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.
I guess that is what I was asking. Why would an agent go through with an agency agreement without defining compensation?
Couldn't any buyer that was going to buy a FSBO then just get the agency agreement and the agent would be on the hook for helping them? Maybe I am missing something.
You aren't missing much. Just struggling with different structures in different states.
Our NCAR Exclusive Right To Represent Buyer agreement includes the compensation agreement.
If the agent strikes the compensation and agrees to represent the buyer anyway, they still owe their client the fiduciary duties of agency whether a co-broke is offered or not.
You aren't missing much. Just struggling with different structures in different states.
Our NCAR Exclusive Right To Represent Buyer agreement includes the compensation agreement.
If the agent strikes the compensation and agrees to represent the buyer anyway, they still owe their client the fiduciary duties of agency whether a co-broke is offered or not.
I guess that leads me back to my original question. Why would an agent do this?
Most buyer broker contracts will require that the buyer pay their buyer agent fee if the FSBO won't. Even if they didn't have a buyer broker agreement, an honest buyer who has used the brokers time and advice, would still bring their buyer agent to represent them, and make sure they get paid.
That's what I was thinking; after all, the buyer, not you, sought out the agent and you have not really obligated yourself to pay a commission, until you sign an agreement-- Perhaps you can still work direct with the seller(?) If the seller is seeking 'BA protection' during the transaction, they should expect to pay for it (and have probably already had that discussion with the BA).
However, a sale is a sale ... and if you think a hard-line would drive-off the buyer, you might instead approach the buyer, direct ... with a couple of specific questions ... and gauge your response from that:
1). What do you expect me to do about the fee for YOUR "Buyers agent? What are you going to pay?
2). What will the BA specifically do for me to earn a commission from me?
3). Since my price is based on NOT paying a standard Realtor fee, what is your price expectation?
Again, you probably need to deal gently with the subject (depending on how much you want to sell), but, before agreeing to pay $12-$15K, it is sure worth asking a few question and probing the possible alternatives! As others have said, you can't expect a Realtor to work for nothing, but, on the other side of the coin, a Realtor shouldn't expect to get paid for doing nothing more than making a phone call.
After all of this thread, I still dont get it . . .
1) A seller is FSBO, did not seek the services of an agent and makes clear there will be no compensation to the Buyers Agent, pre-contract.
2) Buyer whom under her own volition, requests agent to approach aforementioned FSBO seller, instead of themselves.
Buyer is under agreement with agent and does pay her a commission at signing.
So, given this scenerio, a FSBO seller is still supposed to pay the buyers agent who they requested or expected nothing from?
I just dont get it. I've never heard of this until now.
With a commission on the line, I would have supposed an agent would be very willing to discourage the buyer going around her and engaging in actions that might end the deal abruptly and at possibly a substantial cost to the buyer and losing her that commission.
Im usually not that daft, but I'm having a hard time grasping the FSBO concept after the responses to this thread. I guess I have some homework to do.
After all of this thread, I still dont get it . . .
1) A seller is FSBO, did not seek the services of an agent and makes clear there will be no compensation to the Buyers Agent, pre-contract.
2) Buyer whom under her own volition, requests agent to approach aforementioned FSBO seller, instead of themselves.
Buyer is under agreement with agent and does pay her a commission at signing.
So, given this scenerio, a FSBO seller is still supposed to pay the buyers agent who they requested or expected nothing from?
I just dont get it. I've never heard of this until now.
With a commission on the line, I would have supposed an agent would be very willing to discourage the buyer going around her and engaging in actions that might end the deal abruptly and at possibly a substantial cost to the buyer and losing her that commission.
Im usually not that daft, but I'm having a hard time grasping the FSBO concept after the responses to this thread. I guess I have some homework to do.
Why would a seller even consider NOT paying the agent? It makes no sense.
All that is happening is the buyer is financing their agent fees in the purchase.
House sells for $500,000 = 2.5% = $512,500.
Or house sells with no agent at $500,000.
How does the seller net change between the examples? There is no reason for the seller to deny the buyer representation, assuming the buyer is ready, willing, and able.
Why would a seller even consider NOT paying the agent? It makes no sense.
All that is happening is the buyer is financing their agent fees in the purchase.
House sells for $500,000 = 2.5% = $512,500.
Or house sells with no agent at $500,000.
How does the seller net change between the examples? There is no reason for the seller to deny the buyer representation, assuming the buyer is ready, willing, and able.
Still dont get it. Sorry . . .
I am not denying anybody anything. The buyer chose to have representation. I still dont understand why I would need to pay a percentage to someone who I have not requested service from and has done no service for me, especially on a "hot" property that as mentioned, did not need any agency marketing. The buyer paid the agents commission, as she should have. Not sure why I would.
What is the point of FSBO if you are still paying commission ? Obviously I am missing the obvious.
I am not denying anybody anything. The buyer chose to have representation. I still dont understand why I would need to pay a percentage to someone who I have not requested service from and has done no service for me, especially on a "hot" property that as mentioned, did not need any agency marketing. The buyer paid the agents commission, as she should have. Not sure why I would.
What is the point of FSBO if you are still paying commission ? Obviously I am missing the obvious.
People find many reasons to avoid selling their homes to qualified buyers.
FSBO refers to selling and marketing. To kick a buyer to the curb after selling and marketing on a principle that does not alter the net proceeds to seller is a personal choice, but hardly logical.
What is the point of FSBO if you are still paying commission ? Obviously I am missing the obvious.
You are going to pay it one way or the other. Either a commission or a reduced price. Why does it matter which one?
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.
