I need an REALTORS opinion (agent, commissions, listings, rebate)

[RickMG]

Originally Posted by olecapt

Ahhh..so it is in the agency relationship is it? And not in the CofE?

No, it's not only in the agency relationship, it's in every Realtor's code of ethics. See here: http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/code.

[mainebrokerman]

boycotting is illegal,,,tho hard to prove,
i believe on some levels,,yes it does happen,,,,,i've listed houses,,,50 miles away and 200 miles away,,,,and i was under my own personal suspician of being boycotted,,,,,,but couldnt prove it,,

selling a house is a major transaction, anything to do with a voice recorded message,,sounds very impersonal to me,,,

[Gretchen B]

Originally Posted by mainebrokerman

boycotting is illegal,,,tho hard to prove,
i believe on some levels,,yes it does happen,,,,,i've listed houses,,,50 miles away and 200 miles away,,,,and i was under my own personal suspician of being boycotted,,,,,,but couldnt prove it,,

selling a house is a major transaction, anything to do with a voice recorded message,,sounds very impersonal to me,,,

Can anyone say "Price Fixing"? Between the Anti-Trust Laws, the Code of Ethics, (and here in AZ we also have Commissioner's Standards that are even stricter), I feel it's very important that realtors live up to their oath.

Do some realtors boycot low commission listings? This thread proves that some do. If a client or customer wasn't shown the house they wanted because the agent felt the commission wasn't high enough, AND that client/customer reported it, the agent could be slapped with both ethics violation (at least in AZ he would be) and an anti-trust suit.

Please, let's work hard to disspell the "realtors are just scum-of-the-earth, used car salesmen" reputation.

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by RickMG

No, it's not only in the agency relationship, it's in every Realtor's code of ethics. See here: http://www.realtor.org/mempolweb.nsf/pages/code.

Where please? cite a standard of practice please.

[olecapt]

On the point here is a brief statement from a Florida RE lawyer...


"Obviously no business should be required to represent clients at a loss, and having brokerages continue to work for ever-decreasing commission schedules will cause, at some point, a loss to be sustained by the brokerage and/or agent because of the reduced commission schedule. Therefore, it is up to the individual brokerage or agent to determine when they are potentially going to cross this line, which will result in the agent not showing a specific property solely due to the cooperating compensation offered in the MLS."

You can read the remark in context at..

http://realtytimes.com/rtapages/2005...commission.htm

The article notes that the remark is made in the context of FL law and may be different elsewhere.

[Gretchen B]

You may want to check out Case #1-26:Subordination of Client's Interests to REALTOR's Personal Gain (Adopted May, 2001.) This was highlighted in a recent ethics class I took a few months ago. The Realtor in question had failed to show a property that fit his client's criteria because of commission considerations. The outcome, and I quote: "The Hearing Panel determined that REALTOR B had placed his interests ahead of those of his client and had violated Article 1."

Recently, C.E. instructors and attorneys in Arizona have really emphasized that we as Realtors cannot violate Article 1 of the NAR Code of Ethics, and that we must also be very, very careful not to be guilty of price-fixing by boycotting low commission listings.

Olecapt, I'm just curious. I'm sure you're probably required to take a certain amount of continuing ed classes every year or two, including ones on real estate law and the NAR code of ethics. What have your instructors being saying about this specific issue?

[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Gretchen B

You may want to check out Case #1-26:Subordination of Client's Interests to REALTOR's Personal Gain (Adopted May, 2001.) This was highlighted in a recent ethics class I took a few months ago. The Realtor in question had failed to show a property that fit his client's criteria because of commission considerations. The outcome, and I quote: "The Hearing Panel determined that REALTOR B had placed his interests ahead of those of his client and had violated Article 1."

Recently, C.E. instructors and attorneys in Arizona have really emphasized that we as Realtors cannot violate Article 1 of the NAR Code of Ethics, and that we must also be very, very careful not to be guilty of price-fixing by boycotting low commission listings.

Olecapt, I'm just curious. I'm sure you're probably required to take a certain amount of continuing ed classes every year or two, including ones on real estate law and the NAR code of ethics. What have your instructors being saying about this specific issue?

Actually I have never taken an ethics or agency course from an instructor who was actually qualified to teach it. The last agency course had an instructor who did not know that we practice designated agency in Nevada. We don't call it that here...so he incorrectly answered a question about it...I tried to clarify for him and he got all upset.

I have heard this question come up a few times. Never heard a reasonable answer. The do-gooders come up with the must serve your client. The capilalist respond with not unless I get paid.

I personally track the FSBOs and thir proposed compensation schemes. I will tell a client about an appropriate one and invite him to guarantee my commission if I show it to him. Some accept...some don't.

Your case 1-26 illustrates the point. Why a high contrivance when we could have had a simple 1% coop? That is because in most circumstances it would be acceptable not to show a 1% coop. But why stop there? Make it a zero percent coop...a FSBO. If you are obligated to take care of your client regardless of cost you won't be in business long..

Now we could of course change the model. We could require that everyone who buys a place have their own Realtor. Ban the double dip and require a Buyers Broker with a buyer pays agreement. Sellers hire listers...buyer hire buyers agents. And everybody pays their own agent...Don't hold your breath.

[palmcoasting]

You pay 4% to the company, but is that going to the selling broker or is it split with the agency...ie... 2% to Nexthome as an additional fee and then 2%
to the agent bringing in the buyer? If it's 4% paid out to the agent bringing in the buyer, heck yes, I would show the house...that's a nice commission in my area.
Honestly, I personally show what interests the customer. And if it is a FSBO, I approach the owner asking if they will pay a fee to me for bringing in a buyer. It wouldn't matter to me who you were listed with, regardless of whether I think I will end up doing all the work or not. I usually do anyway.
I'm looking at the finish line, not the game...and the finish line is the closing.

[Buckhead_Broker]

12paws42,

I think a lot of the posts are correct, if not a little off the topic. Here's what many agents worry about with the low cost listing services; is there anyone representing the seller that can keep the transaction moving along. Most FSBO's fail to close because the seller doesn't know what to do to keep the sale moving forward. If you really need to sell, and you have adequate equity in your home that it would not cause you to lose money, I would recommend finding an agent with an exceptional track record in your neighborhood. When interviewing, ask how many listings they have sold, but also how many expired and were never renewed or were withdrawn. And don't take their word for it, ask for a printout from their local listing service.

[palmcoasting]

Well, I'll say this, I can only speak from my own experience, but there was such an influx of new agents, new title closers and mortgage brokers that I find myself checking up on everything from beginning to end regardless of whether my customer is the buyer or the seller. Perhaps it's a control issue, lol. But, I can honestly say, that I can count on one hand the times that I have had all the players doing what they were supposed to be doing, on time.
So, to me, personally, it makes no difference.