Tag

impact

Browsing


Housing affordability continues to worsen due to a persistent supply shortage and higher interest rates. While the rising building material costs and higher rates on construction loans are often blamed for the lack of housing supply, government regulations also play a significant role in increasing costs. For instance, rent control policies are introduced with the aim of limiting rent growth to keep housing affordable. However, a recent NAHB analysis shows that, rent control policies had some unintended and undesirable consequences including reduced housing supply, higher rents in uncontrolled units, lower quality in the controlled units and reduced residential mobility.

Similarly, the rise of short-term rental (STR) is commonly seen as another factor reducing housing supply and worsening affordability as owners choose to convert long-term rentals into short-term rentals, and profitability of STRs attracts investors to purchase properties for this purpose. As a result, regulations on short-term rentals have been widely discussed as a tool to intervene in the housing market. A recent working paper title ‘The Effects of Short-Term Rental Regulation: Insights from Chicago[1]’ provides a detailed analysis of the impacts of these regulations in Chicago, the first city in the United States to regulate short-term rentals.

Chicago enacted STR regulations in June 2016 with the aim of addressing concerns related to public safety and affordable housing while allowing STRs to continue operating. The regulation requires hosts to obtain the proper licenses and registrations before listing their property. In March 2017, Chicago started requiring Airbnb to share data to enhance its enforcement capability.

With this background, the paper aimed to examine the impact of STR regulations in Chicago from three perspectives: the number of listings, the economic impact in terms of revenue, and the effect on crime rates. The paper found that the number of short-term rental listings in Chicago decreased by 16.4% compared to before the legislation, but the impact was significant only after March 2017, when data-power enforcement began. This decline in listings potentially benefited the hotel business and led to a drop in Airbnb revenue and tax revenues for the local government, even though beforehand, the local government raised the lodging tax rate on STRs. Although STRs are usually connected to negative externalities, this paper suggested that the regulations had little impact on reducing the number of common crimes. Only areas near buildings that prohibited STRs saw a significant decline in burglaries.

Key Findings:

Effect on Listing Availability

By comparing Chicago with Atlanta, Boston and Los Angeles between January 2016 to May 2018, the number of STR listings did not significantly decrease until the data-powered enforcement was introduced in March 2017. This led to a 16.4% decline in active listings in Chicago. Both professional and full-time individual hosts saw a roughly 10% decline in the probability of being active. However, professional hosts reacted more slowly but were more flexible, as they were able to switch between long-term and short-term rentals to maintain operations.

As the STR regulation required hosts to register and comply with rules such as providing insurance and meeting safety standards, the paper found that registration in Chicago increased from 53.2% in December 2020 to 74.4% in 2023. However, the progress was slow due to a loophole that allowed pending listings to operate until June 2021.

In Chicago, local restrictions can be stricter than citywide regulations. For example, the Prohibited Buildings Listing (PBL), which strictly bans STRs in buildings  effectively reduced STR  listings, particularly for full-time individual hosts. The chance of being active decreased by 55% for full-time individual hosts and 45% for professional hosts. Additionally, the Restricted Residential Zone (RRZ), which allows areas to ban new STRs if at least 25% of voters agree, further reduced listings by blocking new entries and pushing some existing out.

2. Economic Impact of STR ordinance

Despite the decline in the number of active listings due to the implementation of regulations, the economic performance of remaining listings did not see a significant change. For listings managed by professional and full-time individual hosts, prices, revenue per listing and the number of reservation days remained almost unchanged. This suggested that the remaining listings did not suffer financial loss.

However, the overall decline in listing numbers led to a decrease in Airbnb’s Gross Book Value (GBV) as well as local government tax revenue. The decline was more noticeable in areas with a higher density of hotels, where listings managed by professional and full-time individual hosts saw their GBV drop by 38.1% and 30.6% respectively. This suggested hotel businesses could benefit from the regulations.

Though the lodging tax (for STRS) was increased from 4% to 6% in 2018, the local government’s tax revenue from STRs still declined by 3.6% due to the decrease in number of active listings.

