reign.

However, I only just learned that, since 2013 , the Japanese houseware brand Muji has been renovating apartments within these housing blocks in an attempt to reduce vacancies:

But danchi are becoming hip again, thanks to modern renovations by lifestyle brand  Muji , which is turning the poky, multi-room flats into open-plan studios.

The above excerpts are from a 2015 article , but this partnership between Muji and Japan's Urban Renaissance (UR) Agency continues to this day. Today, they're also focused on creating a greater sense of community within these danchi neighborhoods .

It's a logical collaboration. Both want to bring good and affordable design to the masses. And obviously there are brand benefits for Muji. It's a way to expose more people to their products.

But what I find particularly interesting is that it, once again, shows the potential of a strong brand within the real estate industry.

According to the same 2015 article, as soon as Muji completed its first round of apartment renovations, UR saw 2x the number rental applications from people in their 20s and 30s. Perhaps the number is even higher today.

Clearly what happened is that you had young followers of the brand who said to themselves, "oh if Muji is involved, it must then be cool and nice, and so I'd like to live there."

I mention this because, as a gross generalization, real estate companies don't seem to focus on their own brands in the same way other companies do. (Again, I'm making a gross generalization.)

Instead, they often rely on 3rd party brands -- hotel brands, fashion brands, and whatever else -- to augment as needed. (See " Dubai is now the capital of branded residences .")

Maybe this is truly the optimal way to do it. Just partner as needed. Or maybe more real estate companies should invest in their own brand.

Photo by  taro ohtani  on  Unsplash

Over the years on this blog, we've spoken a lot about dynamic pricing when it comes to roads and traffic congestion. And in this instance, the principal intents are to price congestion, improve traffic flows, and encourage other modes of transport. It follows the logic that if you're going to tax things, tax the things you want less of.

But what about using dynamic pricing for the opposite purpose -- to induce demand?

Diana Lind recently wrote about this here and talked about how London is exploring using dynamic pricing on its transit system. But rather than increasing prices during periods of high demand, I would imagine that the idea is to reduce prices when demand is lower. Already, it is piloting reduced fares on Fridays when its ridership drops by about 10%.

It's an interesting idea because, if done correctly, it should get more bums into seats on transit. And maybe it's actually a more equitable pricing model.