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 went back and checked a few hundred. The lowest I could find is 1%. That is reasonable common on auction properties. Non auction appear virtually total 3% or 2.5%. There was one 2% in a 100 or so non auction condominiums.
So I am inclined to believe the one I saw was a fluke.
In our MLS there is 2 fields...... SAC and BAC. Usually the SAC (Sellers agent commission) is 0% and the BAC will be a number like 3%.
I've seen some not to smart agents get those numbers backwards which then would be 0% for the Buyers Agent commission. It usually is in error.
I would be interested to hear the experience of agents dealing with FSBO properties when they brought a buyer. Was it smooth? Did u end up doing the work of "both sides". Did you get paid 3% or similar? Were the sellers cooperative and amenable throughout the process?
I am no fan of realtors. Good ones are worth their weight in gold, hard to find, and are smothered by an industry of dipchits.
But I also generally steer clear of FSBO's. The umber one objective of going FSBO seems to be stated as "reduicing costs". I interpret that as "being cheap". I am sure there are many who are not, but one gets lumped into a group. Sorry. And knowing that the objective is to go the cheap route, I wonder if that mentality was geared toward building and maintaining the house as well. Were things done in a manner to save a few pennies? Maybe no permits for additions. Maybe a "jack of all trades" to effect a plumbing repair. Maybe a lower grade of carpet or flooring in order saver a few dollars. Maybe paint form HD instead of high quality paints from Sherwin Williams.
I hate to generalize, but I steer clear of those sorts of behaviors, and having to deal with a FSBO seller which doesn't want an agent and wants to be their own lawyer and settle through the title company and not spend a penny for services germane to the sales process turns me away. Even if the property might otherwise be something I would consider if it was in the main stream market.
Sorry, it just feels shady, and I don't like dealing in the "third market".
I've gone fsbo for reasons that i would guess is a pretty common reason to do so. I wanted to sell but didn't have to sell. It only made sense to sell if you could get a certain amount for the property. I called a realtor and the number she wanted to list at was not enough. It took 12 months but finally went. And this was before the exposure of internet. I will do it again the same way. I don't know what a realtor has to lose by listing a home for more than it's fair market value. After all, someone has to start an uptrend.
I would be interested to hear the experience of agents dealing with FSBO properties when they brought a buyer. Was it smooth? Did u end up doing the work of "both sides". Did you get paid 3% or similar? Were the sellers cooperative and amenable throughout the process?
I am no fan of realtors. Good ones are worth their weight in gold, hard to find, and are smothered by an industry of dipchits.
But I also generally steer clear of FSBO's. The umber one objective of going FSBO seems to be stated as "reduicing costs". I interpret that as "being cheap". I am sure there are many who are not, but one gets lumped into a group. Sorry. And knowing that the objective is to go the cheap route, I wonder if that mentality was geared toward building and maintaining the house as well. Were things done in a manner to save a few pennies? Maybe no permits for additions. Maybe a "jack of all trades" to effect a plumbing repair. Maybe a lower grade of carpet or flooring in order saver a few dollars. Maybe paint form HD instead of high quality paints from Sherwin Williams.
I hate to generalize, but I steer clear of those sorts of behaviors, and having to deal with a FSBO seller which doesn't want an agent and wants to be their own lawyer and settle through the title company and not spend a penny for services germane to the sales process turns me away. Even if the property might otherwise be something I would consider if it was in the main stream market.
Sorry, it just feels shady, and I don't like dealing in the "third market".
I have worked with really really good FSBOs.
And, they tend to close deals without a lot of goofiness.
I admire the focus and discipline.
I get paid.
I have worked with, well TRIED to work with, the truly inept FSBOs who have no clue what they are doing.
In buyers' markets, they usually wither on the vine and blame the world for their ineptitude.
In sellers' markets, like lots of listing agents, they get a deal and think they are brilliant superstars.
Only one time in 12 years has a buyer handed me a check for a fee, and that was mainly because they got to the FSBO before me and told the guy, "We know you are a FSBO and you won't pay our agent."
Funny, how prescient that undermining of negotiations was....
18 months ago, I could tell everyone that I never took a check from a buyer's hand for agency, and that muffed THAT line...
I would be interested to hear the experience of agents dealing with FSBO properties when they brought a buyer. Was it smooth? Did u end up doing the work of "both sides". Did you get paid 3% or similar? Were the sellers cooperative and amenable throughout the process?
The biggest issue I have with FSBO's is understanding deadlines/terms of the contract. Most of them genuinely believe they know what they are doing. Some go just fine and others are problematic, but that isn't any different than transactions with agents.
I just don't have to argue with agents that homes using VA loans require water heaters to be strapped. They already know it. I don't have to explain carbon monoxide, smoke detector, or woodstove laws. I think the biggest difference is that most agents have a wide swath of knowledge about the very basics so when problems arise I don't have to explain why a system works the way it does or why a lender is requesting something.
Sellers have generally paid me an acceptable fee and my buyers have always picked up the rest when it wasn't.
I would be interested to hear the experience of agents dealing with FSBO properties when they brought a buyer. Was it smooth? Did u end up doing the work of "both sides". Did you get paid 3% or similar? Were the sellers cooperative and amenable throughout the process?