3. Impact on Local Crime

One of the most common concerns about STRs is the negative externalities on local residents, particularly an increase in local crime and potentially lowering property values. However, when comparing Chicago with Atlanta and Los Angeles, crime rates (theft, burglary, assault and robbery) in Chicago remained almost the same after the implementation of regulations. Within Chicago, the PBL restrictions did not have significant impact on the overall number of these common crime incidents, except for burglary. In areas with PBL restrictions, the number of burglary cases decreased by 12.4%.

Conclusion

Based on the findings, the paper concludes that data-driven enforcement significantly helped the government to effectively implement regulations. Although these regulations reduced the number of listings and resulted in a smaller amount of revenue, the city did not see a significant decline in citywide crime rates.

As the short-term rentals often compete with traditional hotels, the regulations appear to have limited effects on improving housing affordability. A similar outcome was observed in New York City, where stricter regulations introduced in 2023 led to an 83% decrease in listings, while the vacancy rate remained unchanged[2]. Meanwhile, rents in New York City increased by 3.4% and the average hotel price rose 7.4%. This is in line with NAHB’s analysis that regulations could have unintended negative consequences, potentially driving up housing costs without improving affordability.

[1] Ginger Zhe Jin, Liad Wagman, and Mengyi Zhong, The Effects of Short-Term Rental Regulation: Insights from Chicago, November 2023,

[2] How Not to Make Housing Affordable—New York Rent, The Wall Street Journal, September 8, 2024.

Discover more from Eye On Housing

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.



This article was originally published by a eyeonhousing.org . Read the Original article here. .


New changes in real estate transactions are altering how agents are paid, impacting both buyers and sellers.When your real estate agent lists your home, the commission is no longer included in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), the database agents share. Commissions still exist and are negotiable. Sellers can still offer to pay buyer fees, just as they might cover the cost of a home warranty or other expenses.”It’s definitely made agent pay a bigger part of the conversation,” said Krishon Harris, a real estate agent for Reece & Nichols.Agents say high interest rates are keeping homes on the market longer, for 30 to 40 days in some cases.”It is in the offer acceptance process when buyers will find out how much they owe their agent,” Harris said.Sellers can still offer to pay buyer fees, just as they might cover the cost of a home warranty or other expenses.”As a buyer, your biggest change is that you have to have a written agreement with an agent before you go see a house,” Harris said.He says when and how fees are discussed is the biggest change.”When you are a buyer and you make an offer on a house, you’ll include in the offer what you’re asking the seller to pay your agent,” Harris said. “The seller can agree to that. They can counter, reject it, or whatever.”

New changes in real estate transactions are altering how agents are paid, impacting both buyers and sellers.

When your real estate agent lists your home, the commission is no longer included in the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), the database agents share. Commissions still exist and are negotiable. Sellers can still offer to pay buyer fees, just as they might cover the cost of a home warranty or other expenses.

“It’s definitely made agent pay a bigger part of the conversation,” said Krishon Harris, a real estate agent for Reece & Nichols.

Agents say high interest rates are keeping homes on the market longer, for 30 to 40 days in some cases.

“It is in the offer acceptance process when buyers will find out how much they owe their agent,” Harris said.

Sellers can still offer to pay buyer fees, just as they might cover the cost of a home warranty or other expenses.

“As a buyer, your biggest change is that you have to have a written agreement with an agent before you go see a house,” Harris said.

He says when and how fees are discussed is the biggest change.

“When you are a buyer and you make an offer on a house, you’ll include in the offer what you’re asking the seller to pay your agent,” Harris said. “The seller can agree to that. They can counter, reject it, or whatever.”



This article was originally published by a www.kmbc.com . Read the Original article here. .


Listen to this article

LOS ANGELES — Thinking of buying a home with the help of a real estate agent? You can no longer take it for granted that a seller will cover the cost of your agent’s commission.

Home sellers have traditionally offered a blanket commission to a buyer’s agent when they listed their home on the market. But that will no longer be allowed as of this weekend, when various changes to U.S. real estate industry practices are set to take effect.

