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.
Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective. I did NOT say that agents who work for buyers and sellers should not be compensated. Nor did I say that agents don't provide value and are not needed. I did not say that and I don't believe that.
My point was very simple.
The buyer's agent in its current form adds a lot to the overall transaction cost. It inflates the cost of homes and adds a lot to peoples' mortgages for decades. Or it saps the seller's money depending on how you see it. I understand that there are competing interests and often people need some help with some or all of the transaction. We've seen SELLERS agent fees slowly reducing and different models have emerged to give consumers choice. But the BUYERS agent side has remained unchanged and prices are pretty much the same in any given market. 2.5 - 3.0 percent or more for that side of the transaction is extremely expensive. I experienced this with my last sale when I was looking at different options but none existed on the most expensive side of the transaction - the BUYERS agent side. It's all fixed price no matter if the buyer needs a little help or a lot. Buyers have absolutely no incentive to try to save money on their agent or even care about the cost because they think someone else pays. As long as they get SOME value from it and the agent isn't completely incompetent or dishonest, then they are blissfully happy that they got help that was "free" to them. They don't realize that they will be paying for that service for DECADES and the cost of it might equal a complete bathroom renovation. Even if they did realize it, they can't really do anything about it.
No choice, no negotiation, no real competition to put downward pressure on price and upward pressure on quality of service and innovation. In other words, no incentive to evolve to provide more value in the quality to cost ratio.
How about all the times buyers waste an agent’s time for months then disappear when their life circumstances change for the worse? As agents we get paid zero when that happens. Would you entertain your employer not paying you for 2 months because something negative happened to the company? No, you want to be paid for your time. All of it. In fact, you’d probably sue your employer if they withheld your paycheck for even a couple of weeks. With us, we may get paid on a particular transaction, or maybe not. Or we may have to sell a house 3 separate times to get to a closing, spending all kinds of time and not getting paid. Or maybe we only sell it twice, and it never gets to a closing. So no pay.
Not feeling sorry for myself, by the way. I knew the drill because my mom was an agent when we were growing up. But, part of the reason commissions appear to be too high is that the successful transactions do end up paying for all the unsuccessful ones. If everyone was rational and sensible with equanimity and clarity, then almost all real estate deals would close, and commissions would be about 1/2 what they are now.
Additionally, buyer’s side commissions are now often subject to a rebate, especially for high dollar properties. If I am dealing with a sensible buyer and they are looking at expensive homes, I will negotiate my price with them. And I can adjust it up or down based on how long we end up searching and how many showings it is going to take. For example if you are a $1.5 million shopper, and we look at only, say, 5 homes, and you place a successful offer, then guess what? I am going to aggressively discount because my time was not wasted. OTOH, if we are out for a year to find your home, there will not be much of a discount. It stands to reason.
The same options are available for sellers. Everything is negotiable. Maybe more negotiable than you have been led to believe.
This is 2018 and times are competitive. Don’t be afraid to ask your agent for a good deal. The answer might be no, but it also might be yes.
How about all the times buyers waste an agent’s time for months then disappear when their life circumstances change for the worse? As agents we get paid zero when that happens. Would you entertain your employer not paying you for 2 months because something negative happened to the company? No, you want to be paid for your time. All of it. In fact, you’d probably sue your employer if they withheld your paycheck for even a couple of weeks. With us, we may get paid on a particular transaction, or maybe not. Or we may have to sell a house 3 separate times to get to a closing, spending all kinds of time and not getting paid. Or maybe we only sell it twice, and it never gets to a closing. So no pay.
Not feeling sorry for myself, by the way. I knew the drill because my mom was an agent when we were growing up. But, part of the reason commissions appear to be too high is that the successful transactions do end up paying for all the unsuccessful ones. If everyone was rational and sensible with equanimity and clarity, then almost all real estate deals would close, and commissions would be about 1/2 what they are now.
Additionally, buyer’s side commissions are now often subject to a rebate, especially for high dollar properties. If I am dealing with a sensible buyer and they are looking at expensive homes, I will negotiate my price with them. And I can adjust it up or down based on how long we end up searching and how many showings it is going to take. For example if you are a $1.5 million shopper, and we look at only, say, 5 homes, and you place a successful offer, then guess what? I am going to aggressively discount because my time was not wasted. OTOH, if we are out for a year to find your home, there will not be much of a discount. It stands to reason.
The same options are available for sellers. Everything is negotiable. Maybe more negotiable than you have been led to believe.
