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.
The seller if listed thru an Agency/Agent has already signed an agreement/contract to pay 4-5-6% of the Sales Price. The Listing Agency then offers X% of that to a Buyers Agent/Agency if they bring a buyer..
The seller of course unless they are a total idiot or are unable to adds that % to the sales price..it's an expense/cost
So of course it can be argued the buyer in most cases is footing the bill for 2 Agents when they buy..
If the buyer has no Agent the Listing Agent/Agency just stays quiet and keeps the entire 4-5-6%
Contracts/Agreements can be changed/amended and are in Business deals all the time..a result often of negotiation or renegotiation as events change..
However
To avoid yadda about you can, you can't, gotta pay, they pay, you pay, God pays, you need, consumers need, sentence construction critiques let's just go with the Seller has to pay the commission supposedly in place for 2 Agents even if you do not use an Agent (Buyers Agent) from the Sales Price....
Let's flow with the you can't do anything about it school of thought
Question: "What's the advantage? Why use one? "
You don't want/need a Buyers Agent for whatever reason then you might still wish to consider using one just to get a Rebate..get some of the money back from the Sales Price factored in by the Seller to pay for 2 Agents (Listing & Buyers)
A body to get a check..get something back (Money) you wouldn't have gotten without using one
okay- I realize real estate laws vary from state to state, and I assume policies do too.
The way it has worked for all the places I've bought/sold: seller pays 6% of selling price. 1.5% goes to the agent that listed the property, 1.5% the that agent's boss. 1.5% the selling agent, 1.5% to that agent's boss. Buyer pays none of this.
Guess when all is said and done, I'll just keep on doing it the way I was doing it.
1.5% goes to the agent that listed the property, 1.5% the that agent's boss.
1.5% the selling agent, 1.5% to that agent's boss.
Buyer pays none of this (directly to any of them).
But without the buyer none of them get a penny.
No... it's not just the semantics.
"seller pays 6% of selling price. 1.5% goes to the agent that listed the property, 1.5% the that agent's boss. 1.5% the selling agent, 1.5% to that agent's boss"..
"seller pays 6% of selling price" ect..."Buyer pays none of this"
Not my conclusion or thought
but
wishing you the best in all your future transactions
"seller pays 6% of selling price" ect..
I'm not saying that's an opinion (The split may vary but the example is accurate)
"Buyer pays none of this" IS an opinion..a very debatable opinion, one often debated on RE Sites
My opinion of Buyer pays the Commission because it's included in the "selling price" is the other side of that debate and imo more realistic/logical/accurate/truthful/reality...but still my "opinion"
"Buyer pays none of this" IS absolutely an opinion..in my opinion
The name Buyer's Agent is a misnomer if not outright fraud. In almost all cases they are still a commissioned salesperson that will sell any property listed on the MLS, some will work with FSBO but expect the seller to pay them a commission. As far as I have been able to find out the they are still listed as the Selling Agent on the purchase agreement in every state. They do cost you, and may not be a good fit for many situations. My personal opinion is that this term, along with a very slight change in the rules (they are contractually prohibited from directly sharing information on how best to sell you with the seller and listing agent) were adopted by agents reluctantly in the past few years to protect the Selling Agents half of the commission from negotiation. Since it has been it has mutated into yet another way for agents to say trust me to buyers and then lay on the hard sell, nothing in the rules prevent it.
"seller pays 6% of selling price" ect..
I'm not saying that's an opinion (The split may vary but the example is accurate)
"Buyer pays none of this" IS an opinion..a very debatable opinion, one often debated on RE Sites
My opinion of Buyer pays the Commission because it's included in the "selling price" is the other side of that debate and imo more realistic/logical/accurate/truthful/reality...but still my "opinion"
"Buyer pays none of this" IS absolutely an opinion..in my opinion
The name Buyer's Agent is a misnomer if not outright fraud. In almost all cases they are still a commissioned salesperson that will sell any property listed on the MLS, some will work with FSBO but expect the seller to pay them a commission. As far as I have been able to find out the they are still listed as the Selling Agent on the purchase agreement in every state. They do cost you, and may not be a good fit for many situations. My personal opinion is that this term, along with a very slight change in the rules (they are contractually prohibited from directly sharing information on how best to sell you with the seller and listing agent) were adopted by agents reluctantly in the past few years to protect the Selling Agents half of the commission from negotiation. Since it has been it has mutated into yet another way for agents to say trust me to buyers and then lay on the hard sell, nothing in the rules prevent it.
I guess basically in real estate, it's best to trust no one.(Where have we heard that before?)
That's why there's lawyers, real estate agents, appraisers, inspectors. When all the info is in, it's the looker's decision to buy or not. Then of course the lending institution gets to have their say.
Using a buyer's agent will definitely cost you money, come on. it isnt free!
The reason people prefer using a buyers agent is for time, convenience and knowledge. Some areas, I agree, are easier than others - buyers can just shop around on their own using Zillow, redfin, etc - but other areas where there are tons of properties and multiple agents/realtors - a new buyer can feel intimidated and be more prone to getting fleeced by unscrupulous sellers..
We are buying a new home in the near future, and we are debating this issue right now. Both of us have bought homes before, so we are familiar with the process. For us, the value of using an agent is simply to help us access market comps so that we can feel confident about making an offer on a home based on what the appraisal will likely be. In my area, we have a lot of homeowners selling their homes for high asking prices, and if someone not familiar with the area assumes the asking price is fair - they may be paying too much. We dont want to be in that boat. One of my realtor acquaintances offered to be our agent for a 4% fee (we were told in my town, the standard fee is 5%).
The seller's agent always works for the seller, so they will never have the buyer's interest at heart. Some agents can act very shady - resort to playing games like "there is a higher offer on the home already from another buyer" just to get you to bid higher. With an agent, I think there may be more of a chance the seller will not only take you more seriously but will understand that an agent can access certain details about the listing/property history than the buyer can't. The buyer's agent is there to basically hold your hand when you see properties, make offers and negotiate the price. All the agents get paid at or after the closing. I agree its all about your personal preference, you can do fine without one - but when it comes to making a huge purchase like a HOUSE - wouldnt you want some piece of mind knowing an agent can go to bat for you through the process?
Both the seller's and buyer's agent work to close the deal. I don't think either genuinely work for either the seller or the buyer.
Some people go directly to the buyer's agent because it puts them at an advantage when it comes time to negotiate. The buying agent could get both ends of the deal and may be willing to give up some commission. That being said, I've never had to do this because realtors work hard, but I know some people do it frequently.
In the end, caveat emptor--you need to hire your own inspector and pay the money for an attorney to review the contract and negotiate post-inspection.
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.