U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Foreclosures, Short Sales, and REOs
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-19-2010, 09:51 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
9,061 posts, read 18,034,362 times
Reputation: 6689

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by manderly6 View Post
If I had a dollar for every agent on this forum who has said something to the effect of "you may as well have an agent, you aren't paying for it" I would be a rich man.

I will be very curious as to the response to your statement.
I've said it, because it's true under the current system to a degree. The seller generally pays the same commission whether the buyer has their own agent. The listing commission is generally X. Listing company will offer a portion of X to a company that brings them a buyer as a reward for supplying a buyer. Yes, in a sense the buyer is paying with it rolled into the price, but ultimately it comes out of the sellers net.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-19-2010, 09:58 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
9,061 posts, read 18,034,362 times
Reputation: 6689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lebowsky View Post
In general I was ok with the realtor. He/she always made it look like he/she was doing me a favor which I never liked but was always prompt to attend me... I find it amusing, most of the realtors I have met and heard by touring open houses, friends comments, etc all share that common trait... they are doing you favors... like if they were not paid enough.

Anyway, if the realtor had told me that the seller was only paying 2.5% commission I would have agreed to the deal anyway, people make budgets and I like to plan ahead of time... and .5% is a significant amount of money when buying a house, so it feels like a slap in the face.

It a question of being clear and not waiting until the last minute just to close for the sake of closing. I'm sure that my realtors intention was just to complete this sale and move on, as there was a possibility that if he/she told me this detail I could walk out of the deal.
I don't see it as a lack of ability/skill/working in your best interest, but rather communication. Somewhere there a communication failure. If, IF, what you said is true about 3% minimum and not to worry about it, the agent should probably eat the .05%. Have you asked them to not charge it yet?

Thanks for plug Silverfall. I hope to one day have a Oregon referral for you.

Last edited by Brandon Hoffman; 08-19-2010 at 10:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2010, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
9,061 posts, read 18,034,362 times
Reputation: 6689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
Mike I'm surprised you guys use a state form for your Representation and commission. Ours here are all private forms, put together by our attorneys and can be structured however the individual Brokerage determines.
CCAR provides us with a standard form. At first substantial contact SC REC requires us to disclose agency laws including customer vs. client and Dual/Designated Agency explanations. We are very clearly a written agency state, so either there is a signed buyer agency and the buyer is represented, or there is no agency agreement and the agent is a sub-agent of the seller and required to represent the sellers best interest over the buyer.

Pro-buyer agent duties are clearly outlined, pay is clearly outlined, buyer responsibilities are clearly outlined
Con-Buyer may decide they end up not liking their agent

Problems-some agents don't understand agency laws, therefore are unable to explain them to a buyer. Some buyers fail to grasp that an agency agreement can actually work in their favor, normally because the agent fails to adequately explain buyer representation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 07:11 AM
 
Location: Log "cabin" west of Bangor
5,676 posts, read 6,752,970 times
Reputation: 10237
I've read thru this whole thread, I read things- especially things that I sign which represent a contractual obligation. Before I bought my house I signed two BA agreements. Both of those agreements clearly stated that *I* was responsible for the BA's commission, whether it was a split or even if I made a purchase such as a FSBO without using the agent during the time the BA agreement was in force. I cannot imagine that a contractual document would not cover the contingencies and make it clear that the buyer was ultimately responsible for the commission, regardless of how much or how little of it was paid as a split from the seller's agent.

The *buyer* is contracting the services of the BA, and *should* be responsible for payment. If the BA gets paid by a split, that's great, but if not then the buyer is responsible. The BA works for the buyer and the buyer should make sure he/she gets the agreed fee.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 07:52 AM
 
Location: Martinsville, NJ
6,162 posts, read 11,219,245 times
Reputation: 3957
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zymer View Post
I've read thru this whole thread, I read things- especially things that I sign which represent a contractual obligation. Before I bought my house I signed two BA agreements. Both of those agreements clearly stated that *I* was responsible for the BA's commission, whether it was a split or even if I made a purchase such as a FSBO without using the agent during the time the BA agreement was in force. I cannot imagine that a contractual document would not cover the contingencies and make it clear that the buyer was ultimately responsible for the commission, regardless of how much or how little of it was paid as a split from the seller's agent.

The *buyer* is contracting the services of the BA, and *should* be responsible for payment. If the BA gets paid by a split, that's great, but if not then the buyer is responsible. The BA works for the buyer and the buyer should make sure he/she gets the agreed fee.
I agree completely. The assertion being made by the OP, however, is that the agent told them not to worry about it. That the commission would be taken care of by the listing agents offeed co-op fee. Worse, that the BA didn't even point out anywhere along the way that, because this was a short sale where the bank might reduce the total commission, the co op might not be sufficient to cover his fee. I happen to be of the opinion that, if the BA didn't alert the buyer to that possibility, they shoudn't push the issue now and attempt to get the difference from the buyer. That would be unfair.

