We already have to have a Broker's license in NC so, that one has already come to fruition!

While we sometimes serve buyers & sellers for à la carte fees (usually when they've found their home or their buyer), I don't see the fees/compensations ceasing to exist.

Response 1:

• NAR is on thin ice and cannot afford a mass exodus of members. A decision like that would not make sense, and membership would plummet. Unless you plan to hire other agents, there's no reason to have a Broker's License. I realize some states are Broker states, but to convert the rest, not gonna happen and I stand by my assertion that twice the liability with no ROI is not an incentive to do so.
  
  

Response 2:

• Currently, there are no commissions; instead, we have compensations and fees. These already exist and these menu-style-services are not effective, and the business model surrounding them is unsustainable. Therefore, the current structure is likely to remain, as no significant disruptions are occurring.

No to both.  CA has a two tier licensing system:  Broker aand Salesperson.  Either can become a Realtor.  Pay for service(s) is a business model that I've seen but have never seen it work anywhere.  Home inspections and being either the listing or buyer's agent can be loaded with liability.  

If it did turn into an individual Fee for Service business model, I think it would just be a matter of time before the services starting getting bundled until the fee would essentially be a commission under a different name.

Tony Lewis - I sure hope "all Realtors need to have a Broker's License" does not come to fruition. I had the opportunities and education behind me to be a Broker for many years but chose not to for many personal reasons. Some agents don't deserve to be a Broker because they are not always honest. Going head-to-head with an Agent with an ego was not pleasant. I LIKED going to their Broker and their Broker's were always honest and had a come to Jesus talk with their Agents. 

As far as compensation goes, I think there is a lot more coming in the future. Could all states become an Attorney State? Yes. That's my prediction. Title Companies are just Insurance Companies, and too many buyers and sellers are led to believe the attorney is looking out for their best interest at closing which is not the case. 

I am going to predict in time, America will be more like Europe where buying property will be next to impossible. 

1- that's a state issue and I do not think that will be happen in Georgia, but am aware is is in a few states.  GA is actually seeking to make it harder to be a broker.

2- no I do not think the structure will change.  I think in 7 years commission will go back in the MLS and life will move on.

All our agents in Oregon are at least a Broker. There is no such thing as a sales associate. The 3 licenses - Property Manager, Broker, Principal Broker. 

As far as commissions ending, I don't see it right now. Perhaps if lawsuits stop it, but not anytime in the near future?

1. In North Carolina we are already an all-broker state and have been for quite a few years. Once you get your license you have 18 months to complete your course work and exams to become a full broker. Until then you are known as a Provisional Broker.

2. It's possible to charge for services that way now. I think a lot will depend on practice in individual jurisdictions.

Alright, let's dive into these real estate crystal ball predictions! 

Will every realtor needing a broker's license become reality? Hmm, picture this: the licensing exam lines wrapping around the block, and all the seasoned agents scrambling back to school. I'm not saying it’s impossible, but you'd think the licensing departments would collapse under that tidal wave of paperwork and continuing education courses! Plus, do we really want to make things that complicated? Nope. Not gonna happen.

Now, the commission apocalypse – buyers paying for every single service? Talk about a potential disaster! "Alright, Mrs. Henderson, that viewing of the charming Victorian is going to be $75 plus tax. Oh, and drafting that offer? That’ll be a cool $200." Imagine the haggling! And the potential for, shall we say, selective service? No thanks.

Commissions are an imperfect system, sure, but they're a bit easier to understand when you're trying to buy a house! So, I'm betting the status quo will stick around - maybe with some tweaks and changes here and there. However, who knows, maybe the future will bring some interesting developments.

I echo Ryan Huggins - Thousand Oaks, CA comment. 

1) No, I do not see this happening.  Most people do not want that level of license and responsibility.  Plus it would weaken the term Broker and anyone could open their own office without any oversight.  We have enough problems as it is without greenhorn agents having their own companies.

2) Buyers already pay for their portion of title and escrow services and related fees, recording fees, etc.  If you're talking about a true "Buyer's representation as a service" model, this already exists in the San Diego area.

Now that SOC is no longer offered, the bandaid really should have been ripped off and buyers should be paying their agents directly.  This notion of getting the seller to pay their commission via the offer is causing far more problems than it's solved and has already led to one lawsuit that I'm aware of.

A Broker License would be a nice "barrier to entry" to weed out some agents and to contribute to a "higher education" level. Unbundling services would be counter to the representation concept, which might result in consumers getting hurt. 

In Illinois all are brokers and those who sponsor other agents must qualify as a managing broker and take additional CE. 

As for commissions it is rolled into the price one way or the other. The difference is cash out of pocket upfront for buyers. All the other services are negotiable and likely will stay that way. Many will state that the buyer really pays as the seller focuses on the net. It just a case of whether it is leveraged or not.

1. No

2. No

It seems to me #1 has happened in several states Tony Lewis . I think it's a stupid idea but then again I don't know all the reasoning behind it.

I don't see number 2 happening. People like the bundling.

1.  In some States that has already happened.   Although there is a serious difference in those States between a Broker and a Principal Broker aka a BIC.

2.  There are a number of "Fee for Service" companies out there.  None of them have been successful to any degree; they certainly haven't changed the dominant business model of commission-based real estate.

