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.
Not scare tactics at all, just reality and the full picture. The listing agent has a legal obligation to the seller -- which he/she disregarded. What makes you think the buyer will be treated any differently by this listing agent?
I think you are missing the point....
If your point is that since the seller's agent cheated the seller, then the buyer should be nervous that the seller's agent may not have disclosed something, I don't think it's a valid point. The obligation to disclose is the seller's obligation, not the agent's. Any buyer who is relying on a seller's agent to protect them is uninformed and essentially has no one looking out for them.
In a buyer's market, where agents are a dime a dozen but ready, willing and able buyers are worth their weight in gold, it makes a lot more sense for a buyer to negotiate with their agent than to send a potential buyer packing. After all, everyone knows that the agent is only expecting 3% out of the transaction anyway.
Couldn't agree more - particularly in the current market.
If your point is that since the seller's agent cheated the seller, then the buyer should be nervous that the seller's agent may not have disclosed something, I don't think it's a valid point. The obligation to disclose is the seller's obligation, not the agent's. Any buyer who is relying on a seller's agent to protect them is uninformed and essentially has no one looking out for them.
But, as we have already established, the buyer doesn't have a buyer's agent, so who is looking out for the buyer? An occasional buyer simply has a lack of experience to extrapolate all these details.
Secondly, the seller and listing agent can always collaborate; after all, a lack of scruples has all ready been demonstrated in this scenario. In my state, Georgia, it would be gross negligence by any broker for a failure to disclose a known material fact to a buyer, like a chemical spill; but, once again, a lack of scruples by the listing agent has already been demonstrated.
It's not the commission, it's the price. The seller can accept a lower price and still accomplish their financial goals if they don't have to pay an extra 3%.
I think you are missing the point; while the buyer may negotiate the price that they want, how do they know that the commission on the buy side (3%) was saved? If that fee was not waived to arrive at a particular price, then the buyer is still paying for something not received.
But, as we have already established, the buyer doesn't have a buyer's agent, so who is looking out for the buyer? An occasional buyer simply has a lack of experience to extrapolate all these details.
The buyer should be relying on the inspection report, not the seller or the agent. Under your theory, the buyer should just show up and ask you whether the house is a good deal and in good condition, and when you say yes, he can close on the spot and feel comfortable that he can rely on you. Not realistic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgraham
Secondly, the seller and listing agent can always collaborate; after all, a lack of scruples has all ready been demonstrated in this scenario. In my state, Georgia, it would be gross negligence by any broker for a failure to disclose a known material fact to a buyer, like a chemical spill; but, once again, a lack of scruples by the listing agent has already been demonstrated.
The listing agent would be doing this at his own jeopardy, not at the buyer's risk.
I think you are missing the point; while the buyer may negotiate the price that they want, how do they know that the commission on the buy side (3%) was saved?
The buyer doesn't really care about that. The question is will the seller accept the buyer's offer. If the buyer offers $194,000, and another buyer who is represented by an agent offers $196,000, the $194,000 offer is actually the higher offer if the seller doesn't have to pay a full 6%. If the seller still has to pay 6% but takes the buyer's offer anyway, the buyer doesn't care who gets paid a commission.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgraham
If that fee was not waived to arrive at a particular price, then the buyer is still paying for something not received.
The funny thing is that agents love to repeat the fable that it doesn't cost a buyer anything to have an agent. I guess you didn't get the talking points memo on that one.
Buyers pay for all commissions. They pay for the seller's agent and the buyer's agent through the sales price -- whether they have their own buyer's agent or not; that's my point. If the buyer opts not to be represented, then in most cases they are still paying for the buyer's side too. There are cases where the buyer's side might be conceded by the listing agent to make the deal happen. But how would a buyer know if this is truly the case?
You say it doesn't matter, so long as the buyer's price is met; but, the buyer is still paying for something not received.
In my opinion, it would be better for a buyer to engage an experienced buyer's broker to seek a lower price and better terms -- and to navigate the transaction to avoid many pitfalls associated with a real estate transaction; this includes pointing them to a good inspector, not one out of the yellow pages. A good buyer's agent can hold lenders accountable too.
Final point: unless one has at least 10 transactions under their belt, they are too inexperienced to fully grasp all the details of a real estate transaction to avoid overcharges, oversight, negligence, incompetence, legal jeopardy & fraud.
The buyer should be relying on the inspection report, not the seller or the agent. Under your theory, the buyer should just show up and ask you whether the house is a good deal and in good condition, and when you say yes, he can close on the spot and feel comfortable that he can rely on you. Not realistic.
The listing agent would be doing this at his own jeopardy, not at the buyer's risk.
If a latent material defect is undisclosed, the buyer is greatly harmed. This may not be revealed until years down the road. A home inspector usually does not deal with something like a hidden chemical spill or buried debris that would only be known by the seller. Also, a home inspector may not catch a leaking basement during a dry period. A competent listing broker will delve into these issues with a seller to obtain full disclosure; but, once again, this listing agent has already proven to be less than scrupulous. Therefore, the buyer is vulnerable.
There are cases where the buyer's side might be conceded by the listing agent to make the deal happen. But how would a buyer know if this is truly the case?
Because when I go in unrepresented, I talk to the listing agent and let them know that I'm only interested if they are willing to accept a 3% commission, that way I can market my offer to the seller as the equivalent, from their viewpoint, of an offer that is 3% higher. It's really quite simple. And if the agent balks, I go straight to the seller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by scgraham
Final point: unless one has at least 10 transactions under their belt, they are too inexperienced to fully grasp all the details of a real estate transaction to avoid overcharges, oversight, negligence, incompetence, legal jeopardy & fraud.
If a latent material defect is undisclosed, the buyer is greatly harmed. This may not be revealed until years down the road. A home inspector usually does not deal with something like a hidden chemical spill or buried debris that would only be known by the seller. Also, a home inspector may not catch a leaking basement during a dry period. A competent listing broker will delve into these issues with a seller to obtain full disclosure; but, once again, this listing agent has already proven to be less than scrupulous. Therefore, the buyer is vulnerable.
This is an interesting perspective, but the fact is that the listing agent can't force their seller to do anything, and a buyer who walks around assuming that the seller and seller's agent are being 100% honest with them is naive. A seller's agent provides zero protection for a buyer.
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.
