U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [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)
 
Old 08-06-2012, 01:34 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 38,482,363 times
Reputation: 16102

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by hindukid View Post
Well what I meant was that if the net is the same. If you are asking 800K and paying 6% commission then the best you can hope to net is 752K.

If seller offers 784K and realtor agrees to act as dual agent and reduce commission to 4% then you are still netting 752K. In this situation I am not sure who is losing?

It seems that realtors would prefer to turn the buyer away and make at best 24K commission instead of 32K assuming they can even find another buyer.

And that seller would prefer to wait for another offer which is sure to be lower rather than deal with dual agent.
If that offer means my agent is now "neutral" and is not 100% looking out for my interest, then no I would not do it.

I would just use a flat fee listing service and an attorney in the first place if I was willing to do that.

 
Old 08-06-2012, 01:40 PM
 
413 posts, read 701,280 times
Reputation: 294
[quote=Captain Bill;25508964]In Arizona we normally don't use attorneys, and the attorney could not collect a commission. S/he would have to be paid by the buyer. The OP buyer is trying to save money by cutting out a Realtor, so why would he hire an attorney?

Because a real estate attorney is $500. A realtor is $24,000. Because a real estate attorney is liable for all the transactional and title issues and an agent is not. Because a real estate agent gives important legal advice and an can not. They provide two different functions and an agents primary function is to find you the house and bring you to contract.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
Regarding buyers that you mention. This is not about time spent. It is about having a contract that the buyer is attempting to interfere with. It is about contracts, business and risk management.
So you would prefer not to deal with buyer because he is a contract interferer rather than make a financially prudent decision?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
That is not what the OP was interested in. And I will only act as a dual agent if I know that both parties will be reasonable. That's because as a dual agent I must become neutral. I cannot advocate for either party. If I sense that a party, such as the OP, is unreasonable, then I will not be a dual agent, and would inform the seller of the reasons. Dual agency is extremely risky for an agent, and in fact is illegal in some states. I suspect when there are some more law suits it will become illegal in all states.
Right, it's about the buyer attempting to interfere with my third party listing contract.
The OP is interested in doing the work of a buyer's agent and passing the 3% savings on to himself. He found the house himself. That does not seem unreasonable. What seems more unreasonable is a contract that attempts to take the windfall of an unrepresented buyer and pass along all the savings to the selling agent. Fact is that you did not have to show the buyer 20 houses and that is a big part of the buying agent's commission. It may not be all but its certainly a large portion. It seems unreasonable to think that the listing agent deserves the commission of both agents combined when they did not have to do the work of both agents combined.

You keep pointing to the fact that's what the contract says. I can make a contract with a child to trade his bicycle for an ice cream cone but that does not make it reasonable. Agent is the one with knowledge of the industry. Seller has no knowledge. The contract itself is unreasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
We could go off into many tangents and how things would or should be done in various situations. In this thread we're discussing the OP's question, which boils down to what is tortious interference with a third party contract.
Please pay your attorney $200 an hour to file suit for tortious interference with a third party contract. We will see how far that suit gets you.

Bottom line is that this could have been a good situation for all parties. If agent and seller would prefer that buyer bring another agent to take 3% more out of the pot or just walk away all together than I am 100% certain they will get their wish.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Gilbert - Val Vista Lakes
6,069 posts, read 12,718,766 times
Reputation: 3810
Quote:
Originally Posted by hindukid View Post

Because a real estate attorney is $500. A realtor is $24,000. Because a real estate attorney is liable for all the transactional and title issues and an agent is not. Because a real estate agent gives important legal advice and an can not. They provide two different functions and an agents primary function is to find you the house and bring you to contract.
An attorney will charge $300 and up, per hour, and not leave his office. You cannot compare a one hour attorney fee to a completed real estate transaction.


Quote:
quote=hindukid;25509426The OP is interested in doing the work of a buyer's agent and passing the 3% savings on to himself. He found the house himself. That does not seem unreasonable. What seems more unreasonable is a contract that attempts to take the windfall of an unrepresented buyer and pass along all the savings to the selling agent. Fact is that you did not have to show the buyer 20 houses and that is a big part of the buying agent's commission. It may not be all but its certainly a large portion. It seems unreasonable to think that the listing agent deserves the commission of both agents combined when they did not have to do the work of both agents combined.
What you don't seem to understand is that an unrepresented buyer will cause the agent more work than if he were working with a buyer, and more risk. I explained before that any question the unrepresented buyer asks and is answered by the agent, could create an implied accidental agency, which creates an accidental dual agency, and the agent could be sued for acting as a dual agent without written agreement by both buyer and seller. That is a considerable risk. Not being in the business and not knowing and understanding the laws of agency, it is not surprising that you do not know about this.

