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.
You are right that I assumed he had obtained a release. I would have to know that for sure.
I don't have any obligation to my former agent or her brokerage. She even called the listing agent for me and told her that she'd be sending me her way.
I am a fan of the real estate sales industry itself, but not of the monopoly they have on the MLS, or of the unrealistic share of other people's wealth that they feel "entitled" to line their pockets with.
First point-realtors pay for and maintain MLS. It's not so much as a monopoly as we created,own, maintain, and pay for the MLS.
Second point-most agents don't feel entitled to anything. We have a fee we work for and the client may choose to hire us or not. Attorney's are the ones that have it made. No way around them, they are required for every transaction.
Second point-most agents don't feel entitled to anything. We have a fee we work for and the client may choose to hire us or not. Attorney's are the ones that have it made. No way around them, they are required for every transaction.
The fee for my last attorney to handle the closing on the house I bought outright--- $700.
The fee for the last buyer's agent of the lady I met at a party and told about my house being for sale and then I showed it to her and she wanted to buy it--- 2.5% of my $245,000 sale! Buyer's agent did virtually nothing but have the good fortune to convince some poor old gal to sign a contract with her to help her find her next new home, and then failed to do so... but that didn't stop her from laying claim to my money.
Reason I sold my own home that time to begin with? Selling agent I had never bothered to show it even once in the nearly four months he had the contract... Sometimes if you want something done right- you just have to do it yourself. (Not the first house I sold on my own either.)
The fee for my last attorney to handle the closing on the house I bought outright--- $700.
The fee for the last buyer's agent of the lady I met at a party and told about my house being for sale and then I showed it to her and she wanted to buy it--- 2.5% of my $245,000 sale! Buyer's agent did virtually nothing but have the good fortune to convince some poor old gal to sign a contract ....
Reason I sold my own home that time to begin with? Selling agent I had never bothered to show it even once in the nearly four months he had the contract...
I can't speak on what your agent did or didn't do. I can say in general agents do a lot of things the public/client never sees or knows about. As far as your statement about the agent not showing the house, well that's a stupid argument. Listing agents rarely show their own listings. The odds of the agent having a buyer that is a good fit for one of their own listings is slim (about 1% of the time for me). Most buyers have buyer agents so when through marketing they find a home they like they call their own agent to show it to them.
I will never understand why people get so worked up. Everyone has a choice. Use an agent, don't use an agent. Don't be party to a transaction with an agent if you don't want to.
Agents provide a service. Someone either thinks they are worth it or they don't. And of course there are good agents and bad agents. Just like every other profession.
If the industry is truly all about integrity and "full disclosure"- why not put all of the parties concerned in a room together to hash out the details of a sale face to face in a straight-forward, above board manner?
That would be such a zoo. Emotions would run high, things would escalate, things would be said that couldn't be taken back. It could work with calm, rational buyers/sellers but it's a rare blessing these days to have such a gem as 2 rational clients in the same deal. Also, many people are not comfortable in such situations. They don't want to be around the other party during negotiations.
I can't speak on what your agent did or didn't do. I can say in general agents do a lot of things the public/client never sees or knows about. As far as your statement about the agent not showing the house, well that's a stupid argument. Listing agents rarely show their own listings. The odds of the agent having a buyer that is a good fit for one of their own listings is slim (about 1% of the time for me). Most buyers have buyer agents so when through marketing they find a home they like they call their own agent to show it to them.
How exactly would the conversation go between the buyer that points out a house to their agent and the agent not wanting to show it due to the amount of commission?
The conversation goes like this...
Me: Hey buyers, a new listing just popped up the looks like it might meet your needs. I need to let you know that the compensation they are offering is below the minimum that we talked about during our consultation meeting. If you decided to buy this house you would need to pay me an additional $X or X% if you decide to move forward. Would you like me to set up a showing?
I applaud you for this. And as the one who said that realtors are over-compensated- I will say that this is not always the case. I am fully aware of how it works- the split, the listing fees, the endless showings, the low priced home sales that result in barely enough to cover the realtor's costs once all expenses and splits are taken into consideration... BUT- you must also admit that sometimes- a 6% cut of a high ticket home that you merely list and it sells immediately or to one of your own agency's clients and nets you 10's of thousands of someone else’s dollars-- that is over-compensation. There is no other product one RE-sells for someone else in this country where-upon they walk away with such a high percentage of the seller's pie. And if the argument is that it all works out in the end- the low commission sales mixed in with the astronomical ones-- well-- why should I, or any other homeowner, have to be the ones to make up for any shortage a realtor felt they got on another sale? I think it should be a sliding fee scale- not a blanket 6% industry "standard." I've often thought of going on to open my company and shake up the industry--- but I figured I'd probably end up rooming somewhere with Jimmy Hoffa...
And I KNOW that you know that there are some atrocious, unscrupulous and greedy realtors out there that give an increasingly bad name to the profession. Sadly, because of them- in my circles- realtors fall only behind lawyers in perception of money-grubbing careers. I am a fan of the real estate sales industry itself, but not of the monopoly they have on the MLS, or of the unrealistic share of other people's wealth that they feel "entitled" to line their pockets with. In reality, all too often the compensation in NO WAY matches the time invested or the work performed, and more often than not- it is a case of over-compensation, not under. It should not be the seller's responsibility to make up for the fact that theirs is the first house you've sold in a month during a market downturn. Did realtor's lower their commissions when they were making money hand over fist during the boom, and were almost single-handedly driving the housing prices into the stratosphere? Nope.
This is because you are mistaken about what you are paying for with a real estate agent. With the traditional commission model you are paying for the privilege of not having to pay if the house doesn't sell. You are paying for the real estate agent to take a gamble, spend their money, and not get paid. The agent is betting the odds. If they win, they win big. If the lose, they lose big. The seller is paying for the agent to take ALL the risk. The commission stays the same as the price of the house goes up because higher priced homes are riskier to sell. Higher risk means higher reward.
Many, many commissions came down during the boom. Flat rate companies were thriving and doing well and they all went out of business during the decline because they had a bad business model. Our 3% (total commission) company had 15 agents during the boom in my small city. The fact that you aren't aware of other business models doesn't mean that they don't exist. It just means that you are making assumptions without further investigation.
I am with manderly that I don't get why people get so worked up over this. Use an agent or don't. Pay a commission or find a flat rate agent. You have choices. Really...you do.
Me: Hey buyers, a new listing just popped up the looks like it might meet your needs. I need to let you know that the compensation they are offering is below the minimum that we talked about during our consultation meeting. If you decided to buy this house you would need to pay me an additional $X or X% if you decide to move forward. Would you like me to set up a showing?
Makes sense. Although not for me since in my purchases it was never discussed how much commission would be.
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.