Sold a few. Some were great to work with and some were horrible. Commission hasn't varied on them from what I see listed in MLS. Occasionally I see one that won't pay a commission. That's fine, it's their choice. The buyer would then need to decide if they want to pay my commission since it's not part of the sale.
The FSBO's that went well and nice homes and were cooperative and intelligent. The ones that didn't go well were abrasive know-it-alls or just dingbats.
Some, scratch that- most fsbo's I have to take some extra time to explain basic concepts and deadlines to. Again, the cooperative intelligent ones-no issues.
They didn't say they only worked with one type over another. And I'll repeat why it's immaterial below.
There's no US-wide boycott. There's no NC-wide boycott. There's no Triangle NC boycott. And there's no boycott at either firm where I've worked - nor talk of one. There may be individual agents that "won't deal with FSBO's" (regardless of compensation). I can repeat that exactly 2 times have I come across a FSBO Seller that wouldn't pay the compensation at their given purchase price AND it was worth my Buyer still paying Price + Commission.
I'm talking about the fact that we have agreements with Buyers, and part of those agreements states they are responsible for our compensation. At least in NC, as I stated.
In NC, our standard pre-printed agreement has a blank for compensation. We write it in (or type, if you like) and then the Buyer signs it as part of the agreement.
If the compensation differs from that - bonuses, etc as you state - then we are REQUIRED to have the Buyer acknowledge that we're getting a bonus when we write the offer. Not after they go under contract. When they write the offer. And in NC, the agreement form says the Buyer agrees bonuses are OK, and earend by the agency.
And as I repeat, they acknowledge that THEY are responsible for paying us. And should the offered compensation be LESS than what's agreed to, they will make up the difference. That's why it is immaterial whether a FSBO offers compensation or not, or an entry-only does.
Thank you for your response.
I'm not on the 'boycott' bandwagon so I don't need to stress that there is no boycott. I only referenced that in the OP's belief that she was "boycotted" (or ignored) it's important to understand if the co-op commission offered (if any) was a sufficient incentive to motivate buyer's agents.
So I'm understanding that before an offer is done, the entire commission picture for that one house is disclosed to the buyer - the 'base' compensation (whether equal to, above, or below the buyer agreed commission) and the bonus (and the conditions for getting the bonus?).
I think that's pretty clear to me but tell me if i've misunderstood.
I think it would be good, as a consumer, to have full transparency into the commission co-op rates for the homes/developments that I am considering as well as the bonuses involved long before i make an offer as most people's hearts are deeply in it by that point. and anyway, it's only the home I'm making the offer on that is disclosed if I understand correctly. That's meaningless without knowing how that compares in the market with the other choices I was looking at.
I think it would be good, as a consumer, to have full transparency into the commission co-op rates for the homes/developments that I am considering as well as the bonuses involved long before i make an offer as most people's hearts are deeply in it by that point. and anyway, it's only the home I'm making the offer on that is disclosed if I understand correctly. That's meaningless without knowing how that compares in the market with the other choices I was looking at.
You can have that. Just do a buyer agency with the terms laid out that the agent will receive x% on the sale price. If it's more it goes to you or the house price is reduced. If the co-broke is less you make it up out of pocket. Then commission is irrelevant, right?
That happens all the time in my MLS. Usually, it's the limited service brokerages that do it. Nothing in the MLS software prevents you from entering the listing. However, if the listing is reported for violating the rules (or is discovered as a part of the MLS self-audit process) then the listing gets taken down.
I'm not sure where you're getting that from. All listings in the MLS must offer cooperating compensation to a brokerage that brings a buyer to the transaction. As Mike's quote states, it needs to be expressed in the form of a percentage or a fixed number.
Mike...it's my (simple layman's) interpretation of the text that Mike J provided from the rules. I think it would be written differently if the intent was to prevent 0% commission rates. From the way it's written, it goes straight to how the figures are expressed rather than to specifically say that an incentive must be offered. A 0% offer of comp is not prevented by that text in my unlearned view. Even a very simple change to that text - period after 'compensation' and then 'Compensation expressed as a...' would prevent the 'no 0%' if that was the intended position. Again just my opinion as a muppet layman. It's like saying 'all employee salary amounts must be expressed in US dollars' does not say it can't be $0 salary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
Well, there are REALTOR®-owned MLSs and there are third party MLSs.
NAR requires some cobrokerage compensation from compliant MLSs...
"Multiple listing services shall not publish listings that do not include an offer of compensation
expressed as a percentage of the gross selling price or as a definite dollar amount, nor shall
they include general invitations by listing brokers to other participants to discuss terms and
conditions of possible cooperative relationships. (Amended 11/96) "
You can have that. Just do a buyer agency with the terms laid out that the agent will receive x% on the sale price. If it's more it goes to you or the house price is reduced. If the co-broke is less you make it up out of pocket. Then commission is irrelevant, right?
I didn't know you could receive commission as a buyer (no legal agreement with seller's broker). But anyway, in this idea, you are still agreeing to pay the shortfall, therefore when you shop around and select homes, you need to know the different rates as it impacts your overall costs. That was a key part of the point. It also would be awkward for bonuses as some are paid across multiple deals and you'd have to exclude bonuses from the agent's comp in your agreement if you wanted to level the field.
Seems much easier and more straightforward just to be transparent about all of the commission and other incentives for the houses that i'm considering.
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.
