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.
I'm not speaking for anyone other than myself...but I can say after reading the first paragraph...and the first sentence of the second paragraph. THANK YOU for working on your own and NOT making a miserable experience for a fellow agent. Also, commission is none of your business. Do I have a say in what you're paid? No! Same concept my friend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedphrak
...trying to bring down the matrix.
I am attempting to buy a home without having a real estate agent. I see little value in one because I found the property, can negotiate on my own, and also have a real estate lawyer. Oh and I can also pay in cash, moving things quickly along.
But without my own agent, the seller's agent would receive the full 6% of the commission and that doesn't sit well with me. It burdens the seller with charging a higher price (just to pay the agent) and potentially drives up the tax value too.
I coached the seller on trying to negotiate a lower commission with her agent since but her agent said no and that such a thing was unheard of. But I am not giving up yet and am considering various strategies:
1. Make an offer that states in its conditions that the agent halve her rate to the seller. My theory is that the agent, seeing how quickly she could make some money (the house has only been on the market a few weeks) just might go for it.
2. Find an agent who will represent me for a flat fee and reimburse me the entire commission amount, which I could either keep or even offer to the buyer. If you know an agent in the Triangle who would do this, PM me.
Oh, and please don't bother responding at all only to tell me that agents deserve every penny they make (never more? never less?), or that I'm not paying for the buyer agent anyway, or any other plausible sounding fallacies. Please save those for the weak minded or, better yet, tell the truth.
It seems wrong for the seller agent to make more than the seller for a weeks worth of work.
You don't know what the seller is making and quite frankly it's none of your business. Get a price you're happy with and forget the rest because it's irrelevant to your goals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedphrak
It seems wrong to go find an agent for myself who will make $6,000 for five hours of actual work.
You don't know how many hours of work will go into the deal until it's closed. Also, the agent splits that with the company and then has to pay taxes and such out of it. Regardless of how much you know, a good agent will be far more experienced and knowledgeable than you. You're paying for that knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedphrak
Shouldn't an agent who is truly looking out for the seller be happy to make less commission when there is no buyer agent to pay?
If there is no buyer agent, that is between the seller and list agent. What they do is none of your business. They have a contract that is independent of your contract.
Quote:
Originally Posted by speedphrak
I
And what does it mean to let my emotions get the better of me? Just as well to say I am letting my conscience get the better of me, or that I am in danger of having sympathy for the seller. So be it. But it is dangerous to disregard emotions — they are simply the body's response to the thoughts of the mind.
Please, your conscience has nothing to do with it. You expect the commission to go into your pocket one way or another. Might as well be honest about it.
I'm not a lawyer but be careful. The seller and his agent have a CONTRACTUAL Agreement And you could be slapped with a lawsuit for interference in a contract.
The listing broker charges their fees and the seller agreed to pay requardless where the buyer comes from. If you interfered with my business agreements I would tend to be pretty upset and would consult our attorney
Nonsense. He's not doing anything that comes close to the level of tortious/intentional interference with business expectancy (which is the cause of action that's most closely relevant). On the one hand, he's tried to encourage the seller to convince the agent to reduce her commission. Sure, there's a contract, but there's no reason its terms can't be renegotiated. And there's no reason he can't encourage the seller to do so.
Alternately, he's proposed making an offer contingent on the agent receiving a lower commission. Though I don't think that's wise, it's also not illegal. The agent still has a contractual agreement, and it's the agent's choice whether or not to accept the reduced commission. Here too there's nothing illegal taking place.
What would be illegal is going behind the agent's back and having the buyer and seller consummate a deal privately. But that's not taking place here.
I certainly understand that real estate is a tough business for REALTORs, especially today. And I thought the 3% I paid to my REALTOR when I sold my condo (plus 3% to buyer's agent) was money well spent. But where a knowledgeable buyer is working without an agent, I don't understand why the business model is such that the selling agent gets twice as much money. The fact that the buyer has an agent doesn't mean that the process will go more smoothly, but that's assumed to be the case by the fee structure. And it sets up an economic incentive for the selling agent to steer the seller towards an unrepresented buyer, all else being equal, particularly where the selling agent's costs have risen due to a long time on the market. At some point you think there'd be some real innovation in the real estate sales market, but besides some nibbling at the edges there hasn't been much.
Nonsense. He's not doing anything that comes close to the level of tortious/intentional interference with business expectancy (which is the cause of action that's most closely relevant). On the one hand, he's tried to encourage the seller to convince the agent to reduce her commission. Sure, there's a contract, but there's no reason its terms can't be renegotiated. And there's no reason he can't encourage the seller to do so.
Alternately, he's proposed making an offer contingent on the agent receiving a lower commission. Though I don't think that's wise, it's also not illegal. The agent still has a contractual agreement, and it's the agent's choice whether or not to accept the reduced commission. Here too there's nothing illegal taking place.
What would be illegal is going behind the agent's back and having the buyer and seller consummate a deal privately. But that's not taking place here.
I certainly understand that real estate is a tough business for REALTORs, especially today. And I thought the 3% I paid to my REALTOR when I sold my condo (plus 3% to buyer's agent) was money well spent. But where a knowledgeable buyer is working without an agent, I don't understand why the business model is such that the selling agent gets twice as much money. The fact that the buyer has an agent doesn't mean that the process will go more smoothly, but that's assumed to be the case by the fee structure. And it sets up an economic incentive for the selling agent to steer the seller towards an unrepresented buyer, all else being equal, particularly where the selling agent's costs have risen due to a long time on the market. At some point you think there'd be some real innovation in the real estate sales market, but besides some nibbling at the edges there hasn't been much.
end thread hijack...
The strongest thing the classic model has going for it is the illusion that by financing in the buyers' agent split in the cost of the property, the seller pays all fees.
Consumers absolutely LOVE illusion.
Further, with the bulk of buyers failing to have cash to pay an agent, they have little choice but to embrace the classic model.
They MUST roll the bulk of their costs into the price and financing.
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.
CT agent
