I’m still hearing fall-out from the DOJ/NAR garb affirmation and reporters are still dithering about the meaning of it all.

Laurie Janik, the NAR’s general deliberation, said in a the horn interview here, that the settlement would accept no real change on home buyers or sellers.

“I don’t think they’ll sight anything different,” she said. “This lawsuit not till hell freezes over had anything to do with commission rates, or brokerages.”

, others interviewed for the article had differing opinions:

Norman Hawker, a business professor at Western Michigan University who organized a symposium on the law activity be contingent litigation as a superior fellow by reason of the American Antitrust Institute, predicted that the settling would after all is said medium a drop in sales commissions of 25 percent to 50 percent as a come about of increased struggle.

“It’s pretty intelligible that there was an enormous amount of discrimination against brokers who were trying to point innovative affair models,” including discounted fees and virtual offices on the Internet, he said. “There are lots of entrepreneurs who have been looking for the sake a unsophisticated light in the form of this order to set up donation discounted rates. It has the potential to be a large appropriate to forward for consumers.”

There are scads parts of the country which did not end or prevent MLS’s from sharing, publishing and allowing access by online and discount brokerages.

Are commissions there any less than those other cities or states that did?

No.

So why would this transaction professor assume that this would go on? His comments seem quite easy to receipt in by comparing sharing v.s. non-sharing states, but I’m disappointed it goes unchallenged by the remodelled York Times reporter.