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.
If you choose not to use a Realtor that is fine... Prices in NJ are adjusting down at a rate of about 1% per month... meanwhile you are paying your mortgage and other costs... the key in this market is to price your house correctly and get in and out of the market AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.
If the Realtor has a good buyer and can close sooner then later, the 3 or 4% is a worthwhile investment if the alternative is wait to find someone on your own while your value diminishes.
I am a licensed broker and I personally feel that is very unethical. I have personally sold FSBO properties to buyers with as little as 2%. The fact is if a buyer wants to see a home the agent has a fiduciary responsibility to show the home. I would ask what firm the agent works for and get their name. Now this may seem a bit extreme but I would consider reporting this person to the state Real Estate Commission or at least call the commission and get their opinion on this issue. This kind of price gauging practice needs to stop and is not very smart by any agent. I have a very good relationship with all my past clients due to just treating everyone the same and being fair. I love helping FSBO sellers succeed in their quest to sell FSBO.
Realtors, like anyone else have the right to ask for as much as he/she can get... Commissions are always negotiable and there is no set rate (like the prime rate is a set rate).
The Realtor may be short sighted by asking too much, but that is up to him/her.
With your logic, should the Realtor change $50.00 due to his/her fiduciary responsibility?
Realtors, like anyone else have the right to ask for as much as he/she can get... Commissions are always negotiable and there is no set rate (like the prime rate is a set rate).
The Realtor may be short sighted by asking too much, but that is up to him/her.
With your logic, should the Realtor change $50.00 due to his/her fiduciary responsibility?
no one is claiming they don't have the right to ask it. But to restrict your client from seeing a house because you want more than you would typically get on a transaction is a little shady. Furthermore, it kinda defeats the interests of every party on this market. One person mentioned that since prices are falling at 1% a month, then he should bite the bullet and accept the deal. What about the flipside. Since prices are falling, maybe the real estate agent should bite the bullet and simply show her client the condo now rather than holding out for a bigger commission because is the price of the house falls far enough, 4% may end up being less than 3%.
Like I've said before, I'm sure there are plenty of agents out there that would be willing to do the deal at 3%.
no one is claiming they don't have the right to ask it. But to restrict your client from seeing a house because you want more than you would typically get on a transaction is a little shady. Furthermore, it kinda defeats the interests of every party on this market. One person mentioned that since prices are falling at 1% a month, then he should bite the bullet and accept the deal. What about the flipside. Since prices are falling, maybe the real estate agent should bite the bullet and simply show her client the condo now rather than holding out for a bigger commission because is the price of the house falls far enough, 4% may end up being less than 3%.
Like I've said before, I'm sure there are plenty of agents out there that would be willing to do the deal at 3%.
If prices have fallen 15% in the past few years, then our fees have lost 15% as well.
The market is the market. We are no more responsible for declining prices then we are for prices when they are climbing.
That said, 3% is reasonable.
What I meant was that standing on principle and not paying a commission to a Realtor with a good buyer is short sighted if the alternative is to find a different buyer months down the road when prices have fallen further. This will cost the seller far more then 3 or 4% of today's selling price.
no one is claiming they don't have the right to ask it. But to restrict your client from seeing a house because you want more than you would typically get on a transaction is a little shady. Furthermore, it kinda defeats the interests of every party on this market. One person mentioned that since prices are falling at 1% a month, then he should bite the bullet and accept the deal. What about the flipside. Since prices are falling, maybe the real estate agent should bite the bullet and simply show her client the condo now rather than holding out for a bigger commission because is the price of the house falls far enough, 4% may end up being less than 3%.
Like I've said before, I'm sure there are plenty of agents out there that would be willing to do the deal at 3%.
Quick question... why is it exceptable for everyone else to have "business savvy" but when a realtor tries to get the most that they can, it's considered "unethical". Business is business!
Quick question... why is it exceptable for everyone else to have "business savvy" but when a realtor tries to get the most that they can, it's considered "unethical". Business is business!
Because they hold themselves out as "agents", which implies that they are bound by some fiduciary duties to act according to your wishes and put your interest ahead of their own. Yet time and time again far too many of them fail to live up to that, and even those that do meet those obligations are tainted by the stain of scandal, because realtors don't sufficiently regulate their own profession with any meaningful discipline.
But I agree with you, let them get the most that they can. Let's just call them "used house salesmen" and then everyone is on notice that they're just out to make a buck like anyone else, and will refrain from putting any undue trust in them.
Quick question... why is it exceptable for everyone else to have "business savvy" but when a realtor tries to get the most that they can, it's considered "unethical". Business is business!
you missed the point. If the realtor was business savvy, he/she would be willing to work for a 3% commission to get the sale done ASAP rather than risk the possibility of not getting it done. If the realtor is so "business savvy", why not go for broke and demand a 6% commission?
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.
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.