A homebuyer may still try to negotiate such an offer from the seller. But if they decline, that would leave the homebuyer on the hook for paying for their agent’s services.

The National Association of Realtors is behind the policy changes, which stem from its $418 million settlement earlier this year of federal class-action lawsuits that claimed U.S. homeowners were forced to pay artificially inflated real estate agent commissions when they sold their home.

Companies behind several major real estate brokerage brands, including Keller Williams, Anywhere Real Estate, HomeServices of America, Re/Max and Redfin, also agreed to pay millions and make policy changes to make home seller lawsuits go away.

The new rules, which go into effect nationally on Saturday, apply to brokers and agents representing clients looking to buy or sell a home advertised on a multiple listing service, or MLS, affiliated with the NAR.

They boil down to two significant changes: Blanket offers of compensation on behalf of sellers to buyers’ agents will no longer be included in listings posted on the MLS, though they can still be made through other means. And homebuyers will be required to sign detailed representation agreements when they hire an agent.

It remains to be seen whether the policy overhaul will lead to lower agent commissions or fewer sellers opting not to offer to cover the buyer’s agent fees.

But the changes are likely to have the biggest impact on home shoppers — especially first-time buyers already facing elevated mortgage rates, a shortage of properties on the market and record-high home prices. They will now have to factor in the cost of hiring an agent if a seller isn’t willing to cover it.

“This will have a negative impact on a buyer’s ability to purchase a home, and so there are going to be quite a few large-scale changes in the buyer’s process,” said Bret Weinstein, CEO of Guide Real Estate, a brokerage in Denver.

Homebuyer representation agreements

Home shoppers who want to work with an agent will have to sign an agreement upfront that details the services that agent will provide and how much they will be paid, including whether it’s through a commission split with a seller’s agent.

Generally, an agent who represents a buyer typically receives around 2.5%-3% commission based on the purchase price of the home. Agents then share part of their commission with their brokerage.

Similar buyer representation agreements are already required in roughly 20 states. However, the new rules require that buyer agreements be completed before an agent begins working on a client’s behalf. That includes before the agent takes a buyer to tour a home, whether in person or virtually. A buyer can still go to an open house without signing a representation agreement.

“The big change now is that we are required to ask the buyer to commit to us early and hire us early in the process,” said Andrea Ratcliff, a Redfin agent in Indianapolis, where the policy changes were rolled out July 1.

One home shopper she spoke with was put off by the changes and the prospect of covering an agent’s fees, she said.

“They definitely weren’t ready to commit to me — weren’t ready commit to any agent, because they weren’t prepared to take on that cost,” Ratcliff said.

Removing buyer-agent compensation offers from home listings

Traditionally, a buyer’s agent’s commission has been paid by the seller. Agents who work with homeowners to market and sell their home would list the property on an MLS and include how much their client was offering to pay a buyer’s agent, a practice known as an offer of “cooperative compensation.” That’s when a seller agrees in advance to offer a commission on the sale of their home to be split between their agent and the buyer’s representative, typically around 2.5%-3% each.

The home sellers behind the lawsuits against the NAR and others argued sellers have had little choice but to offer to cover the buyer’s agent’s compensation in order to ensure their listing was shown to as many prospective buyers as possible.

To address this, homes listed on an MLS will no longer include a seller’s offer to cover the cost of a buyer’s agent’s services. However, they will still be allowed to advertise them practically anywhere else, including the agent’s own website, a display at an open house, or when communicating directly with an agent representing a prospective homebuyer.

Sellers may still elect to pay for a buyer’s agent’s compensation, but without the pressure of making a public, blanket offer on the MLS. Some may opt to pocket the savings and only cover their own agent’s commission.

“If there’s not a clear offer of cooperative compensation from the seller through their broker to the buyer’s broker, then yeah, it’s going to be part of [the] negotiation,” said Kevin Sears, president of the National Association of Realtors. “I think that will be something that we see changing in the marketplace.”

Where does this leave buyers and sellers?

Much of how the industry policy changes play out for buyers and sellers will depend largely on the state of the local housing market.

