Joshua Harley
Analyst · D.A. Davidson. Please go ahead
That's a -- I think it's a fantastic question. I've been on top of the lawsuits actually long before you guys started seeing in the news and watching and monitoring it. The first thing I would say is that I think we're a long time away from any changes actually happening. I mean as I mentioned in the call, I think it's going to be a while we're going to go into appeals. If we lose there, we're going to go to the next level. But when I think about this, I mean, when you look at some of the claims that were made, there was a lot of bias in this lawsuit that unfortunately, the plaintiffs were allowed to share things that they probably shouldn't have been allowed to share. And the defense was not allowed to share things that were a little strange. I mean things that were -- for example, one of the arguments, one of the claims was the idea that sharing commissions was unethical and unfair. And yet in the state of Missouri, which is where the lawsuits were, it's completely legal. It's actually in the books, it's being allowed and yet the judge would not allow the defense attorneys to share that with the jury. So I thought that was incredibly strange. I think there's a lot of things that happened in the trial that I think if we're able to redo it, get a redo, then I think things will probably turn out differently. But even if they don't, at the end of the day, what I think is going to ultimately happen is we're going to see a couple of changes. One, if you look at the listing agreements between the agent, the listing agent and the sellers, it actually says already basically that commissions are negotiable and has a blank of here's how much we're going to pay the buyer's agent, and that's negotiable. I think the difference is, even though it's already there, the difference is we probably need to make it very clear to the sellers that listen, my commissions are negotiable. You do not have to pay the buyer's agents. So I think if we make some of those changes, then we'll satisfy a lot of what this lawsuit is about, number one. Number two, the idea of commission sharing, I think that's -- I think if the industry goes away from that, I think it's going to be a shame. I think it actually hurts the consumer. I'm trying not to be biased here, but I do think it hurts the consumer. So I think it's very -- we need to be very careful and very thoughtful on the laws and rules we change to make sure we're protecting the consumer along the way. So at the end of the day though, if that happens, if the seller says, oh, wait a minute, I don't have to pay 2% to 2.5% or 3% or whatever the number is to the buyer's agent, then I'm going to pay less. But right now, the way it has always looked and the way it currently works is the buyer's agent actually signs an agreement with the buyer that says, if the seller does not pay me this agreed upon amount that you agree with, then you're going to be liable for that commission amount. And by the way, that too has always been negotiable. I think the difference is people have got so used to the idea that, that's just the way things are that a lot of people don't try to negotiate. So I think some of that will change. If that changes, if the buyer realizes, oh, crap, I've got to pay the buyer's agents because the seller is not going to pay, there might be some steering that happens. But sorry, DOJ, it's not agent steering, the consumer may steer them. The consumer might look at two properties and say, well, this property is willing to pay my agent and this one is not willing to pay my agent. Therefore, I'm going to go with that one because I'm going to be on the hook for paying that commission. So that the client may decide to steer different ones based on what's going to ultimately cost them less. So I think there might be some steering. So you might see sellers come back and say, okay, we'll pay some more. The regards, let's say that none of that even happens. I don't mean to go on too long. What I will say is that if there is a compression for buyer's agents, because buyer's agents now have to get paid directly from the buyer and the buyer may not have as much money because they have to pay for closing costs and everything else, and we may see compression happen on the buyer's agent commission. If that happens -- this has been our thesis since the beginning, this has been a thesis when I started Fathom, where does that agent go to recoup that lost income. I said this before, I mean, same idea, if their commission is down 20%, simply the act of moving to Fathom means that they'll actually make 9% more income. Well, the same thing is true if their commission is down 20%. They come to Fathom, they can recoup that. So it's work smarter, not harder. So I do think that long-term, there will be -- Fathom will be a beneficiary of those changes. I don't want to see those changes made. So I do think it will hurt the buyers and our clients. But if they do, I think that Fathom ends up being a beneficiary of those changes.