This is 2018 and times are competitive. Don’t be afraid to ask your agent for a good deal. The answer might be no, but it also might be yes.
As a seller you can't ask your agent for a "good deal" when it comes to funding the buyers agent side. The price is the price. You might get a "discount" on the listing side but good luck with the buyer's agent fees that you absolutely MUST pay as a seller if you wish to have buyers.
Everything is not negotiable. Buyer's agent fees billed to the seller are NOT negotiable. If you think they are, please explain how. As i said to other posters, your rebates to the buyer are not relevant to the seller. The seller pays (I guess) the buyer's agent commission so rebates are not of any benefit to the seller.
This isn't about your pay. If the buyer paid for their own buyer's agent fees then you'd see less of what you're talking about. So the SELLER needs to pay circa 3% ransom to a buyer's agent because buyer's agents too often work with time wasters? is that your argument that it provides value to the SELLER who pays for it?
As a seller you can't ask your agent for a "good deal" when it comes to funding the buyers agent side. The price is the price. You might get a "discount" on the listing side but good luck with the buyer's agent fees that you absolutely MUST pay as a seller if you wish to have buyers.
Everything is not negotiable. Buyer's agent fees billed to the seller are NOT negotiable. If you think they are, please explain how. As i said to other posters, your rebates to the buyer are not relevant to the seller. The seller pays (I guess) the buyer's agent commission so rebates are not of any benefit to the seller.
This isn't about your pay. If the buyer paid for their own buyer's agent fees then you'd see less of what you're talking about. So the SELLER needs to pay circa 3% ransom to a buyer's agent because buyer's agents too often work with time wasters? is that your argument that it provides value to the SELLER who pays for it?
Oh it definitely provides you with a service. Keeping a buyer on track and keeping all his professionals doing their jobs on a timely basis is a huge benefit to you. What happens when the buyer gets the home inspection and there is some mold in your attic, or rusty pipes coming out of your heating system, or old appliances that looked good but are 20 years old, or ten thousand other things I can name? And he wants to bail and find another house. And I look at the defects and talk him off the ledge because the defects are minor and we can negotiate them to a successful outcome? So he stays the course and continues to want to buy your house. Or when the appraiser can’t find comps and wants to kill your deal by appraising it $15,000 too low and I am able to find two other comparable that are under contract and due to close within the month that prove the value of your house at the price you negotiated. You better believe a good buyer’s agent has value to you the seller. And paying him 2.5% is a bloody bargain.
What you are really complaining about is paying the freight. You want the cost of the transaction bisected into two separate parts. When that happens and some Redfin dope who is making $40K a year and stays because of the health benefits is in charge of managing your transaction, and 25 others, and you don’t have to worry about paying him because the buyer has to take care of that separately, we’ll see how much you like that. Trust me, you won’t like it. Especially when your deals keep falling apart because no one knows what the heck they are doing because you wanted to sell your home for $2,000 all-in.
We live in a free society and you can pay 0% commission. That option is open. But if you want a smooth transaction and a professional outcome, you hire us. It’s not a requirement, it’s an option. You can’t complain and say you want a professionally provided outcome without paying the professionals who are trained and expert in providing that outcome.
Why should I be forced to buy a Toyota? Because if I want a BMW I have to pay a ransom to the BMW dealership. Well, that is what that experience costs. Buy it, or don’t. Free country.
Oh it definitely provides you with a service. Keeping a buyer on track and keeping all his professionals doing their jobs on a timely basis is a huge benefit to you. What happens when the buyer gets the home inspection and there is some mold in your attic, or rusty pipes coming out of your heating system, or old appliances that looked good but are 20 years old, or ten thousand other things I can name? And he wants to bail and find another house. And I look at the defects and talk him off the ledge because the defects are minor and we can negotiate them to a successful outcome? So he stays the course and continues to want to buy your house. Or when the appraiser can’t find comps and wants to kill your deal by appraising it $15,000 too low and I am able to find two other comparable that are under contract and due to close within the month that prove the value of your house at the price you negotiated. You better believe a good buyer’s agent has value to you the seller. And paying him 2.5% is a bloody bargain.
What you are really complaining about is paying the freight. You want the cost of the transaction bisected into two separate parts. When that happens and some Redfin dope who is making $40K a year and stays because of the health benefits is in charge of managing your transaction, and 25 others, and you don’t have to worry about paying him because the buyer has to take care of that separately, we’ll see how much you like that. Trust me, you won’t like it. Especially when your deals keep falling apart because no one knows what the heck they are doing because you wanted to sell your home for $2,000 all-in.