In a sluggish housing market where homes are taking longer to move and sellers are having to lower prices, it’s more likely that a buyer will be able to negotiate for the seller to cover their agent’s commission. In a hotter market, where properties are selling fast and receiving multiple offers, sellers will have the leverage to accept an offer from a buyer who isn’t asking for them to cover their agent’s fees.

While sales of previously occupied U.S. homes have been in a slump since 2022, years of underbuilding and other factors have kept the inventory of homes for sale at near all-time lows. That’s pushed up prices and fueled multiple offers for many homes, giving a clear edge to sellers in most markets.

Still, real estate agents say sellers should keep offering to cover the buyer’s agent commission.

“We’ve advised that it would be wise for sellers to continue to be open to covering some or all of the buyer’s costs, because the last thing you want to do when you are selling something is to make it complicated for someone to buy it or to limit the number of people who can buy it,” said Alex McEwen, associate broker with Selling Utah in Orem, Utah.

As for homebuyers, they will have to budget for the possibility that a seller won’t cover their agent’s fees. Those who can’t afford to do so may have to come to an arrangement with their agent to only pursue listings where the seller is offering buyer’s agent compensation.

Will commissions come down?

It’s unclear whether the policy changes will spur sellers or buyers to negotiate lower broker commissions, and whether they’ll succeed if they do.

Buyer-agent commissions have eased somewhat this year: The average buyer’s agent commission fell nationally from 2.62% at the beginning of the year to 2.55% through July 14, according to an analysis by Redfin. However, because home prices have kept rising this year, the average commission paid to a buyer’s agent in dollar terms has risen about 1.7% since January to $15,377.

Stephen Brobeck, senior fellow at Consumer Federation of America, expects that more sellers will be encouraged to negotiate with their agent to lower their commission by at least half a percentage point.

“That represents, over the course of a year in the housing market, a very large sum of money,” he said.



This article was originally published by a finance-commerce.com . Read the Original article here. .


EDINA, Minn. — The experience of buying or selling a home is changing. A recent National Association of Realtors settlement now requires buyers and sellers to negotiate house sale commissions, including who pays and how much.

A recent overhaul changed the way realtors get paid to help people buy and sell their homes. It’s part of a $418 million settlement announced in March between a nationwide group of homeowners and the National Association of Realtors.

“For consumers, it’s going to be more transparent and it really should be a smooth process,” said Jamar Hardy, president of Minneapolis Area Realtors. “Historically, a seller’s agent charged home sellers a fee, usually 5% or 6%, which was then split with the buyer’s agent. On a $500,000 home that would be $30,000 in commission.”

Lawsuits alleged the standard practice violated antitrust laws, though the association has long argued that the commissions were always negotiable.

Moving forward, buyers who previously didn’t have to pay a commission to their realtor who helped them purchase a home will be expected to pay for the service. Sellers will have to pay for their agent but will no longer have to pay for the buyer’s agent.

Listing agents and sellers will be prohibited from including offers of compensation to buyer agents on the multiple listings services, better known as the MLS.

“If sellers aren’t offering payouts right up front, that negotiation is going to happen at a time of offer, so we’ll see a little change there because again, that offer of compensation won’t be visible to us anymore,” said Hardy.

Real estate commissions in Minneapolis have fallen minimally since March, after the announcement of the settlement. It fell from 2.6% in March to 2.56% in mid-July.

Analysts with TD Cowen expect the settlement could reduce realtor commissions by 25% to 50%. Another change requires buyers’ agents to discuss their compensation upfront.

“I think that’s going to be the biggest change for both consumers and agents. It’s not just allowing somebody to walk through that house because we have a showing, let ’em run through really quick to see things,” said Hardy.

There are 22,000 real estate agents in Minnesota. Hardy says some may leave the business because of the changes,but others will thrive.

“I think competition is going to win out in the end, and people are going to truly know what we do for a living and understand what they’re paying for,” said Hardy.

The new rule changes the National Association of Realtors agreed to as part of the settlement take effect on Saturday.

More from CBS News



This article was originally published by a www.cbsnews.com . Read the Original article here. .

Pin It