In general, I agree with your points, but I'm not so sure about this one. Reading the LA Times article you cite - which admittedly is speculative - I note the following:

1) Costs to sellers will go down since they no longer have to pay the buyer broker's 3%.

2) Costs to buyers will go up, since they'll have to hire a buyer broker (if they want one). It's unclear what those fees will be, and the article even suggests it could be more than 3%.

So, who is being helped here?

1) Probably not the real estate agents, who now have to develop a whole new business model.

2) Not the typical buyer, who's now on the hook for another fee (besides closing costs, transfer taxes, inspection fees, etc.)

3) Maybe the savvy homebuyer - someone who's already purchased enough real estate to know the ropes and not need a broker to recommend an offer price and to tell them things like why they need a home inspection and what they can and cannot expect from the results.

4) The sellers clearly win - they've shaved 3% off their costs of sale. And do we honestly believe they'll reduce their sale price by 3%? It's clearly not in their best interest, nor is it in the industry's interest to see real estate prices deflate.

Time will tell how this plays out. I know the old system was flawed, but I suspect the new system will be another case of the rich (in this case home owners with a lot of equity) getting richer while the poor (aspiring home owners scraping up a down payment) have to take on more debt.