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.
Yes. When the market was hot. Didn't take much to sell it either. FWIW, the ultimate buyer did come through and represented by another agent of Foxtons. It was an out of town buyer purchasing as investment.
I remember having them list my condo and it was 3%. If I remember correctly, they kept 2% and 1% goes to buyer agent. I had a few offers that wanted me to pay full buyer agent commission and I told them to get that from your buyer.
We never had any of their offices in this area, but I had read some articles about them. I thought it was the other way around that the listing side got 1% and the buyer's agent got 2%. I could be wrong though. Either way, it apparently didn't work for them.
Foxtons were all over the place where I was selling at that time (2005). I had actually purchased a SFH at the time through my Weichert realtor and was thinking of having her list it. I figured I give it a shot with Foxtons seeing their 3% advertisement and one of the office was literally down the street from my condo.
I actually pulled the contract out this evening. See attachment. I don't remember what 50 means.. but I think is referring to $50. It is definitely 1% buyer agent commission. I was getting Remax and Weichert agents asking for full commission for full asking price. My eventual buyer was represented by Foxtons (I think they were calling investors). In my closing sheet, it shows all 3% went to Foxtons.
In any case, it was about 40 days between me signing the listing agreement and closing. They worked fast and that was near the height of the market for condos in my area.
So you offer 1% to the buyer agent. Then the buyer makes up the rest of the commission to their agent...and then deducts what they are willing to pay for the home by that amount. But most buyers just pass because they don't have that extra amount in cash or they just don't like the situation. Limited market of buyers, same net. Not sure what that buys you.
So you offer 1% to the buyer agent. Then the buyer makes up the rest of the commission to their agent...and then deducts what they are willing to pay for the home by that amount. But most buyers just pass because they don't have that extra amount in cash or they just don't like the situation. Limited market of buyers, same net. Not sure what that buys you.
I think the situation in my case worked out to the way Foxtons had planned out. They sold my place using dual agency. Based on my listing agreement, it's clear that buyer agent may want their full commission. With only 3%, Foxtons goal was to "keep it in house". For whatever reasons, that model failed and collapsing of the RE market may pay a role.
Again.. I think it worked for me during that hype. Condos in my area basically double in value over a course of 4-5 years. Investors were jumping in from out of town.
I think the situation in my case worked out to the way Foxtons had planned out. They sold my place using dual agency. Based on my listing agreement, it's clear that buyer agent may want their full commission. With only 3%, Foxtons goal was to "keep it in house". For whatever reasons, that model failed and collapsing of the RE market may pay a role.
Keeping things "in house" as you called it is bad for the client, good for the brokerage. Eventually, people catch on and list with agents who will get them a higher sale price by not limiting the pool of potential buyers to just people working with their own brokerage. Again, I'm not familiar with Foxtons but if what you say is true I wouldn't doubt it contributed to them going out of business. Especially if all they sell are their own listings and they only get 3% total.
Don't forget, in addition to that 1.5% or whatever it is, you will also have to pay a buyers agent commission. Discount that too much and you won't get any showings.
And there you have it. Rumor had it that Foxtons failed exactly because the full-commission sales community (working as buyer reps) shunned any listing attached to Foxtons. That should be a clear warning to any buyer under the delusion that their agent is looking out for them.
Status:
"Made the Retirement Run in under 12 parsecs!!!"
(set 4 days ago)
Location: Cary, NC
43,074 posts, read 76,623,012 times
Reputation: 45393
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orion99
And there you have it. Rumor had it that Foxtons failed exactly because the full-commission sales community (working as buyer reps) shunned any listing attached to Foxtons. That should be a clear warning to any buyer under the delusion that their agent is looking out for them.
"Rumor had it...."
So, wise consumers should accept that as fact and "a clear warning?"
And there you have it. Rumor had it that Foxtons failed exactly because the full-commission sales community (working as buyer reps) shunned any listing attached to Foxtons. That should be a clear warning to any buyer under the delusion that their agent is looking out for them.
We see some real stretches on here from time to time. This one ranks pretty high.
Restated: "Full service agents caused Foxtons to fail because they wouldn't show their listings." To then make the further assumption "Full service brokers don't look out for the clients because Foxton's failed." is where it goes over the top.
Ironic and a stark contrast to the constant statement "I found all the homes I went to see." we get from many buyers here.
Maybe Foxton's failed because they relied on high volume of sales and when the market slowed their income no longer covered their budget? The model is difficult at best to sustain in a buyer market. Most people don't realize how expensive it is not only to be an agent but to run a company.
I actually did not write that first part accurately, so thanks for the correction. I don't know exactly how much business they lost because of that sort of behavior, in the grand scheme of business costs. The rumor was a casual mention by a local agent that those listings are intentionally ignored. I say rumor because I never observed him in the act of intentionally leaving off a good fit for his buyer because of a reduced commission. I had to take his word for it. But then again, I'm sure I found the one, solitary agent in the US who factored the payoff in deciding what exists in inventory. (I could say 'factors' because he is still in business, but who knows) I'm sure nobody here would ever dream of doing this. Edit: He is the broker.
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.
