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 rationale we have seen here in the past is that the listing agent has duty to the seller to sell the joint, so handling any buyer documents, inspections, appraisals, contractor visits for the buyer may as well be "Free" or the agent is a bad fiduciary to the seller.
I'm sure you're being somewhat facetious here, but handling anything for the buyer would create a dual agency situation; I would need to disclose this to both parties and have them sign off on their acceptance of such a situation. If neither party is okay with that, then the buyer will need to find representation; not doing so on my part would then constitute my being a bad fiduciary to the seller.
I think I can see a common ground between the two of you.
In every case I have ever the seller's agent is bound to present ALL offers to his client, and IMO that would include offers even if they propose cutting the seller's agent's commission.
However, the seller's agent has a contract with his client that states the amount of fee, including fee split between agents.
The seller CANNOT accept the offer that lowers his agent's fee unless the agent agrees to it, and he is under no compulsion to do so. In fact if I were the seller's agent I would propose that the reduction should come from the buyer's agent's fee.
I'm sure you're being somewhat facetious here, but handling anything for the buyer would create a dual agency situation; I would need to disclose this to both parties and have them sign off on their acceptance of such a situation. If neither party is okay with that, then the buyer will need to find representation; not doing so on my part would then constitute my being a bad fiduciary to the seller.
No, actually, not being facetious at all. We HAVE had posters claim that a listing agent's fiduciary duty to the seller is meant to impose duties to the buyer or buyers' agent.
I would only be in dual agency if I had two clients. I can choose to not work with a buyer as their agent, and agree to work with them only as the sellers' agent with a customer. But, in that case, I suggest they engage an attorney or another agent.
I think I can see a common ground between the two of you.
In every case I have ever the seller's agent is bound to present ALL offers to his client, and IMO that would include offers even if they propose cutting the seller's commission.
However, the seller's agent has a contract with his client that states the amount of fee, including fee split between agents.
The seller CANNOT accept the offer that lowers his agent's fee unless the agent agrees to it, and he is under no compulsion to do so. In fact if I were the seller's agent I would propose that the reduction should come from the buyer's agent's fee.
And that's usually how it would work; seller's agent would split the reduction 50-50 with the buyer's agent, and I've seen deals where the selling agent screwed over the buyer's agent and forced them to eat the entire reduction. However, you also bring up the point that the commission paid to the seller's agent also involves another deal made with the buyer's agent, so such an offer actually requires the amendment of two contracts!! Kind of ridiculous IMO.
I find it more than interesting that a thread titled Are Real Estate Agents Really Necessary These Days? in the forum titled Real Estate is seeing few postings from actual real estate agents.
I suppose I assumed most real estate agents who are members of City-Data to have swarmed this thread by now, echoing a resounding YES!
For what it is worth I am of the opinion that agents are not needed for sellers these days but buyers can benefit from their expertise.
I think I can see a common ground between the two of you.
In every case I have ever the seller's agent is bound to present ALL offers to his client, and IMO that would include offers even if they propose cutting the seller's agent's commission.
However, the seller's agent has a contract with his client that states the amount of fee, including fee split between agents.
The seller CANNOT accept the offer that lowers his agent's fee unless the agent agrees to it, and he is under no compulsion to do so. In fact if I were the seller's agent I would propose that the reduction should come from the buyer's agent's fee.
Yes, I think you are right. I think where we disagree is that I think most sellers would lose their marbles if the Realtor didn't agree to cut his commission to 3% (and have the other 3% either go to a price reduction or directly to the seller). I just don't see how anyone that was properly educated by the Realtor would ever be OK with that.
I also think that would border on collusion and be legally questionable regarding the collusion among Realtors. I know that my state specifically made it illegal for The Association of Realtors (or any other group) to ban rebates to buyers.
And that's usually how it would work; seller's agent would split the reduction 50-50 with the buyer's agent, and I've seen deals where the selling agent screwed over the buyer's agent and forced them to eat the entire reduction. However, you also bring up the point that the commission paid to the seller's agent also involves another deal made with the buyer's agent, so such an offer actually requires the amendment of two contracts!! Kind of ridiculous IMO.
My Realtor ate a 3 percent seller 2 percent buyer split on a short sale for me because she figured 2 percent of something is better than all of nothing.
@K-Luv not all real estate agents use the C-D real estate emblem so you never know for sure that somebody is not one.
Or maybe most of the real estate agents can see that they'd rather be out buying and selling houses rather than engage in a theoretical discussion they would never accept.
Yes, I think you are right. I think where we disagree is that I think most sellers would lose their marbles if the Realtor didn't agree to cut his commission to 3% (and have the other 3% either go to a price reduction or directly to the seller). I just don't see how anyone that was properly educated by the Realtor would ever be OK with that.
I don't know but I was HIGHLY ANNOYED when I discovered MY real estate agent was getting the shaft on the 3/2 split. But like her, I could see that it's better than nothing and I wanted that house.
And the fee arrangement was set long before I ever heard of the property. Obviously she knew it from the outset because it's in the Realtor's private remarks in the MLS.
I know that my state specifically made it illegal for The Association of Realtors (or any other group) to ban rebates to buyers.
The thing you're missing is that most rebates to buyers are made by Buyer's Agents--since they have a contractual entitlement (usually) to part of the commission. In that case, they are serving their clients (if they choose to offer a rebate). Since I work primarily as a Buyer's Broker, I have made a few rebates to my buying clients to help complete a deal. I would not, however, give up my commission to help out the Seller.
The same would hold true if I were a Listing Agent. Heck, I'm not going to give my commission to someone who isn't my client--especially when that does not help my client one iota. My response several pages back was that it was not my responsibility to help you (a non-client). And helping you, in your scenario, is certainly not fulfilling my fiduciary responsibilities to my client.
Many other points have been covered since my last post, so I won't rehash those.
By demanding half of the commission, and asking the seller's agent to do work for you, is exactly suggesting a cut in pay. Aside from the fact that by doing what you request, I am then actually violating my fiduciary duty to my seller, by creating a dual agency situation wherein I can't really fully advocate for either side... what you propose is also forcing me to do more work than I was originally contracted to do (by working on both sides of the deal) and receiving half the fee i was originally contracted to have been paid. How you can quantify that as anything other than a cut in pay is a form of mental gymnastics that is standing-ovation worthy. Lastly, your rationale is coming across as your trying to determine my pay based upon how much you feel I work, which is somewhat ridiculous and condescending; if I were to come to your place of employment and tell you I was taking half your salary because I felt you didn't work hard enough, how would that make you feel?
First, if you are a Realtor selling a property, you are the one that established the commission, so I don't much care what you set it at, so long as you rebate me X% for not using a buyer's agent. That is not telling you what you should earn. It is me offering to do something that will reduce your costs by 3%, in exchange for a 3% payment.
Second, you are totally justified in saying "no" to, so long as you can explain to your client why and are willing to deal with the publicity associated with the word of mouth that you stood in the way of your client getting a deal for the purpose of making sure the other 3% went to another Realtor and not the buyer.
My prediction is that this will all be sorted out by the courts soon enough. They have already clearly stated that you have to share your commission with a fixed fee agent that rebates me the difference. It won't be long before they say you must treat buyers acting as their own agents the same as you treat agents.
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.
