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.
GF, I have not read the whole thread but you should consider doing a FSBO if you don't want to pay your agents & brokers agreed upon commission.
Then I would think you could offer whatever reward you'd like to give for a friend securing you a buyer. If you terminated your listing agreement it would distance your agent from being involved and putting their license at risk.
That way if you do break a state law, it would be your problem and innocent people would not be involved.
Quote:
I do know that I am very sorry to have upset so many people. They seemed unified in their opinion (the agents, that is). I will definitely be interested in what my brother says.
Your brother being an attorney, I'm surprised you didn't go to him for advice 1st.
Well, it was all I could think of at the time. It's fall here so it's too cold to think about anything but my polar fleece coat.
Although the cap on investors being only able to have 10 mortgages would be right up there with stupidity as far as I'm concerned on par with the 90 day seasoning requirement.
Yes, that one is stupid as well. You're better off than me then. I'm getting told 4 mortgages cap unless it's primary. I know a guy that owns about 50 houses, makes quite a good living off of them as a matter of fact. Can't get a loan.
Rakin, he is fine with the commission. He's upset he can't offer a finders fee to nonlicensed agents... i.e. pay a commission to a nonlicensed individual. Poster doesn't seem to be a decent guy, he's just upset over that one point.
Yes, that one is stupid as well. You're better off than me then. I'm getting told 4 mortgages cap unless it's primary. I know a guy that owns about 50 houses, makes quite a good living off of them as a matter of fact. Can't get a loan.
Rakin, he is fine with the commission. He's upset he can't offer a finders fee to nonlicensed agents... i.e. pay a commission to a nonlicensed individual. Poster doesn't seem to be a decent guy, he's just upset over that one point.
Uh, how about bringing you a buyer and working to get the deal done? You should know that the buyer agent will do 90%+ of the work getting from accepted offer to closing. Lots of work for doing nothing to get your home sold.
The buyer agent works for the BUYER, not for me. The BUYER should pay the 3%.
Now if the BUYER agent works with me to get me what I want in the deal, that is a different matter. He/she is bringing a potential buyer not for ME but for his client. I benefit if the house sells for what I want, yes, but so does the buyer. I'm paying my agent. Why doesn't the buyer pay for his/hers?
*sigh* Y'all like it as it is and cannot see unfairness or fairness, only $$$.
Perhaps you should read the thread then. That isn't what I suggested at all. Not even in the ballpark.
Sorry, when I read the below I could have sworn you were knocking paying the commission that you agreed to pay. People complain yet they don't want to do the work themselves as a FSBO.
Quote:
Simply put, because if too many people did it, it would damage the controls of the real estate industry and threaten the jobs of Realtors. People might seek their own ways to sell their home instead of paying more than $21,000 total to two agents to sell a $350K house.
Yes, there have to be controls. I understand that. But when freedom is impinged to benefit a few, there is something wrong. One thousand dollars to get a buyer is a lot better than $21,000 - but what I was suggesting wasn't even to deny any of the $21,000 but to act totally outside of that parameter.
I am baffled by the critical responses - and all the critics are agents. Coincidence? *shrug*
I was not knocking you just recommending if you had a problem there are alternatives. Anyone who can correctly spell and use "Y'all" has to be a pretty good guy.
Just to confirm my interpretation of AZ law, I checked with my AZ broker, and here's what she said about compensating a friend for producing a buyer:
"If the friend is a licensee - then yes. Otherwise you must be licensed to accept compensation for producing a buyer."
The OP can fudge it anyway they want to get around this, but this is the law, not to mention possible violation of Federal RESPA reporting requirements.
The buyer agent works for the BUYER, not for me. The BUYER should pay the 3%.
Now if the BUYER agent works with me to get me what I want in the deal, that is a different matter. He/she is bringing a potential buyer not for ME but for his client. I benefit if the house sells for what I want, yes, but so does the buyer. I'm paying my agent. Why doesn't the buyer pay for his/hers?
*sigh* Y'all like it as it is and cannot see unfairness or fairness, only $$$.
Yes, the buyer agent works for the buyer and owes the buyer fiduciary duties. But it takes two parties to make a deal, and you are benefiting by getting your house sold.
You are paying your listing agent a total commission that then is split by your agent. Technically, you are not paying the buyer's agent commission, your agent is from their commission.
I'm not opposed to alternative buyer agent compensation models if they can be made to work. Lots of agents share your viewpoint. However, most buyers don't want to pay their agent when they can get "free" services by having the seller's listing agent pay.
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.