I have a suggestion for the OP. Here in NJ, the listing broker is obligated to pay the full amount of the offered coop, even if the bank shorts the commission to the listing agent, unless the listing indicated that the commission is subject to change for some reason. Is that also true where you are? If so, yoru buyer agent has every right, and to protect you I would say obligation, to collect his full fee from the listing agent, as was offered in the listing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 08:00 AM
 
5,384 posts, read 8,350,800 times
Reputation: 3584
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
I have a suggestion for the OP. Here in NJ, the listing broker is obligated to pay the full amount of the offered coop, even if the bank shorts the commission to the listing agent, unless the listing indicated that the commission is subject to change for some reason. Is that also true where you are? If so, yoru buyer agent has every right, and to protect you I would say obligation, to collect his full fee from the listing agent, as was offered in the listing.
Let me interject that my MLS has ruled that as long as the listing broker has disclosed that the property was a short sale, this is enough to get them off the hook in paying out the difference if the lender cuts the commission.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 08:21 AM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
31,795 posts, read 36,466,119 times
Reputation: 38241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity View Post
Let me interject that my MLS has ruled that as long as the listing broker has disclosed that the property was a short sale, this is enough to get them off the hook in paying out the difference if the lender cuts the commission.
True here also, it's pretty standard now to see some verbiage under private remarks about commissions being split equally if lender cut the % paid.

This may have been answered but wasn't their rules adopted that said the lender cannot demand lower fees below the standard offered / paid in a market on FHA & VA type loans ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 08:21 AM
 
Location: Union County
5,783 posts, read 8,416,020 times
Reputation: 4818
... and agents wonder why so many people have low opinions of them.

It's always been the common practice for ALL AGENTS to acquire their compensation from the seller. I'm not talking flat fee type of agreements here, I'm talking your "run o the mill, hey I saw this great house on MLS, can you arrange a showing?".

If there's any realm of any scenario in any dimension that I would be expected to lay out money to a buyer's agent I better be alerted to that before I sign anything. Unless there was something "very special" about the arrangement I would never suspect that I would be expected to pay a cent to a buyer's agent.

I understand that the buyer agents on this board hype their abilities as so great people fall all over them and can't wait to cut them a check... Seriously, what agent doesn't tell you they're the best at what they do? But, honestly - if I'm going to pay $2k (half a point on a 400k house) why would I give that to someone to set-up an automatic MLS email feed, arrange showings, and unlock doors? What special skills would I get for that $2k that wouldn't be better spent hiring a local RE attorney? Especially when we talk about a short sale.

The near term future of RE is all about short sales, foreclosures, and distressed properties in general... Telling buyer's to "avoid these" is ludicrous IMO. There's only going to be more and more of them making up what is available on the market. I should limit my choices because you get less of a cut?! Seems to me the banks dictating 2.5% on the buy side is a pretty clear message that is where compensation for agents is heading. There's nobody forcing agents to work in a commission based field, it's their choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 08:27 AM
 
Location: Tempe, Arizona
4,511 posts, read 11,893,017 times
Reputation: 2193
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Keegan View Post
...I have a suggestion for the OP. Here in NJ, the listing broker is obligated to pay the full amount of the offered coop, even if the bank shorts the commission to the listing agent, unless the listing indicated that the commission is subject to change for some reason. ,,,.
Same in AZ, however, we take it further, and the listing is not allowed to indicate it is subject to change. The stated coop fee must be paid regardless. I agree, if true where the OP is, the BA should go after the LA for the balance.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-20-2010, 08:33 AM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
31,795 posts, read 36,466,119 times
Reputation: 38241
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeyKid View Post
... It's always been the common practice for ALL AGENTS to acquire their compensation from the seller. I'm not talking flat fee type of agreements here, I'm talking your "run o the mill, hey I saw this great house on MLS, can you arrange a showing?".

The near term future of RE is all about short sales, foreclosures, and distressed properties in general... Telling buyer's to "avoid these" is ludicrous IMO. There's only going to be more and more of them making up what is available on the market. I should limit my choices because you get less of a cut?! Seems to me the banks dictating 2.5% on the buy side is a pretty clear message that is where compensation for agents is heading. There's nobody forcing agents to work in a commission based field, it's their choice.
Several misconceptions here.

Mikey, the listing broker and the seller have an agreement for whatever they charge not the Buyers Agent. The Listing Broker pays the Buyers agent from whatever they charge their client. The seller does not pay the buyers agent. Why do people have so much trouble with this concept ?

That listing agent advertises they will pay X% to any licensed agent to bring them a good buyer. By our MLS rules, what they offer is what must be paid. If someone eats a smaller amount paid, technically the listing broker should eat this amount.

You're right no one forces us, it's a choice. Any decent agent with a little experience has run across this situation of a reduced amount on SS's. It is not the issue many might think and 99% of the time the BA accepts the reduced amount. Technically, the BA broker is the one who must agree to accept a reduced fee. They set our fee structure and it is their money that they split with us the agents.

The situation being discussed is a minor issue and is almost always worked out between the lender and the 2 brokers.

Rarely is the buyer requested to pay extra out of their pocket.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Foreclosures, Short Sales, and REOs
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top