>I agree realtors generally don't provide value for the money anymore. However, all else being equal, removing realtors will itself make it more profitable to invest in real estate.
I'm a Realtor, but I'm not here to turn this into a pissing match - if you believe that representation doesn't benefit you, then don't use a Realtor. In the same way, if you believe you can represent yourself successfully in court don't use a lawyer or if you can adequately assess your financial future, don't use a financial advisor. Expertise exists for a reason - because I can tell you a lot about water rights, land use, zoning, negotiations, market and pricing, and I can connect you with other professionals to meet your needs. Many people find those professional services to be worth their time and money.
All that said - yes, I think we will see changes to the cost (commissions et al) of real estate services. But when I hear people talk about "normal" real estate transactions or comments like "you don't need an agent for residential" I know this person is either very new to real estate or very experienced. The newbie doesn't know what they don't know, and the experienced person likely has sufficient knowledge that they will only bring in an agent to supplement that knowledge. The majority of people do not transact enough real estate such that they may think they know more than they do.
Many of my friends are real estate agents, and my observation is that most of them are not particularly educated in land use/zoning issues. Which is not to say that they don't add a lot of value in other ways, but there's no substitute for reading the zoning rules personally if you are thinking about construction.
As an outside observer my impression is that the sell-side realtor provides a lot of value (especially if he/she has a small construction crew on standby) but the buy-side realtor contributes less. Also, the incentives are misaligned for the buy-side realtor - they get paid more the higher price you pay.
Every market is going to be different in terms of skill and standard of practice... in urban markets, people only selling residential, they may not need to know much about land use, but you are paying them for their market analytics and negotiating skills. In my market, to actually serve clients well, I need to know an absurd number of things as my people are dealing in land use, water rights, fencing, development, etc...
Regarding being on sell vs buy side - the buy-side should be helping you make sure you don't use a foot gun. They should be helping identify any material issues with the property and/or sourcing experts who can help with risk mitigation. And, they should have savvy to help negotiate the strongest possible offer to your favor. Because of several national lawsuits, it is very likely that consumers will be negotiating a price for a buyer's agent's services and paying for it directly in the near future. That's a whole other topic and probably requires frosty beverages.
Sorry, the IQ/brain capacity/"insert a term that you are comfortable" with here required to be a lawyer is much higher than to be a real estate agent. It is much more accessible to the avg person to do at least 80% of the work an agent does, especially on the buy side. And count on AI doing 100% of it, on both buy and sell sides, much better and cheaper than real estate agents, in a matter of a couple of years, if not months.
The main reason RE agents play a significant role is the artificial stronghold around the MLS. It's not their Nobel prize winning brains providing irreplaceable services.
Good sir, I've met some fucking dumb lawyers in my day, so I'm not sure why you are holding them up as a pillar of intelligence. Nobody said anything about intelligence here anyway - what I said was, real estate agents, like lawyers, financial planners, librarians, and pretty much every career on the planet exist because they have specialized knowledge and skills. You think you can replace what I do with AI? Why don't you come on over and do a ride along with me on a typical day - I bet you'll change your mind. Zillow, Redfin, and plenty of others have been trying for more than a decade to replace us and they aren't making much progress.
The MLSs? Do you have any idea what it was like prior to their existence and how much the public has benefited from the improvement in information asychronicity? Zillow et al stand on their shoulders. You don't like it, you try replicating what the MLSs do.
I'm a Realtor, but I'm not here to turn this into a pissing match - if you believe that representation doesn't benefit you, then don't use a Realtor. In the same way, if you believe you can represent yourself successfully in court don't use a lawyer or if you can adequately assess your financial future, don't use a financial advisor. Expertise exists for a reason - because I can tell you a lot about water rights, land use, zoning, negotiations, market and pricing, and I can connect you with other professionals to meet your needs. Many people find those professional services to be worth their time and money.
All that said - yes, I think we will see changes to the cost (commissions et al) of real estate services. But when I hear people talk about "normal" real estate transactions or comments like "you don't need an agent for residential" I know this person is either very new to real estate or very experienced. The newbie doesn't know what they don't know, and the experienced person likely has sufficient knowledge that they will only bring in an agent to supplement that knowledge. The majority of people do not transact enough real estate such that they may think they know more than they do.