Right now, the day is beautiful. I am reminded that spring is on the prowl by the crocus stalks making their way through the soil, by the sound of the Canada geese returning, by the very scent of life in the air.

Days like this nail home that life is about change, about cycles. I am a Realtor ®, and have been for a little over two years. "Change" is my middle name.

I was at an open house today- beautiful home, desired location. Even in the time that I have been in real estate, it seems that the purpose of an open house has changed. The very first that I hosted was attended by an agent and her clients, who then put in an offer. Agents do not accompany to open houses around here any longer. This could cause compensation issues for buyer's agents, depending on the wording in the MLS.

And I guess that I have to ask: should this be so? And what exactly is the best use of a real estate agent? Is an agent necessary at all?

We are on the edge of a new business model for residential real estate sales. Real estate agents are no longer the gatekeepers to information. I don't feel like my best use to buyers is to point out obvious structural components of the property- you know this if you have spoken with me or read my blog.

I think real estate should be less about sales, and more about aid with the process. I think the key word is "agent" which implies a relationship similar to that between an attorney and client. That is what makes me uncomfortable with a proposed "a la carte" approach to home sales, where clients can choose the level of involvement of the agent and the amount of service that they receive. Would a seller be best served with this, and if the agent knew that, would he or she be violating their fiduciary relationship? In a buyer's market- which describes the state of most of this market- I can't see the justification for going anything less than full-out with the marketing. You wouldn't allow any less from an attorney representing you in court.

But you as buyers- where do you want a real estate agent stepping in? The information is out there- do you want help sifting through it? Or are you comfortable doing that yourself, until you settle on the final two or three homes that you are interested in?

Should we be encountering a different paradigm regarding agent compensation? Is the fact that the compensation for a buyer's agent comes directly from the seller's agent a flaw in today's set-up? Would agents be more likely to represent the buyer better if commission were paid directly by the buyer? Or take commissions out altogether, and pay hourly, as other professionals are?

I don't know. I DO know that we are on the brink of sea changes- being addressed by all of the leading groups involved in the industry. Inman has suggested some changes in the business model. What I want to know is what YOU think.