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 don't know but I was HIGHLY ANNOYED when I discovered MY real estate agent was getting the shaft on the 3/2 split.
See, I would be highly annoyed if my realtor didn't agree to a 3.5/0 split if I was selling a house and the buyer wanted to not use a Realtor, but wanted the 2.5 subtracted from the purchase price.
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.
One often overlooked benefit of the current system is that buyers can finance their fees in the loan.
Having a buyer pay directly will undermine their cash situation,. cutting into downpayment and closing costs stashes, unless you can be assured that buyers will be able to roll their agents' fees into the loan.
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.
Just who do you expect to fill out your buyer's paperwork, starting with the offer. Note that in ordinary circumstances Realtors use forms copyrighted by their Board of Realtors and you do not have legal rights to use those forms.
So are you going to do your own paperwork? Where will you get the forms? Are you going to hire somebody with legal access to the forms to do it?
If I were the seller, and to hell with what my agent thinks, I would tell you to blow off!
Just who do you expect to fill out your buyer's paperwork, starting with the offer. Note that in ordinary circumstances Realtors use forms copyrighted by their Board of Realtors and you do not have legal rights to use those forms.
So are you going to do your own paperwork? Where will you get the forms? Are you going to hire somebody with legal access to the forms to do it?
If I were the seller, and to hell with what my agent thinks, I would tell you to blow off!
I fill out my own offers. The forms are available on my State's website. I didn't realize that wasn't the case everywhere since I have only done business in my home state. We are a very pro-market competition state. I just googled it and I couldn't believe some of the things I read about the laws in other states.
Just who do you expect to fill out your buyer's paperwork, starting with the offer. Note that in ordinary circumstances Realtors use forms copyrighted by their Board of Realtors and you do not have legal rights to use those forms.
So are you going to do your own paperwork? Where will you get the forms? Are you going to hire somebody with legal access to the forms to do it?
I would complete the standard form for the buyer, and I think I would be required to do so.
Unlike a dual agency situation, I would be remiss if I didn't coach the buyer to spend more faster to benefit my client.
And recognizing that issue of perhaps being perceived as plucking the pigeon is why I always suggest they get an agent or attorney.
Okay guys. You know better than me. But if I were a seller faced with this situation I would still reject the offer unless the current market was on life support.
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.
No, brokers do not have to share their commission with another broker unless they contractually agree to do so. When properties are listed on a Multi-List Service, there is usually that agreement to share commission with a participating broker, but not always. Many properties are also listed for sale on non-MLS websites (not too many houses, though).
If a buyer were a licensed agent, or at least sufficiently knew what they were doing, it might be worthwhile to consider your proposal. Many unrepresented buyers, however, are more of an impediment to completing a sale...and that, remember, is the ultimate goal of the Seller.
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.
You're conflating arguments here. Your previous post, you stated "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). "
A "rebate" is not going to the seller; it's going to the buyer! As a listing agent, I have no fiduciary duty to you, and no obligation to pay you as if you were another broker who had brought a client to consummate the deal; furthermore, your insistence on getting paid via my commission has no bearing whatsover on my client (the seller) as there is no direct financial benefit to them, which also means I'm not violating any fiduciary duty to them by not honoring your request.
"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." Ummm, that is exactly you telling me what I should earn; you are directly trying to take money out of my pocket for your benefit, despite my having no duty to you nor any contractual obligation to you (your not having done any work to merit such a fee is a whole other point entirely).
"It is me offering to do something that will reduce your costs by 3%, in exchange for a 3% payment." Again, to repeat: unless you're offering that money directly back to the seller as part of the sale as opposed to pocketing it, you are not reducing the seller's costs one iota.
I hope you realize that the listing agent doesn't set the commission percentage; their brokerage does. And the brokerage is well within their rights not to amend their agreement just to accommodate you; I can certainly ask my broker of record for an exception but if he says no, guess what? No reduction. A seller is not forced to sign a listing agreement; they walk into that arrangement with all eyes open. You are the only party that's trying to interfere with what other parties have already agreed to, merely for your own benefit.
As to the buyer side if you are represented by an agent, I could care less what the buyer's agent does with their split of the proceeds; if they decide to rebate that to you, that's their business. But as a listing agent on the sell side, I have no obligation to do the same. And, actually, the courts have already sided with your assertion that unrepresented buyers must be treated the same as licensed agents; and, at least, in every place I've practiced real estate it is expressly forbidden for anyone who is not properly licensed to receive payment for any services rendered in any part of a real estate transaction. So, that ship has sort of sailed. And if you think about it, what state, in their right mind, would give up the licensing fees they collect from everyone who tries to dabble in real estate just so everyone can conduct real estate unlicensed?
And, actually, the courts have already sided with your assertion that unrepresented buyers must be treated the same as licensed agents; and, at least, in every place I've practiced real estate it is expressly forbidden for anyone who is not properly licensed to receive payment for any services rendered in any part of a real estate transaction. So, that ship has sort of sailed. And if you think about it, what state, in their right mind, would give up the licensing fees they collect from everyone who tries to dabble in real estate just so everyone can conduct real estate unlicensed?
You make a good point. This is why I am glad I am not a real estate agent. In my book you guys are totally worth it.
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.