Kevin McMillen Realtor

07/18/2025

07/13/2025

Yes this is AI but I love it!

********

Absolutely — here’s your final version with **full force**, no fluff, and the statements you liked woven in:

*******

🚫 **Truth is no longer allowed in real estate.**

If a buyer asks a real estate agent, “What areas are safe?”, the agent legally **cannot answer** — not even with facts, not even if crime data proves it, and not even if the buyer begged for honesty.

Why? Because telling someone a fact that might influence where they move is called **“steering”**, and that’s a Fair Housing violation — even when it has **zero** to do with race, income, or discrimination.

This isn’t justice.
This is **cowardice masquerading as fairness** — a system so afraid of appearances that it punishes truth-tellers.

We've let **ideology override reason**, and **common sense is now treated like a threat**. Real estate agents aren't allowed to give you a straight answer — even if it’s just pointing to a zip code with lower crime — because facts might “offend” the system.

So if you want to know where the safer areas are?
We’ll give you the links to public crime maps.
Because giving you a direct answer?
That’s now a liability.

\

---

07/07/2025

Please click on link for more information.

Please share.

Hi folks, I’m an old Contractor/Bricklayer recently getting into the Real Estate sales business. If you’d kindly refer me or use my services I’d sure appreciate it.

05/20/2025

Exactly, in most sales the pool of money that sellers and buyers have to pay their agent is limited. With banks only allowing the seller’s side wrapped in the loan, except for “seller concessions” of course, and adding buyer’s broker commission as a seller concession limits other uses for it. Where does that leave buyer’s agents, especially given the fact that many list agents are trying to get all they can and “screw the buyer’s agent”? Yes, that is exactly what we’re being told.

If that pool is limited to 5% for both sides, and the list agent “negotiates” 4%, where does that leave the buyer’s agent? Even the best negotiation skills can’t get blood out of a turnip. Why are buyers expected to pay out of pocket but not sellers? Who’s the one bringing the money to the table anyway? The buyer!

Add to that the fact that list agents aren’t revealing the commission that they have “negotiated” with the buyer, even though the buyer’s mortgage or cash is really what is paying that. For the buyer to not have some say in the list side commission is a total lack of transparency. I can’t say it enough, who is bringing all the money to the table? The buyer, and without some say in the list side commission I can see that being the next lawsuit the NAR will have to deal with.

Both brokerage’s commission needs to be transparent for all sides to see, and it needs to be negotiable by both sides all the way to the closing table.

A buyer not able to pay out of pocket is usually dependent upon what the seller can offer. After all, that gets wrapped in the mortgage anyway, and is usually added into the comps used in appraisals. Why should the list agent being able to talk a seller into a large percentage, while not giving the seller all the necessary information, and leaving a small amount, if anything for the buyer’s agent, why should the list agent have that advantage?

The list agent’s fee, as well as the buyer’s agent’s fee, should be known by all parties, and be negotiable all the way up to the closing table. Again I say it, the buyer is the one bringing the money to the table, they should have a say in how much of their loan, or how much of their cash is going to pay the list agent. The seller can always pay any agreed upon excess out of pocket after closing.

As an example, a seller is willing to pay 5% towards agent fees. If the list agent “negotiates” a 4% fee, and the buyer is unable to pay out of pocket, or needs the entire 6% sellers concessions allowed by FHA or USDA for things beside commission, why is that 1% not negotiable?

The buyer in an offer, if they know that 5% is allowed by seller, and that 4% is going to the list agent, should be allowed to offer 2.75% for the list side and 2.25% for their agent, or even 2.5/2.5%. After all it is coming out of their mortgage.

If the seller’s agent insists on 4% and chooses to jeopardize the sale then why can’t the seller pay the extra out of pocket after closing? To be honest where is the seller’s best interest in this scenario? That is pure list agent greed, and we’re seeing more and more of that since August. Thanks to the NAR’s poor leadership.

All commission needs to be known by both sides and needs to be negotiable by both sides all the way up to the closing table. Anything less than this is not ethical nor transparent!

05/20/2025

The market is tough for lower income and or first time home buyers. Unfortunately the NAR settlement has made it tougher.

They claim they made real estate more transparent but for buyers the opposite has occurred. Especially if the buyer doesn’t have the out of pocket money needed for their agent.

Banks aren’t making it any easier because prior to the settlement, when the seller offered buyer commission both sides were rolled into the mortgage. Now banks don’t allow that unless it is considered a “seller concession” and that amount is limited based upon loan type. FHA and USDA allow 6%, so 2.5% going to buyer’s broker lowers that to 3.5%. Why the seller’s commission can be rolled into the loan but not buyer’s is ridiculous. After all, the buyer is the one bringing the money to the table.

Which brings me to another touchy subject. Since the buyer is the one bringing the money, why do they have no say in the seller’s broker commission? Since the settlement, too many list agents are keeping that number secret from the buyer. Then at closing we are now finding buyer’s agents getting 2% and list agents getting 4%, all hypothetical numbers folks.

Since that 4% for the list agent is most often rolled into the buyer’s loan, why does the buyer have no say? The seller’s broker commission should be revealed, after all that is what transparency is, from offer acceptance, and both sides commission should be negotiable all the way to the closing table.

If the buyer learns that the seller’s side is 4% and the buyer’s agent side is 2%, they should be allowed in their offer to state 3.25% to the list and 2.75% to the buyer’s agent. Or offer 3%/3%. Or just leave it 4%/2%, that should be their choice.

Everyone has been expecting the buyer to bring money out of pocket for their agent, the seller can do the same. If there is a 3%/3% scenario and the seller wants their agent to have 4% then they can pay that 1% out of pocket after the closing.

As things are, it is easier for a list agent to negotiate commission than a buyer’s agent, the seller knows that if they do end up selling, roughly how much they’ll get. The buyer has no clue what the final numbers will be.

I would like to see the NAR, since they claim to be about ethics and transparency, make it mandatory that list agents make their commission split known to buyers up front, and how much the seller is offering the buyer’s agent if anything. That is the only way we’ll ever have full transparency in real estate and if the NAR doesn’t implement something like this I see another law suit coming.

NAR, do it before the DOJ forces you to!

05/20/2025

A new report from NAR and Realtor.com found that households earning $100k or less can afford far fewer homes today compared to before the pandemic.

05/20/2025

Some FHA loans come with unexpected costs, but you can anticipate some of these in the planning and saving phase. https://www.fha.com/fha_article?id=4029

04/29/2025

https://www.instagram.com/p/DI_R-ccN8gf/?igsh=a21kbzIyZmJxZ2du