00:00:08
Welcome to the Deerwood Realty Show. I'm John Schink, founder and managing broker of Deerwood Realty in St. Louis, Missouri.
If you've followed me for any length of time, you know there's been a lot going on in real estate. We've had the NAR settlement, high interest rates, affordability issues—there’s always something happening in the space. That’s why I’m glad to be able to talk about it today.
There’s an interesting op-ed I came across called "Breaking the Chains: Reforming the Industry for Brokers and Realtors." It caught my eye because it talks about changes that need to happen in the industry. I don’t claim to know exactly what those changes should be, but I do think we need to be careful what we wish for.
00:02:00
The article suggests that many in the real estate industry feel trapped in a system that prioritizes institutional control over the needs of professionals and consumers. I don’t disagree. As a small brokerage—just me—I constantly have people speaking on my behalf, especially when it comes to NAR. But I don’t feel like they’re actually speaking for me. I think they're speaking for the biggest brokerages, and maybe they should. It’s a majority-rule situation.
The op-ed goes on to say the industry is built on the dedication and perseverance of countless brokers and agents who navigate endless rules, fees, and systems to serve clients. Again, no disagreement there. But when it gets into what specific reforms should happen, the article falls a bit short.
00:04:00
One of the core issues is that access to the MLS is tied to mandatory membership in national, state, and local Realtor associations. That means we pay significant dues—whether or not we see value in the extra services. In commercial real estate, you don’t have this same system. But in residential, everything runs through the MLS, which syndicates listings to portals like Zillow and Realtor.com—who then sell those listings back to us. It’s kind of ridiculous.
To use the MLS, you must be a Realtor, and that requires joining three levels of association, all with their own fees. And many brokers—especially smaller or minority-owned ones—feel burdened by costs that don’t match the services received.
00:06:00
Personally, I feel the same way. I don’t think these systems are built for people like me. But I understand we’re small fish in a very big pond. Some agents also don’t realize there are alternatives to the traditional MLS, or that forms from associations aren’t legally required.
But I prefer when everyone uses the same forms. It makes transactions easier and more standardized. If we all use different forms, then we waste time interpreting each other’s paperwork. Consistency has its value.
However, if you’re not on the MLS, you also don’t have access to comparables—and that’s a problem. You can’t price a home based on a comp from six years ago. Listing strategy is part art and part science, but the MLS provides foundational data.
00:08:00
The op-ed suggests we should untie MLS access from Realtor memberships. While I understand the motivation, I struggle with the idea. The MLS I use is massive—it covers parts of Missouri, Illinois, and possibly beyond. I don’t think competition from another MLS would add much value.
Real estate agents are the ones inputting data into the MLS. If we’re creating the content, shouldn’t we have some control? That’s why the NAR settlement frustrates me—we built the MLS, but now we’re paying for access while it's being leveraged by third parties.
00:10:00
Another suggestion was to simplify and standardize fee structures. Brokers, the argument goes, shoulder an unfair share of the cost because they sponsor agents. But in my view, that’s because states don’t want to manage thousands of individual agents. They task brokers with overseeing them. In Missouri, audits happen at the brokerage level.
Still, I’ve never benefited from a traditional brokerage. That’s why I went solo. Most brokerages try to lure you with promises of tech, leads, or camaraderie. But the tech is usually just an email. Leads? The top agents aren’t handing those out. Camaraderie? I can have coffee with whoever I want.
00:12:00
The op-ed also calls for more transparency and accountability, particularly about how our dues are spent. Again, I don’t disagree—but even when we ask for transparency, what do we get? We’re one of the biggest lobbying groups in the country, and I don’t feel like we’re getting much in return.
They say collaboration is key, but anytime more than a few brokers gather, someone brings up the Sherman Antitrust Act and warns us not to discuss anything serious. Ironically, that’s part of what got us into this mess.
00:14:00
The lawsuits challenging NAR’s practices have sparked real conversations about the future of our industry. People are realizing the current system might not be sustainable. But we need more than vague ideas. We need specific solutions.
People throw around terms like transparency, competition, and innovation—but what do they really mean? What does it mean to “build a better system”? Will it reduce fees? Will it create better tools? I don’t know.
What I do know is this: It’s incredibly difficult right now to be a small independent broker. I think we’ll see more and more agents get absorbed into larger brokerages. This trend isn’t going away.
00:15:30
Locally, even changes to forms and policies are dictated by the largest brokerages. If I say I won’t follow a rule, no one cares. But if a big brokerage says it, suddenly things change. I don’t think that’s fair—and I don’t think the NAR settlement was made with small brokerages in mind. I wasn't the one causing the problems, but I still have to deal with the fallout.
So that’s what I’ve got for you today. I’d really like to hear your thoughts—what specific things should brokers and agents do in this changing landscape? What are the actual steps we can take in response to the NAR settlement?
Leave a comment and let me know what you think. Thanks for watching, thanks for listening, and I’ll catch you on the next one.