U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 09-15-2019, 07:37 PM
 
851 posts, read 391,944 times
Reputation: 1188

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
you were (maybe still are?) in the title/escrow/closing business, yes? You have/had about a year, and 20 or so deals you ran through escrow, right?

how many times did your escrow company take the buyer's funds (be they downpayment or an all-cash purchase), and prepare a check to one or more brokers prior to recording? How many times in a mortgaged purchase did you take the Buyer's funds, keep them separate, and write a check to the broker(s) from that?

How many times did you pay the brokers before you paid the Seller's lender? brokers
How many times did you pay any state/local-required costs AFTER you paid the broker(s)?

In all those complex escrow deals you did - did you have any that were short sales or really really close? Any where the lender got paid, the locals got paid, but from the contract price, there wasn't enough for the broker compensation? Did the Buyerr write a check to the broker to cover their compensation?
I’m honestly not quite following you. No one gets paid anything until disbursement, and you can’t disburse without all of the buyer’s money.

Nothing is kept separate, it’s one escrow account which means it’s all one big pot, the pot where commissions get paid from. The buyer is the one putting the actual cash into the pot. The seller is of course putting their right of ownership into the pot, but realtors don’t get paid in equity, they get paid in cash, cash that comes directly from the buyer.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-15-2019, 08:27 PM
 
119 posts, read 22,783 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JPrzybylski07 View Post
Iím honestly not quite following you. No one gets paid anything until disbursement, and you canít disburse without all of the buyerís money.

Nothing is kept separate, itís one escrow account which means itís all one big pot, the pot where commissions get paid from. The buyer is the one putting the actual cash into the pot. The seller is of course putting their right of ownership into the pot, but realtors donít get paid in equity, they get paid in cash, cash that comes directly from the buyer.
I think you mean cash that goes from the buyer to the escrow company to the seller in exchange for the sellers interest in the property. The escrow company takes the sellers right of ownership (or interest) and exchanges it for cash from the buyer which is then distributed to the SELLER and the SELLER then pays the real estate commissions based on the listing agreement the SELLER signed. The fact that all the distributions are part of one transaction does not negate the fact that the SELLER is paying all of the commissions, title insurance (in our market) and a portion of the closing fee.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-15-2019, 11:44 PM
 
82 posts, read 17,920 times
Reputation: 121
OP your a jerk. Some people make their living from selling real estate (A.K.A brokerage services).

Stop being so inconsiderate!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 07:43 AM
 
Location: Raleigh NC
9,953 posts, read 7,499,106 times
Reputation: 8567
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokaneinvestor View Post
I think you mean cash that goes from the buyer to the escrow company to the seller in exchange for the sellers interest in the property. The escrow company takes the sellers right of ownership (or interest) and exchanges it for cash from the buyer which is then distributed to the SELLER and the SELLER then pays the real estate commissions based on the listing agreement the SELLER signed. The fact that all the distributions are part of one transaction does not negate the fact that the SELLER is paying all of the commissions, title insurance (in our market) and a portion of the closing fee.
I wonder when they borrow 80-95%, if there's any accounting for the buyer's money vs the Bank's money.

the Buyer's side FUNDS everything.
the Buyer's side PAYS the specifically enumerated sums from the contract and the practices in the locale.

If the Seller is charged a "sales tax" by the state or municipality, do we then say the Buyer pays that? What about when the Seller is responsible for title insurance?

And there are places that charge the BUYER the "sales tax" ... does that depress the contract value in those places?

And if the "Amount due from Seller" by the escrow officer's calculations is > purchase price, does the Buyer pay the difference, or the Seller?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 08:30 AM
 
119 posts, read 22,783 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoBromhal View Post
I wonder when they borrow 80-95%, if there's any accounting for the buyer's money vs the Bank's money.

the Buyer's side FUNDS everything.
the Buyer's side PAYS the specifically enumerated sums from the contract and the practices in the locale.

If the Seller is charged a "sales tax" by the state or municipality, do we then say the Buyer pays that? What about when the Seller is responsible for title insurance?

And there are places that charge the BUYER the "sales tax" ... does that depress the contract value in those places?

