And if the industry moves in that direction, do you think that would be more, perhaps, more problematic than then what the case study we’re looking at in the Seattle region where it’s simply they’re not required to offer lawyers any compensation?
Robert Reffkin: Maybe I will start with the second and I’ll pass on to Kalani for the first part of your question. So that the settlements that – had still allows sellers to pay a buyer commission. If they certainly make it a requirement. And to my understanding, yeah, their requirement was only a penny and so, that’s why when you take a penny to zero, which I believe is what’s they said on is bring the penny to a zero. That’s why the market norm prevails, because taking penny is into zero will change market norm. Now, which kind of highlights what’s going on here and the different people’s different motivations. But bringing this penny to zero is what they settle on and that brings you to Washington State kind of the Northwest MLS was 80% of the population.
And not allowing sellers to pay the buyer commissions to be really challenging for buyers because right now, because then they would not be able to finance it in the mortgage. And so that’s increased cost for buyers to my knowledge. But again, there isn’t evidence that that is going to be the clear path, versus what has been settled on. And again, for the agents who are how to add a successfully again buyer broker agreements which outlined their commission, it shouldn’t be a risk for those people, which is why we’re making training along those lines a key priority for come through our agents to empower them. With that Kalani?
Kalani Reelitz : Yeah, sure. Thanks, Robert. I think and we mentioned I think, we’ve had what we’ve seen our success was being able to look ahead and make sure that our OpEx is ahead of market conditions. I think that’s again for two things, one to make sure we are ahead of market conditions. Also to make sure we’re maximizing profit and value. I think as we think about our path to 900 down to 850, I think we do have room if we need we will continue to monitor, where, where we go is going to be kind of a continued story of our operational efficiencies we’ve already extracted as part of it. So I think about lowering cost for transactions. So looking at continued efficiencies in our kind of transaction-based cost, obviously, if the market continues, looking at variable cost as revenue declines.
Low cost labor we’ve done a tremendous job so far, but I think we still have opportunity. I think about our back office efforts and continuing to look at low cost labor and efficiencies there, as well as our technology we’ve done and Greg and team has done a really nice job of ensuring that we have a great portfolio. But doing it with low cost labor. And then vendors, I think we will continue to rationalize. We’ll continue to look at lower usage, licensing et cetera. And then, and obviously procurements and lowering rates. So I think we have a bunch of opportunities at our disposal and we’ll continue to monitor. But again, I think, we’re doing both to make sure we react to the market, but also just to continue to drive profit to continue to have free cash flow the more we can optimize through, our kind of discipline of efficiencies.
I think the more profit we’re focused on. So, I hope that helps.
Lloyd Walmsley : All right. Thank you.
Operator: Our next question comes from the line of Ryan McKeveny with Zelman and Associates. Please go ahead.
Ryan McKeveny: Hey. Thanks a lot, guys. Two questions that are kind of the same, so I’ll ask them at the same time. So on the client dashboard and on the TNE side, both seem very interesting opportunities to expand those. I guess, will in both cases will that require much incremental investment or expense to kind of get where you want to go. Let’s say on the dashboard or with the TNE integrations into more markets or you know maybe on the TN E side is that more of driving revenue opportunity without adding much cost and sending on the client dashboard. Is there much incremental tax spend or whatever expenses they are that needs to, get that to the point of launch expansion into next year?
Robert Reffkin: Yeah, I’m going to pass it on to Greg to answer that. There’s no incremental tax and then also I thought it’d be helpful Greg, he’s really steering Compass AI if you can just maybe chat about why – I don’t know I’ve heard from you say that that’s one of the areas you’re most excited by maybe just share why that is?
Greg Hart : Sure. So, first just to answer the question. No, there’s no incremental expense on us, increasing the investment in technology to be able to either integrate TNE into the platform or to work on client dashboard or Compass AI for that matter. We’ve continued over time to reduce our investment in technology both on an absolute basis, but also on this as a percentage of revenue that yet we still feel very confident in our ability even with, less investment in that area to continue to build for our agents. Compass AI is a great example of that, and we certainly believe that we are in a different position than any of our competitors with respect to our ongoing investment in tech, being a much more impactful one for us than with anybody else is doing in this space.
In terms of Compass AI, Robert mentioned that, one of the reasons that I am a big believer in the impact that Compass AI has already had. But we will also have for our agents is that it takes some of the tasks that agents do all the time. And it makes them much, much, much easier. So it doesn’t do their job for them completely, but it does, 80% to 90% of the job in one second. Writing a list in description, creating a marketing email, creating a social post, you can use Compass AI, type in, a few things that you want to do for a new listing and give me another listing, one, two, three, main street, three bedroom, faces west, third floor and then we will come back to you with a, with a great description you can then tweak it, or you can use the prompts to refine what the AI gives you.