   In regards to Fee for Service, Flat Fee MLS, etc. I have offered that at times to investors, dealers, builders, other parties who buy and sell property on a regular basis.  But not to the "average Buyer"... they need me along for the entire ride.   That is going to be a percentage of the sales price, thank you.

Hello Tony Lewis it can happen, things change always.

Nice question to launch conversation with Tony Lewis ...To get or have an agent license allows people to start making a career in the industry. NO need to get more licensing unless there is a reason. On your second, decent question, Zillow is already trying to be a one-stop shop is one thought. Also consider that escrows, title companies & attorneys will/do help layman with paperwork & charge accordingly now, ALL less than agent commissions. The consumer/seller/buyer today have A.I. plus apps to guide them on just about anything making it profitable & doable to DIY or do it yourself. Over the next few years, we may see reasons NOT to use an agent

My crystal ball is cloudy today. 

Changes must take place in the industry. We have a national surplus of several hundred thousand real estate agents. Other business models are more efficient.

"will ever come"?

I really don't think so, we might be in for some changes but I really do feel that the worst of the issues have passed and we are on our way to a workable solution.  

Probably not.

I do not know. I do not think the license with be a thing across the country at least.

As far as the renumeration goes, there are already a few places that do that, but they do not seem to have much traction, so I do not believe that will be the way many licensees want to be compensated for their time and services.

Nope!

I don't think we'll ever be a broker only state.  our commissioner believes it takes the required experience to be a broker.

And no I don't think we'll ever get paid by showings instead of commission.

I highly doubt that in AZ.  There are sales agents, associate brokers and designated brokers. I don't see that changing in the near future.

I don't know about this one.  I doubt it.  It's gotten pretty screwed up and unwinding it will be interesting.

No - I do wish #1 would happen or some type of higher barrier to entry was in place

#2 is already possible, if it were a sustainable, marketable model for success it would already be the standard

Q1 - No, they've tried very hard to avoid that. When I got my license in MA everyone had a Brokers license BUT eventually the State move away from that and required anyone new begin as a sales agent.

Q2 - That could happen but I think, eventually, agents will be classified as employees.

There are a lot of assumptions that are built into the nature of this question. If you want to sell real estate in NY- with some small exceptions (i.e. FSBO), you are going to need to be licensed. Next- I am not a Realtor, don't expect to become a Realtor, and most of the agents/brokers in my market are not Realtors. In Manhattan- we have our own trade association (REBNY) built specifically to address the nature of our business of NYC real estate- so unless an agent is working outside of Manhattan and areas of Brooklyn and Queens closest to Manhattan, odds are we aren't joining NAR- which would make us Realtors. 

I can't speak to markets outside my own - but our sales tend to be rather complex- and I can't see an A La Carte model sufficiently covering our market well. I have written multiple posts on Activerain highlighting a sample of the difficult sales I have encountered- and I would tend to say that the number of vanilla deals I am involved with is in the low single digits. An A La Carte model would not do well in this type of environment .

As I write this- I have what should have been an easy sale, become a very difficult sale. The apartment was tenant occupied- so we structured the deal to account for the tenants lease expiration a few months forward. Come the week before the tenants lease expiration- and the tenant hasn't found another apartment yet- putting the deal in jeopardy. It can take 2-3 years to evict a tenant in NYC - so if the tenant doesn't leave- it could easily kill the sale. 5 weeks later- the tenant has finally moved out. I still don't have a closing date (hopefully in the next week or two now that we know the tenant is out). Now my client has no choice- because of the tenants bad actions- but he is now in a position where he has to overstay his lease because he was unable to take possession in a timely matter.

The challenge to questions like this is that we are 50 states- with laws that differ from state to state- norms that differ,  processes that differ, and can even differ from one location to another within a state- i.e. NYC suburbs vs. Manhattan.

That’s a really interesting question! Rather than predicting the future, let’s take a step back and think about why these changes might happen or why they might not.

Dale Carnegie taught us that the best way to win people over isn’t by arguing, but by seeing things from their point of view. So, let’s consider the perspectives of buyers, sellers, and agents.

1. Should All Realtors Have a Broker’s License?

On one hand, requiring all agents to be brokers could mean a higher level of expertise, leading to better client representation. But on the other hand, real estate is already heavily regulated, and this could make it harder for new agents to enter the field, potentially reducing competition and access to affordable representation.

Instead of focusing on whether this should happen, the real question is: Would it truly benefit buyers and sellers? If additional education and licensing improved service, then the market might naturally move in that direction.

2. Will Commissions Disappear in Favor of a Pay-for-Service Model?

We’ve already seen shifts toward alternative commission structures with flat-fee brokerages and discount models. If commissions were completely replaced by à la carte pricing, buyers would likely become much more price-conscious, only paying for the services they value.

However, real estate is deeply relationship-driven. Many buyers and sellers don’t just want a transaction—they want guidance, negotiation skills, and someone to manage the complexities of the deal. A commission structure incentivizes agents to stay involved from start to finish rather than just charging per service.

The Real Answer?

The market will likely continue evolving, but wholesale changes don’t happen overnight. The best approach is to stay adaptable, provide exceptional service, and build strong relationships—because no matter how the industry changes, people will always prefer working with someone they trust and respect.

What do you think? Would you personally prefer a pay-per-service model or the current commission-based system?