Quote:
quote=hindukid;25509426You keep pointing to the fact that's what the contract says. I can make a contract with a child to trade his bicycle for an ice cream cone but that does not make it reasonable. Agent is the one with knowledge of the industry. Seller has no knowledge. The contract itself is unreasonable.
You apparently have not studied and have no knowledge of the Arizona real estate contracts. The Arizona contracts are designed to protect both parties.

You are only focusing on having an agent reduce commissions because you "think" as many do, that they make too much money.

Quote:
quote=hindukid;25509426..If agent and seller would prefer that buyer bring another agent to take 3% more out of the pot or just walk away all together than I am 100% certain they will get their wish.
It is much better for all parties concerned if both buyer and seller are represented. That is why in the listing contract is stated that the listing agent will pay a "licensed real estate agent" a commission. He has no obligation to pay an unrepresented buyer the fee; which is what the op is after. And in the case of the OP with the attitude he has displayed, it would be better the seller if he walks.

Apparently, since the OP has not responded to the questions, either the seller did not respond, or rejected the offer, or the OP is a troll who just wanted to rant about Realtors.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 03:22 PM
 
Location: DFW - Coppell / Las Colinas
30,044 posts, read 34,763,639 times
Reputation: 36104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
Apparently, since the OP has not responded to the questions, either the seller did not respond, or rejected the offer, or the OP is a troll who just wanted to rant about Realtors.
And we've been down this road with hindukid before. If I brought my own bread to Subway, I should get a nice discount.

Anyone who's in the business understands the contracts & associated fees and the importance of making sure the client is clear and understanding.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 03:22 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,469,892 times
Reputation: 4893
Copyrights on Forms to be Enforced

K. Michelle Lind, Esq.
General Counsel, Assistant CEO
MichelleLind@AARonline.com
 
Old 08-06-2012, 04:02 PM
 
1,731 posts, read 2,295,711 times
Reputation: 3428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
An attorney will charge $300 and up, per hour, and not leave his office. You cannot compare a one hour attorney fee to a completed real estate transaction.
When a buyer already has chosen his property - a realtor on his side is non-essential. Realtors can not grasp that. An attorney is superior in every way in this regard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
What you don't seem to understand is that an unrepresented buyer will cause the agent more work than if he were working with a buyer, and more risk. I explained before that any question the unrepresented buyer asks and is answered by the agent, could create an implied accidental agency, which creates an accidental dual agency, and the agent could be sued for acting as a dual agent without written agreement by both buyer and seller. That is a considerable risk. Not being in the business and not knowing and understanding the laws of agency, it is not surprising that you do not know about this.
I bolded this for you b/c its ridiculous. A realtor is required to send the brokerage letter of representation explaining in detail who he works for on his initial substantive contact with a non-represented buyer....its Agnecy 101...basic, even for a realtor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
You apparently have not studied and have no knowledge of the Arizona real estate contracts. The Arizona contracts are designed to protect both parties.


You are only focusing on having an agent reduce commissions because you "think" as many do, that they make too much money.
Realtors/Brokers DO make too much money. They are a leach on homeowners. The internet is doing 8/10 of their job for them now and yet they don't lower their commissions. Realtors refuse to even show homes FSBO b/c they are scared of not getting paid. Its pathetic....There would not be so many people frustrated with realtors if they felt that they got their money worth out of the transaction.

I feel the same way about realtors as I do about the IRS...I think as opposed to have the title company just putting the commission as a line in the closing papers, the Sellers should be required to cut a check personally after the sale is completed. People don't object to taxes enough b.c they never considered the money THEIR money, and its the same with real estate closings...they dont object to the commission much because they never considered it THEIR money...it was just a part of doing business....A personal check should have to be written to the realtors so they can really grasp the fact that they just paid someone half a year worth of their salary for 2 weeks of phone calls, maybe driving around opening some doors, and a maximum of 5 hours of paper work.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
It is much better for all parties concerned if both buyer and seller are represented. That is why in the listing contract is stated that the listing agent will pay a "licensed real estate agent" a commission. He has no obligation to pay an unrepresented buyer the fee; which is what the op is after. And in the case of the OP with the attitude he has displayed, it would be better the seller if he walks.
WRONG - its much better for all REALTORS concerned if both buyer and seller are represented...What is better for all parties is to spend less money to obtain the same thing.....Buyers want the House, Sellers want to get out of the house....Realtors are a middleman adding 6% to the same product for a minimal service.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Bill View Post
Apparently, since the OP has not responded to the questions, either the seller did not respond, or rejected the offer, or the OP is a troll who just wanted to rant about Realtors.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 04:11 PM
 