We live in a free society and you can pay 0% commission. That option is open. But if you want a smooth transaction and a professional outcome, you hire us. It’s not a requirement, it’s an option. You can’t complain and say you want a professionally provided outcome without paying the professionals who are trained and expert in providing that outcome.
Why should I be forced to buy a Toyota? Because if I want a BMW I have to pay a ransom to the BMW dealership. Well, that is what that experience costs. Buy it, or don’t. Free country.
You make some good points about the buyer's agent really there to help the seller. Like having someone "on the inside". In sales of any kind, it's the holy grail to have the trust of your customer so they take your advice and with the buyer's agent, you have this. Since that person is compensated with sales commission, they just have to balance their fiduciary duty to the buyer with getting the house sold.
So i take your point and accept that the buyer's agent does help the seller get her house sold. However, it's a very expensive model to have two mouths to feed in the transaction, both funded directly by the seller. BOTH agents have significant overheads in their businesses (a point often made here by agents to justify high commissions). BOTH agents must "price in" all the time wasters - so 2 sets of time wasters are priced into the transaction. BOTH agents have considerable costs in acquiring new clients - marketing, canvassing, paying for leads and referrals, etc, etc. Also, with many agents, the high cost/skilled/experienced agent does ALL the work - setting up and taking down signs, doing mundane paperwork, driving clients around, etc. Very inefficient and very expensive way of doing things. Like if your doctor made the appointments, weighed and did blood pressure for all patients, cleaned the office, and kept the records along with doing the stuff that doctors should be doing. So I do accept that most agents are not getting rich. It's just a very inefficient and very expensive model to have two professionals involved in one transaction. There are many ways to fix this so I'm not saying there should only be one agent in the same model we have today. I have to say this because sometimes agents lack creativity to think of things differently.
I'm not the one "bisecting" the cost of the transaction into two parts as you say. It's the way the system works. That's not just a semantic point because on one side (listing side) you have different models, choices, price negotiation, and a pretty high degree of price variation across the different types of players. With the buyer's agent side you don't have any of that from the seller's perspective so I would say that the way each side works is quite different. I still await your explanation of how a seller can negotiate their costs related to the buyer's agent fees. Just tell your listing agent that you won't pay the (for example) 2.8% "market norm" for buyer's agents and you just want to offer 1.5% or whatever? Is this what you mean when you say you can negotiate it? Is this a real option that sellers have? I don't think it is.
Just_because one cannot unilaterally set terms does not prove that one cannot negotiate terms.
Everyone is saying that a seller can negotiate the cost of the buyer's agent that she must bear. We've already established that the buyer's agent split has little or no variation across a market. So if the market norm is that buyer's agents get 2.8%, for example, please can someone explain how this negotiation process works for the seller. Not interested in theoretical answers but what really happens. To be perfectly clear, i'm not talking about a buyer "negotiating" a different commission rate in their buyers agent agreement. I'm talking about the seller being able to negotiate the cost that she must bear for the buyer's agent. Can you simply put "negotiable" put in the MLS instead of a %???? I don't think you can so how would that work then? You put 2.8% in the MLS, for example, and then when the buyer's agent brings you a buyer, you say that it's not really 2.8% but now we need to negotiate what it will really be?
Is the buyer's agent commission split ever negotiated in practice? PLease explain how this works as this would be very helpful to consumers looking to reduce the overall cost of selling their home. And if it's not really negotiable then it should not be stated that it is. I think it's owed to consumers that this statement is backed up with an explanation of how it's done.
Everyone is saying that a seller can negotiate the cost of the buyer's agent that she must bear. We've already established that the buyer's agent split has little or no variation across a market. So if the market norm is that buyer's agents get 2.8%, for example, please can someone explain how this negotiation process works for the seller. Not interested in theoretical answers but what really happens. To be perfectly clear, i'm not talking about a buyer "negotiating" a different commission rate in their buyers agent agreement. I'm talking about the seller being able to negotiate the cost that she must bear for the buyer's agent. Can you simply put "negotiable" put in the MLS instead of a %???? I don't think you can so how would that work then? You put 2.8% in the MLS, for example, and then when the buyer's agent brings you a buyer, you say that it's not really 2.8% but now we need to negotiate what it will really be?
