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.
One of the recent developments here, has been to offer the seller's agent the "full 6% commission" and pay the buyer's agent separately to sway the buyer to favor you, over other potential buyers.
This has been gaining traction, in San Diego's North County, recently.
What other strategies have you encountered, during your career, with regards to "seller preference/choice?"
So the buyer is offering to pay all 9% of the commission? Or the seller still has to pay 6% but it all goes to the seller's agent, and the buyer pays 3% to buyer's agent?
There are enough greedy agents out there who would grab a chance at a 6% commission vs. looking out for their clients, it may be a workable strategy for a buyer.
Just redirecting the money a bit, looking for additional leverage from a chump listing agent.
Wouldn't it be more reliable to just make an offer above asking price? What you describe is bribing the agent to convince the seller to sell less than it's really worth. If the buyer is willing to pay more then that means the house is actually worth more.
Wouldn't it be more reliable to just make an offer above asking price? What you describe is bribing the agent to convince the seller to sell less than it's really worth. If the buyer is willing to pay more then that means the house is actually worth more.
one would assume a buyer willing to increase the commissions to either/both agent to get their offer accepted would also be prepared to cover a low appraisal, but if not, increasing the offer price would/should be a red flag for a seller
Certainly. Well, greedy agents definitely live in the fuzzy areas, but to increase their commission is certainly legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrPibbs
Wouldn't it be more reliable to just make an offer above asking price? What you describe is bribing the agent to convince the seller to sell less than it's really worth. If the buyer is willing to pay more then that means the house is actually worth more.
It is all money on the table from the buyer.
Yes. It is an incentive if the agent is greedy.
A good agent would clarify to the seller and probably offer to reduce commission or give the seller a credit.
The latter would increase the seller's proceeds.
I'm ignorant on CA real estate law, but that sounds stupid. Or a gimmick.
ps, you mean "sway the Seller to favor you".
Why not just offer 3% (assuming a 50-50 split) more than otherwise?
Why assume the Seller wants their agent to get 6% not 3%?
or ....
Why assume the listing agent will drop their commission for 1 deal to 3%, and thus net the Seller 3% more?
An offer of 3% over is way too low in this market.
The last time I looked, it was more like 12% over in parts of the SF Bay Area.
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.