1,731 posts, read 2,295,711 times
Reputation: 3428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin View Post
And we've been down this road with hindukid before. If I brought my own bread to Subway, I should get a nice discount.

Anyone who's in the business understands the contracts & associated fees and the importance of making sure the client is clear and understanding.
Your subway example is terrible....its more like if you owned the subway and a customer came in the door with someone else standing beside him, ordered his meal, and when it came time to pay the other person said hey - by the way - you owe me 6% b/c I told him to come here and buy this sandwich.

Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
 
Old 08-06-2012, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,469,892 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
When a buyer already has chosen his property - a realtor on his side is non-essential. Realtors can not grasp that. An attorney is superior in every way in this regard.

Realtors/Brokers DO make too much money. They are a leach on homeowners.
Well, we note with amusement your bias and bigotry towards the professionals in the Real Estate. Your jealousy on a REALTORS income is also duly noted. REALTORS do not make too much money. You should look up studies showing that REALTORS, on average, make less than 30K a year.

I also will assume that YOU know NOTHING about how to finance property in 2012 - I will also presume you know NOTHING about marketing property in 2012. ETC.

In Arizona, REALTORS have a very professional relationship with the legal profession. We respect each others knowledge. We have MANY attorneys - nationally recognized attorneys - who are members of the REALTORS Association -

Your lack of professionalism in your responses are indicative of your narcissistic personality.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 04:28 PM
 
Location: NJ
17,579 posts, read 38,482,363 times
Reputation: 16102
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
Sounds pretty ridiculous doesn't it?
I thought that about most of the stuff you just posted.
 
Old 08-06-2012, 04:39 PM
 
3,402 posts, read 4,160,716 times
Reputation: 2399
Quote:
Originally Posted by marksmu View Post
When a buyer already has chosen his property - a realtor on his side is non-essential. Realtors can not grasp that. An attorney is superior in every way in this regard.



I bolded this for you b/c its ridiculous. A realtor is required to send the brokerage letter of representation explaining in detail who he works for on his initial substantive contact with a non-represented buyer....its Agnecy 101...basic, even for a realtor.



Realtors/Brokers DO make too much money. They are a leach on homeowners. The internet is doing 8/10 of their job for them now and yet they don't lower their commissions. Realtors refuse to even show homes FSBO b/c they are scared of not getting paid. Its pathetic....There would not be so many people frustrated with realtors if they felt that they got their money worth out of the transaction.

I feel the same way about realtors as I do about the IRS...I think as opposed to have the title company just putting the commission as a line in the closing papers, the Sellers should be required to cut a check personally after the sale is completed. People don't object to taxes enough b.c they never considered the money THEIR money, and its the same with real estate closings...they dont object to the commission much because they never considered it THEIR money...it was just a part of doing business....A personal check should have to be written to the realtors so they can really grasp the fact that they just paid someone half a year worth of their salary for 2 weeks of phone calls, maybe driving around opening some doors, and a maximum of 5 hours of paper work.




WRONG - its much better for all REALTORS concerned if both buyer and seller are represented...What is better for all parties is to spend less money to obtain the same thing.....Buyers want the House, Sellers want to get out of the house....Realtors are a middleman adding 6% to the same product for a minimal service.
A Realtor usually won't refuse to show a FSBO if the seller is willing to pay them and will agree to sign something saying as much.

Hiring a Realtor is a choice and most people know it and feel it is worth it to do so. If they didn't Realtors wouldn't be in business at all.

Comparing Realtors commission to taxes isn't a good comparison at all. You are very wrong about how many of us feel about the money we give the government. People do consider taxes their money that they worked hard for, but there is no choice but to pay the government according to how the law is written. People sell FSBO's all the time. It can be done if you educate yourself and market your house so people can find it. Most people would rather not, or try to do so and find out that it takes more than they thought it would.
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.


Closed Thread

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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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