Is the buyer's agent commission split ever negotiated in practice? PLease explain how this works as this would be very helpful to consumers looking to reduce the overall cost of selling their home. And if it's not really negotiable then it should not be stated that it is. I think it's owed to consumers that this statement is backed up with an explanation of how it's done.
I see what you are asking. So let’s clarify it like this:
1) You can negotiate the total commission you are going to pay. Everyone can see how that works.
2) Your listing agent is basically taking that money and offering a portion of it to the community of agents who are working with buyers to induce them to show and sell your home.
3) It is true that you cannot negotiate that directly once a sale has begun. But you can strategize with your agent and decide what that “co-broke” is going to be. Example: I might normally list your house for a 5% commission. I now have to decide how much to offer the agent community to bring a buyer. That can be half: 2.5%, but it can be anything we decide together to offer. Most people don’t question it, they leave it up to the listing agent. But you can discuss it and influence it as a seller before the listing hits the MLS.
Scenario: Your home is a cream puff, you are going to price it aggressively because you have things to do in life and you want the transaction to happen quickly and quietly. You are going to prepare the home thoroughly, keep it immaculate, and make it very easy to show. It’s also in a good location on a cul-de-sac. We discuss it during our listing meeting, and you point out to me, and I agree, that buyer’s agents can not act as an obstacle to marketing, because our product is compelling, my marketing is going to expose it to perfection, the buying public will not be able to avoid seeing it if they are in the market, and buyers will demand to see it regardless of the wishes or preferences of the community of buyer’s agents. So, in this case, we are going to lower the cost of the buyer side commission split by offering a lower co-broke split. I also agree to lower my split. So now you are paying 3.75%, and I am going to offer a 1.75% co-broke. Just an example, everything is negotiable, negotiable, negotiable. But what if the buyer’s agents won’t show it or “push” it because they are making less money? Who cares? The buyers call the shots and if they want to see your home, which they will because of your preparation and pricing, and my marketing, they are going to drag their agent along regardless of his wishes or desires.
So you do have some control over this portion of the commission equation. To be clear though, this only works if your home is indeed an attractive offering. If it is priced 6% over the sold comps and looks nice but has no back yard? Forget it, that strategy won’t work. The only way to make a lower commission and co-broke work is to literally bypass the buyer’s agent with a compelling offering that buyers will be clamoring to see.
And by the way, it is MY job to sell the buyer’s agent on the fact that I am making his job easier, likely ending the home search with his buyer, and that the money he is making on this deal will be attractive in terms of the time spent selling this listing. Even though it is lower that he might make selling some other home.
So 1) he has no choice about showing your house, I took care of that with the marketing and pricing, and you took care of that with the preparation and access. 2) I will take care of persuading agents that it is worth it to sell your home at a lower co-broke.
The ultimate solution is a sea change to the industry. Buyer’s consultants would sell their services on the merits and would be paid directly by the buyer outside the real estate transaction. Seller’s consultants would market only, and be paid a much lower commission.
There is much inertia to overcome to enact a change like this. I don’t see it happening short term, but I can see it happening in the 10-20 year time frame if that is what buyers and sellers decide they ultimately want.
Last edited by Marc Paolella; 10-06-2018 at 12:12 PM..
I see what you are asking. So let’s clarify it like this:
1) You can negotiate the total commission you are going to pay. Everyone can see how that works.
2) Your listing agent is basically taking that money and offering a portion of it to the community of agents who are working with buyers to induce them to show and sell your home.
3) It is true that you cannot negotiate that directly once a sale has begun. But you can strategize with your agent and decide what that “co-broke” is going to be. Example: I might normally list your house for a 5% commission. I now have to decide how much to offer the agent community to bring a buyer. That can be half: 2.5%, but it can be anything we decide together to offer. Most people don’t question it, they leave it up to the listing agent. But you can discuss it and influence it as a seller before the listing hits the MLS.
Scenario: Your home is a cream puff, you are going to price it aggressively because you have things to do in life and you want the transaction to happen quickly and quietly. You are going to prepare the home thoroughly, keep it immaculate, and make it very easy to show. It’s also in a good location on a cul-de-sac. We discuss it during our listing meeting, and you point out to me, and I agree, that buyer’s agents can not act as an obstacle to marketing, because our product is compelling, my marketing is going to expose it to perfection, the buying public will not be able to avoid seeing it if they are in the market, and buyers will demand to see it regardless of the wishes or preferences of the community of buyer’s agents. So, in this case, we are going to lower the cost of the buyer side commission split by offering a lower co-broke split. I also agree to lower my split. So now you are paying 3.75%, and I am going to offer a 1.75% co-broke. Just an example, everything is negotiable, negotiable, negotiable. But what if the buyer’s agents won’t show it or “push” it because they are making less money? Who cares? The buyers call the shots and if they want to see your home, which they will because of your preparation and pricing, and my marketing, they are going to drag their agent along regardless of his wishes or desires.
