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 teach at a University in the Sciences: I monitor PhD Canidates;I was recently a SELLER, I understood completely it is not complicated:
Buyer came to an Open House
Buyer asked you to show house
Buyer may now want to hire a non-dual agent to rep them
As a seller, in this market - Do not blow the deal or you are fired!
I wanted my house sold at the best price possible in the shortest amount of time with the least drama!!
And showing one's listing(s) to interested/qualified Buyers who have not yet made representation choices is the duty of a listing Realtor to his/her Seller(s).
And showing one's listing(s) to interested/qualified Buyers who have not yet made representation choices is the duty of a listing Realtor to his/her Seller(s).
This is the work ethic of a Professional Realtor and someone a Seller would Love to Hire!!
Please read my original post again as you seem to have understood very little about the situation and what I said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EducationNeverEnds
I teach at a University in the Sciences: I monitor PhD Canidates;I was recently a SELLER, I understood completely it is not complicated:
Buyer came to an Open House
Buyer asked you to show house
Buyer may now want to hire a non-dual agent to rep them
As a seller, in this market - Do not blow the deal or you are fired!
I wanted my house sold at the best price possible in the shortest amount of time with the least drama!!
I tend to agree with LawoftheLand that some are misreading the OP. Law does not want dual agency and is not interested in keeping the extra commission. Law just wants to know if a way to save the seller some $ by reducing the buyer agent commission and passing on the savings. As I responded, that won't work unless both brokers agree (unlikely), or the MLS commission is reduced before the offer is placed.
One suggestion given by others is to refer to another agent and collect a referral fee, which also does not address the intent of the OP to reduce the seller's commission hit.
I tend to agree with LawoftheLand that some are misreading the OP. Law does not want dual agency and is not interested in keeping the extra commission. Law just wants to know if a way to save the seller some $ by reducing the buyer agent commission and passing on the savings. As I responded, that won't work unless both brokers agree (unlikely), or the MLS commission is reduced before the offer is placed.
One suggestion given by others is to refer to another agent and collect a referral fee, which also does not address the intent of the OP to reduce the seller's commission hit.
Very good points,RJRCM
But he already advertised % for co broker!
I do not think OP is thinking of the "entire" selling process in the best interest of the Seller and his Broker. Once he places property on the MLS with commission %, he has advertised fees - he must honor once a buyer has viewed the home under said conditions.
Viewing at an open house is not binding, did they sign anything stating relationship? Not in writing, no proof.
It would not be worth filing a grievance (it would never hold up, Broker would probably not back you) and by that time you did get a review; you would have most probably lost the buyer and PO'd your Seller.
Would the commission hit really be worth the loss of the sale: that would then be irrelevant as there would be zero commission; zero seller profit as there would be risk of No Sale.
All I am saying is - It would not be worth it!! IMHO
Bad Business - Bad Customer Service Is No Repeat Business.
...Once he places property on the MLS with commission %, he has advertised fees - he must honor once a buyer has viewed the home under said conditions....
Actually, that may depend on the rules of the local MLS. For example, in our MLS, the compenstation may be changed at any time with sufficient notice up until an offer is produced:
From our MLS rules:
Quote:
...This shall not preclude the Listing Participant from offering any Participant compensation other than the compensation indicated on his/her Listings as published by ARMLS provided the Listing Participant informs the Participant in writing before the Participant produces an offer to purchase ...
So, in following this rule, the OP could change the buyer agent commission provided it is done in writing before the agent submits an offer. However, as you noted, it may annoy both the agent and buyer sufficiently to cause harm to the negotiation.
I'm representing a seller where a very-interested buyer has no agent involved, but there is no written offer yet. The buyer 1st attended my public Open House which they found advertised on-line. The buyer later arranged a 2nd private showing directly with me.
If the buyer hires an agent at this point, is my client obligated to pay the full "buyer's agent" commission or is this now negotiable since that agent didn't procure the buyer? Just to be clear, I refuse to do dual agency representation and don't mind the additional work if a buyer really wants to stay unrepresented. But if a buyer brings in an agent "late", this looks like a great opportunity to save my seller-client big $$$ if I can lower the commission for the non-procuring buyer's agent.
Your thoughts?
From what I can tell by reading this post, NO ONE has "procured" a buyer. Since there's no offer in place, this buyer is just a prospect at this point. Please review the definition of "procuring cause" with your broker. In order for this to happen, someone (you or another agent) needs to convert this prospect into a contracted buyer. Then, there will be a procuring cause.
Honestly, this buyer may think he is gonna save some money, too, by coming directly to the seller's agent for reducing the purchase price. And, what you're wanting to do is save your seller some money. Sorry, they both can't do that, unless you don't want to get paid.
I hope my response helps you. Sorry if I missed the point, too.
Education and Life....you guys misinterpreted the post. Law is simply asking a question about procuring cause (Who is entitled to the commission?). In the event the buyer hires an agent who then writes an offer, the agent that wrote the offer is procuring cause regardless of the buyer coming to an open house and viewing the home with the agent. There is a broken chain of events when the buyer goes to another agent and writes the offer. I'd hope that agent took the buyer back to the property first at least, but IMO they are still the "procuring cause".
No need to jump his case, you guys read the post wrong.
Education and Life....you guys misinterpreted the post. Law is simply asking a question about procuring cause (Who is entitled to the commission?). In the event the buyer hires an agent who then writes an offer, the agent that wrote the offer is procuring cause regardless of the buyer coming to an open house and viewing the home with the agent. There is a broken chain of events when the buyer goes to another agent and writes the offer. I'd hope that agent took the buyer back to the property first at least, but IMO they are still the "procuring cause".
No need to jump his case, you guys read the post wrong.
The OP states that he took them back for a second showing and then they wrote an offer with another agent. Tha agent never showed the property.
...If the buyer hires an agent at this point, is my client obligated to pay the full "buyer's agent" commission or is this now negotiable since that agent didn't procure the buyer? Just to be clear, I refuse to do dual agency representation and don't mind the additional work if a buyer really wants to stay unrepresented. But if a buyer brings in an agent "late", this looks like a great opportunity to save my seller-client big $$$ if I can lower the commission for the non-procuring buyer's agent.
Your thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by byoak
The OP states that he took them back for a second showing and then they wrote an offer with another agent. Tha agent never showed the property.
It's interesting to see different interpretations of the same post . Appears the OP was speculating on options if the buyer brought their own agent, but had not done so yet.
Thanks to everyone who weighed in on the discussion. Brandon, EricBoyd and rjrcm best understood my post. The idea of reducing the buyer's agent commission before a written offer is an interesting one. BTW, the prospective buyer has chosen NOT to be represented by any agent and will use a real estate attorney to submit an offer.
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.
. Appears the OP was speculating on options if the buyer brought their own agent, but had not done so yet.
