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.
No. I make no suggestion whatsoever, that's what I asked of buyer's agents who often claim they negotiate savings for buyers - shouldn't they be compensated for saving their client money?
They are compensated for saving money.
It is part of the package deal.
No. I make no suggestion whatsoever, that's what I asked of buyer's agents who often claim they negotiate savings for buyers - shouldn't they be compensated for saving their client money?
So, your question was merely a rhetorical device.
Got it.
Regardless, I will play along a bit more to explain for folks who thought it might be sincere or may have taken it literally:
Some people find reward in a job well done, and the better a job is done, the better the reward.
This could be considered as further "compensation" for garnering a better price for the client, or helping a client acquire a less expensive home that fits their needs and makes them happy.
Smart agents work for true client satisfaction, knowing that very often this leads to repeat business and referrals to coworkers, to friends and families. Those new clients are much less expensively secured, and more easily secured, than are potential new clients who are found through commensurate expenditures in marketing.
I can point to multiple examples of one client, well served, who initiates a referral trail of 6 or 7 or 8 closed transactions.
Who would be so stupid as to screw up such a productive situation, to ignore the opportunity to build advocacy from former clients, with nickel/dime, short-sighted greed? Not me.
I have to admit, however, some folks' mamas DID raise such fools.
For such fools, only money matters, and only money can serve them as their sole measure of personal success. I find that sad, but also recognize the existence of such folks in any endeavor with a financial reward available.
It is extremely difficult for such people to grasp the possibility of satisfaction separately from grabbing the most money possible, or to work to earn future business or referrals from happy clients in lieu of passing up one more nickel to pull off the table immediately.
Dumb approach to business, I believe, but it is extremely difficult for the greedy to grasp that fact.
Reading plats for location of BMPs and sidewalks and seeing if floor joists are installed at 16", 19.2", or 24" O. C. are legal or engineering work?
On what planet?
I work on the 3rd Rock from the Sun, myself.
If I visit your planet, will you "Take me to your Leaders?"
I do have sympathy for you because you are trying to do right by your clients. Unfortunately, the reality today is that agents that tread into legal work and things like overseeing builders, 'inspecting' floor joist installation, etc, etc are operating very dangerously and when things go wrong for a client, you are at big risk of big lawsuits and/or regulatory actions against you. Nobody is saying that measuring joists is rocket science but as soon as you open the door to anything that smells like an inspection of any sort (even "pointing out" defects) opens the door to liability for the things that you don't catch, aren't qualified to catch, didn't take the time to catch (you're not an inspector, after all).
Likewise with reviewing CCRs, etc. I agree with kokonutty. To put it in planetary terms, I would say that you work on a rogue planet (orbited by debris disks, sub-brown dwarfs, and proplyds).
It's very clear that the practices of buyer's agents and what they will and won't do (based on liability and regulatory concerns, not laziness) vary greatly from agent to agent and perhaps from region to region. I remember that post that out west many agents do legal work that would get them locked up in the east. But I think it's correct to say that liability and regulatory concerns are tightening, not loosening and the impact is that generally what agents can 'safely' do is narrowing, not widening.
But whatever the good intentions, it's clear that agents are getting squeezed in the services that they can provide to clients without risk of liability or regulatory problems. You seem to be saying that the 'good' agents will just do these things anyway and that anyone who doesn't is 'lazy'. Frankly, I think that it's irresponsible and unethical to label competing agents who take more care to work within the boundaries of responsible conduct as 'lazy'. This is destructive for the industry because your more responsible competitors are put at a competitive disadvantage. Kind of like a hotel that ignores fire regulations but instead invests money on things that are visible and attract customers. That's unfair to the responsible competitors and regulatory action is required to make it right.
So, your question was merely a rhetorical device.
Got it.
Regardless, I will play along a bit more to explain for folks who thought it might be sincere or may have taken it literally:
Some people find reward in a job well done, and the better a job is done, the better the reward.
This could be considered as further "compensation" for garnering a better price for the client, or helping a client acquire a less expensive home that fits their needs and makes them happy.
Smart agents work for true client satisfaction, knowing that very often this leads to repeat business and referrals to coworkers, to friends and families. Those new clients are much less expensively secured, and more easily secured, than are potential new clients who are found through commensurate expenditures in marketing.
I can point to multiple examples of one client, well served, who initiates a referral trail of 6 or 7 or 8 closed transactions.
Who would be so stupid as to screw up such a productive situation, to ignore the opportunity to build advocacy from former clients, with nickel/dime, short-sighted greed? Not me.
I have to admit, however, some folks' mamas DID raise such fools.
For such fools, only money matters, and only money can serve them as their sole measure of personal success. I find that sad, but also recognize the existence of such folks in any endeavor with a financial reward available.
It is extremely difficult for such people to grasp the possibility of satisfaction separately from grabbing the most money possible, or to work to earn future business or referrals from happy clients in lieu of passing up one more nickel to pull off the table immediately.