So you do have some control over this portion of the commission equation. To be clear though, this only works if your home is indeed an attractive offering. If it is priced 6% over the sold comps and looks nice but has no back yard? Forget it, that strategy won’t work. The only way to make a lower commission and co-broke work is to literally bypass the buyer’s agent with a compelling offering that buyers will be clamoring to see.
And by the way, it is MY job to sell the buyer’s agent on the fact that I am making his job easier, likely ending the home search with his buyer, and that the money he is making on this deal will be attractive in terms of the time spent selling this listing. Even though it is lower that he might make selling some other home.
So 1) he has no choice about showing your house, I took care of that with the marketing and pricing, and you took care of that with the preparation and access. 2) I will take care of persuading agents that it is worth it to sell your home at a lower co-broke.
The ultimate solution is a sea change to the industry. Buyer’s consultants would sell their services on the merits and would be paid directly by the buyer outside the real estate transaction. Seller’s consultants would market only, and be paid a much lower commission.
There is much inertia to overcome to enact a change like this. I don’t see it happening short term, but I can see it happening in the 10-20 year time frame if that is what buyers and sellers decide they ultimately want.
Thank you for your very well articulated response. I agree with you 100% and I'm happy that you acknowledge and were honest about the limitations that your example has - i.e. that the property must be in extremely high demand, priced right, and presumably in a very strong seller's market. I think we can all agree that the buyer's agent is very influential on buyers and I think this is why you're saying that the home must be so overwhelmingly compelling that the buyers will be desperate for the place and there are no equivalents to it that are paying the full market norm buyer's agent split. IOW, the demand from buyers will be so overwhelming that the buyer's agent cannot resist the buyer's strong interest, no matter how much he or she might try to steer the buyers away. And they would need to work out either the buyer's agent accepting a reduced commission for the house or the buyer injecting cash to make up the difference with the buyer's agent. This would be a very rare property that meets this criteria and even rarer that a listing agent would suggest this or that she couldn't talk the sellers out of this strategy.
So for all intents and purposes, the fee to the buyers agent is NOT negotiable and almost always just follows the "market norm". I take your point that the seller can negotiate the OVERALL fee. However the problem is that the fee squeezing is happening only on the listing side and eventually there is no more blood that can be squeezed out of that stone. All the alternative models, different fee structures and negotiated fee reduction is on the listing agent side. And I believe that for many or most transactions, the buyer's agent split is the biggest share.
And I also agree with your sea change comments - that the solution to this is that the buyer's agent pays for their own advisory services. And this will not look the same as it does today as buyers will be extremely cost sensitive and question whether or not they need each service from a buyer's agent - e.g. you'll drive me around for $50 an hour? no thanks I'll meet you at the homes i choose to view. Or, we'll set up the viewings and see it ourselves....we really only need help with making an offer and the contract stuff...
Thank you for your very well articulated response. I agree with you 100% and I'm happy that you acknowledge and were honest about the limitations that your example has - i.e. that the property must be in extremely high demand, priced right, and presumably in a very strong seller's market. I think we can all agree that the buyer's agent is very influential on buyers and I think this is why you're saying that the home must be so overwhelmingly compelling that the buyers will be desperate for the place and there are no equivalents to it that are paying the full market norm buyer's agent split. IOW, the demand from buyers will be so overwhelming that the buyer's agent cannot resist the buyer's strong interest, no matter how much he or she might try to steer the buyers away. And they would need to work out either the buyer's agent accepting a reduced commission for the house or the buyer injecting cash to make up the difference with the buyer's agent. This would be a very rare property that meets this criteria and even rarer that a listing agent would suggest this or that she couldn't talk the sellers out of this strategy.
So for all intents and purposes, the fee to the buyers agent is NOT negotiable and almost always just follows the "market norm". I take your point that the seller can negotiate the OVERALL fee. However the problem is that the fee squeezing is happening only on the listing side and eventually there is no more blood that can be squeezed out of that stone. All the alternative models, different fee structures and negotiated fee reduction is on the listing agent side. And I believe that for many or most transactions, the buyer's agent split is the biggest share.