And if the "Amount due from Seller" by the escrow officer's calculations is > purchase price, does the Buyer pay the difference, or the Seller?
Excellent point and one I had not thought of. If the buyer is paying everything, then when the seller is short, the buyer should bring extra dollars to the table. I had a closing last September where the house sold for $889K and seller was short $125K so, if the buyer pays all theory is correct, shouldnít the buyer have brought an additional $125K to table for a grand total of $1,014,000 from the buyer? Ludicrous I know, but so is the position that the buyer pays everything.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 08:36 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
33,995 posts, read 59,121,387 times
Reputation: 32905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokaneinvestor View Post
Excellent point and one I had not thought of. If the buyer is paying everything, then when the seller is short, the buyer should bring extra dollars to the table. I had a closing last September where the house sold for $889K and seller was short $125K so, if the buyer pays all theory is correct, shouldnít the buyer have brought an additional $125K to table for a grand total of $1,014,000 from the buyer? Ludicrous I know, but so is the position that the buyer pays everything.

Who says the buyer pays "everything?"


The real rub is the lie that "Buyers agency is Free to buyers."
It is not a free service when the seller can net more and the buyer can pay less if there is no buyers agent fee baked into the price.


Buyers agency is buyer's choice and that choice drives buyer expenses.
Just as over-leveraging is a seller's choice that drives seller expenses.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 08:46 AM
 
Location: East Lansing, MI
9,502 posts, read 8,146,452 times
Reputation: 4021
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramidsurf View Post
I bought a house. The seller was charged 60,000 in commissions. The money came from one place in the sale and that is from my pocket.

I sold a house. I paid 25,000 in commissions.

You're intentionally being obtuse instead of addressing the real issue.

And before you try to blame the buyer or seller, the houses in my area were all listed by agents that were part of the same association.


You can't have it both ways, though.


The house you bought "cost" you $60K because of a necessarily bloated price to offset the seller's expense regarding commission. But you didn't adjust your selling price accordingly when you sold?


So, either selling your house "cost" you $25K, or buying the new place "cost" you $60K, but it can't be both, unless you intentionally sold below market value (or bought above market value).


The truth is, houses sell for what the market will bear at the time of sale. Period. To simply assume that a seller would necessarily reduce the price if the commissions were lower is naÔve, at best. Why would they?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 08:48 AM
 
119 posts, read 22,783 times
Reputation: 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
Who says the buyer pays "everything?"


The real rub is the lie that "Buyers agency is Free to buyers."
It is not a free service when the seller can net more and the buyer can pay less if there is no buyers agent fee baked into the price.


Buyers agency is buyer's choice and that choice drives buyer expenses.
Just as over-leveraging is a seller's choice that drives seller expenses.

The buyer pays everything thesis seems to be the position of several posters including the OP in later posts on this thread. I donít agree with it and simply pointing out the fallacy of their argument. The original position was that the buyer pays commissions, which morphed into a buyer pays everything position.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Cary, NC
33,995 posts, read 59,121,387 times
Reputation: 32905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokaneinvestor View Post
The buyer pays everything thesis seems to be the position of several posters including the OP in later posts on this thread. I donít agree with it and simply pointing out the fallacy of their argument. The original position was that the buyer pays commissions, which morphed into a buyer pays everything position.

OK.
Yes, limited to buyer pays their commission and their other costs, and the stars move into alignment.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-16-2019, 09:20 AM
 
851 posts, read 391,944 times
Reputation: 1188
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spokaneinvestor View Post
Excellent point and one I had not thought of. If the buyer is paying everything, then when the seller is short, the buyer should bring extra dollars to the table. I had a closing last September where the house sold for $889K and seller was short $125K so, if the buyer pays all theory is correct, shouldn’t the buyer have brought an additional $125K to table for a grand total of $1,014,000 from the buyer? Ludicrous I know, but so is the position that the buyer pays everything.
No of course the buyer won’t bring extra dollars to the closing table, especially not to close out an upside down mortgage or other liens the seller are responsible for!

Put it this way, if commissions were shown on the buyer’s side of the settlement statement, property values would automatically decrease 6% on average across all markets. The sellers wouldn’t care that their house value has decreased 6% if commissions weren’t shown on their side of the settlement statement because they would still walk away with the same amount.

So instead of a house costing a buyer 100,000, it now would cost only 94,000 but added 5,640 in commissions added to buyer’s side, which nets the seller the same either way, and actually $540 in commissions are now lost to decreased sales price, boo boo realtors. Buyer pays a surcharge on sale price or directly pays commissions, either way they pay commissions.
Quick reply to this message
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.


 

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top