Dumb approach to business, I believe, but it is extremely difficult for the greedy to grasp that fact.
You don't need to explain to these folks. intelligent people understand already.
Buyer's agent model where the so-called advocate for the buyer is paid with sales commission and working in cooperation with the seller's agent is broken and irrational. Nothing else in the sane world works like this. Where else does a real advocate for a buyer earn their money with sales commission? Financial services used to have a screwy model where 'advisors' were paid with sales commission but it's, for the most part, been busted up by regulators because it's bad for consumers. It's confusing. It's misleading. Client's interests are misaligned with the advisor's interests. It leads to unwanted behaviors on the part of 'advisors'. Clients always had to wonder if their interests were looked after.
Your explanation tactic is the same over and over and I really don't know who would be impressed by your arguments. I feel sorry for you for having to explain something that is so insane and for being so poorly equipped to do so. The world is changing and smart consumers dealing with any kind of business want a simple and straight-forward structure that makes sense and not a lot of nonsense like their so-called advocate/advisor is paid with a split of the other side's sales commission. And then begging to "just trust me, I'm a good guy". Frankly, I can't think of a worse sales approach for any sales person to use. Nobody is questioning your integrity. We just don't want our advocate/advisor paid with sales commission and working in cooperation with the other side. My agent can be Mother Theresa and it still doesn't make any sense. Your argument that any consumer who would question the model is dishonest and greedy themselves is unsavory and I'd be out of your office like lightening if the best you could do is to beg me to "just trust" you and "don't worry about how the model works".
Since this structure is just how it works, I suggest that the NAR come up with some better explanations for their agents to use. "Just trust me" is very poor and you really should come up with a better set of sales messages.
You don't need to explain to these folks. intelligent people understand already.
Buyer's agent model where the so-called advocate for the buyer is paid with sales commission and working in cooperation with the seller's agent is broken and irrational. Nothing else in the sane world works like this. Where else does a real advocate for a buyer earn their money with sales commission? Financial services used to have a screwy model where 'advisors' were paid with sales commission but it's, for the most part, been busted up by regulators because it's bad for consumers. It's confusing. It's misleading. Client's interests are misaligned with the advisor's interests. It leads to unwanted behaviors on the part of 'advisors'. Clients always had to wonder if their interests were looked after.
Your explanation tactic is the same over and over and I really don't know who would be impressed by your arguments. I feel sorry for you for having to explain something that is so insane and for being so poorly equipped to do so. The world is changing and smart consumers dealing with any kind of business want a simple and straight-forward structure that makes sense and not a lot of nonsense like their so-called advocate/advisor is paid with a split of the other side's sales commission. And then begging to "just trust me, I'm a good guy". Frankly, I can't think of a worse sales approach for any sales person to use. Nobody is questioning your integrity. We just don't want our advocate/advisor paid with sales commission and working in cooperation with the other side. My agent can be Mother Theresa and it still doesn't make any sense. Your argument that any consumer who would question the model is dishonest and greedy themselves is unsavory and I'd be out of your office like lightening if the best you could do is to beg me to "just trust" you and "don't worry about how the model works".
Since this structure is just how it works, I suggest that the NAR come up with some better explanations for their agents to use. "Just trust me" is very poor and you really should come up with a better set of sales messages.
I suggest that the NAR come up with some better explanations for their agents to use. "Just trust me" is very poor and you really should come up with a better set of sales messages.
NAR doesn't do marketing very well. Remember the $40 MM campaign they launched in late 2006.
House was listed at $250,000.
Buyer said, "Let's offer $260,000 and ask for $10,000 CC Credit."
Me: "No. Offer $250,000 and ask for $10,000 in CC Credit." We got the deal at that.
House appraised at $257,000.
What you describe is the result of your knowledge about all the factors that impact fair market valuation plus some experience regarding practical application of negotiating strategy.
So... why can't an AI system do the same thing? An AI system with access to Big Data regarding all prior real estate transactions, indeed all publicly available information regarding everything at City Hall -- superfund sites, schools, noise from nearby roads, police blotter information, tax roles indicating trends in valuation, weather patterns, etc etc etc -- coupled with a minimum wage person to open the door for the prospective buyer?
BTW, the potential impact of AI isn't unique to real estate. AI systems already perform much better than physicians in diagnosing diseases and recommending treatment protocols.
Last edited by SportyandMisty; 01-27-2018 at 08:09 AM..
Realtors understand the system and are simple/narrow minded enough not to want change. The real estate industry will fight change.
Change will have to come from the buyers/sellers such as 4% commission limit no matter how many sticky fingers are in the deal.
Quote:
I'd be happy to work as a Buyer's Agent, on retainer and hourly rate.
Our job is to help get the Buyers the house they want, at the best price and terms possible.
I said this yesterday
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.