And I also agree with your sea change comments - that the solution to this is that the buyer's agent pays for their own advisory services. And this will not look the same as it does today as buyers will be extremely cost sensitive and question whether or not they need each service from a buyer's agent - e.g. you'll drive me around for $50 an hour? no thanks I'll meet you at the homes i choose to view. Or, we'll set up the viewings and see it ourselves....we really only need help with making an offer and the contract stuff...
I think the situation is clear from this discussion. I will tell you that in our internal meetings and industry discussions, we are indeed figuring out how to navigate any possible number of Brave New Worlds where our commission structure is determined in new ways, including no commission at all but fee-for-service. Don’t know where any of this will go, or how fast, but the Internet accelerates all change, and younger buyers are smarter than older buyers. We may as agents ultimately be going bye-bye, or changing into something else. Very exciting really. And being an advocate for free market Capitalism, I wouldn’t have it any other way, even if it means my job is gone and I have to figure out a totally new way to bring value to buyers and sellers.
I think the situation is clear from this discussion. I will tell you that in our internal meetings and industry discussions, we are indeed figuring out how to navigate any possible number of Brave New Worlds where our commission structure is determined in new ways, including no commission at all but fee-for-service. Don’t know where any of this will go, or how fast, but the Internet accelerates all change, and younger buyers are smarter than older buyers. We may as agents ultimately be going bye-bye, or changing into something else. Very exciting really. And being an advocate for free market Capitalism, I wouldn’t have it any other way, even if it means my job is gone and I have to figure out a totally new way to bring value to buyers and sellers.
You're right that it's going to take some time to evolve and at this point it's hard to say how it will unfold. Jobs will be different and I think most agents agree that there is a lot of people in the industry that don't belong in it. Shake outs will happen. But I think there will still be plenty of jobs. Likely changing to something else as you say.
Ultimately I believe the consumer will win and that should make the industry (and therefore jobs) more sustainable longer term.
People like you will be OK because you seem to get it and you seem ready for change. It's funny how many agents seem to think that, for example, fee-for-service is just converting today's model and costs into a different payment plan! The implications for fee-for-service will be deep in wide if that's the way it moves on the buyers side. Services will need to change dramatically to align with what consumers wish to pay for, the level of service that they want and expect, etc. Services and outputs will need to be well defined, clear, and transparent.
Think of what it would look like if the buyer were paying their own way in a fee-for-service model. for many buyers, every $50 spend would be looked at and thought about carefully. The nature of the relationship on the buyer's side will change from:
"i don't really care what it costs because the seller is paying" "If I get some value out of it, i'm better off as I'm not paying anyway" To: "I think we can we do that part of it ourselves?"
"What is it that I'm getting for that service again?"
"why are you charging me for 4 hours work for that?" or "why is that $500? Seems like just about an hours work to me"
"We just need a little help with the offer and contract - we'll find our house ourselves, have the inspection done, etc"
"Yes it would be nice to be driven around but we can't afford the cost of that" (probably more than the cost of a washer/dryer for the new place). That's how buyers will think when they have to pay. I'm not saying that none of the services are worth paying for, it's that agents will have to package and articulate their value in new ways and much better align services to the consumers' needs.
And then there's the (from agents) "we tried fee-for-service but consumers didn't want it" or "we'll give buyers fee for service today but nobody wants it". Of course they don't if they can think they can get it for free! So radical change is necessary to unpick the buyer's agent model that we have today and at this point nobody can say, if, when, how that will happen. Which gets back to the earlier point that the listing agent model is changing due to consumer demand but the buyer's agent side is a fortress due to the illusion of the buyer that it's free for them and the fact that the seller has no real choice in the matter.
Finally, there is the (also from agents) "Consumers don't want to take the risk that they won't buy something in the end or that it will take a long time and a lot of work - all on the buyer's dime instead of the agents." Well that's a fair point but like the others, it's looking at it through the same thinking that we have today. If buyers are paying themselves in a fee-for-service model, they will "self select" in terms of how they proceed. They won't start paying for service from an agent unless they know exactly what they want. they wont' pay to be driven all around Highland Park when they don't even know if they want to live in Lake Forest or Highland Park. Time wasters and dreamers will stay on the internet and going to open houses rather than paying for an agent to engage with them. If they are unsure and get cold feet, they will put things on hold rather than string you along. Different model, different thinking, big implications.
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.
