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.
Is the commission set in stone that you agree to when you sign a listing?
At closing if it ends up that either the buyer or seller is short some money can the Agent reduce their commission to make the deal?
My Agent is representing both sides and coming out with $10,000. Would it be unfair to have him reduce that if needed to close the deal?
I've been told it can't be done but I think someone is being greedy?
Thanks for any input!
You agreed to the contract and agreed to dual agency so you have no room to complain now. Basically the agent found a buyer and is working both sides of teh deal and your mad he's making a pretty penny so you want him to take lessmoney?
Part of the money he gets goes to his agency or office nad they probably wouldn't want to deal. Honestly if the deal were going to fall through over a grand he would probably give it back to you to make it work out but you have no reason to complain and no bargaining room on commission.
That said had you said something up front commission is totally negotiable. Seems standard is 2.5-3.0 for each side. I rencelty listed my house and plan on working with the realtor in the future so he said he'd give the other agent 2.5 otherwise nobody wants to show people your house if they stand to make less. He is only going to take 1.3%. If he finds the buyer he wont take both sides he'll just take the sellers 2.5% and leave me the other 1.3% so as you can see its totally negotiabel. ALso I'm considering buying a flip so if I do and buy it from him he'll sell it for me for nothing.
Totally negotiable but you cant negotiate after the fact.How would you like it if at the closing table your realtor tells you the house didnt sell for as much as he anticipated so he now wants 10%?
Thanks for the replies! I really do appreciate it.
Looks like with incorrect payoff info and some unexpected other things, there might be a $2,000 shortage. I was hoping the Agent would help since he's doing better than anyone in the deal! I was told that isn't done but now I know it can be done but he doesn't have to.
It's not that I don't want him to make double commission, I've just put in all I'm able to
[quote=jamaicabound60565;15303854]You agreed to the contract and agreed to dual agency so you have no room to complain now. Basically the agent found a buyer and is working both sides of teh deal and your mad he's making a pretty penny so you want him to take lessmoney?
I don't know what you mean. I'm not mad. The deal is going to fall thru over $2,000 after I already put in $5,000 more than I was going to have to and I think the Agent could take a little less to help the deal go thru.
The Agent didn't even find the Buyer, I did but that isn't even the issue.
When everyone else is negotiating (Buyer and myself) and we've done as much as we can do, then why not have the Agent take $2,000 off of his $10,000 commission instead of canceling the whole deal.
There's no honest way to get the highest price for the seller and lowest price for the buyer at the same time - that's not even considering negotiations of concessions which could change the bottom line drastically.
.
That statement is true of every real estate transaction, whether dual agency or full representation. Or frankly, with no agents involved.
Could have omitted "...honest..."
There is just no way, with one sales price, regardless of agent count, that it is both the highest and the lowest.
It is only repeated by folks who think the dual agent is "representing both parties."
Of course, dual agency is not representation of anyone. It is facilitating the transaction, fairly and honestly, favoring neither party.
Two real caveats on dual agency:
1. The restriction on guidance that either party may receive from the agent, and the possiblility that the playing field cannot be leveled if one party is much more knowledgeable than the other.
2. Doubt from a party regarding favoritism from an inept or unethical agent can cast a real shadow on the proceedings.
One Buyer strategy is to only call Listing Agents and only proceed in Dual agency to tie the agent's hands. For some Buyers who are very knowledgeable, this may handicap the Seller, who cannot obtain advice and guidance from the agent.
I.e., force dual agency to try to gain an advantage over the other party.
I have referred a client out of the office to receive full representation.
I have only closed one transaction where I received both sides. And, I believe that with another agent involved, that one may have not closed. It was odd.
And, I have been in transactions where I had wished I was the only agent because of my ethical concerns or observation of obvious ineptitude on the other side.
The dual agency system isn't inherently bad or wrong. People can decide to make things hard.
When everyone else is negotiating (Buyer and myself) and we've done as much as we can do, then why not have the Agent take $2,000 off of his $10,000 commission instead of canceling the whole deal.
Just curious where you would draw the line in your thinking. What if it was $4,000. Or $6,000?
You agreed to the contract and agreed to dual agency so you have no room to complain now. Basically the agent found a buyer and is working both sides of teh deal and your mad he's making a pretty penny so you want him to take lessmoney?
I don't know what you mean. I'm not mad. The deal is going to fall thru over $2,000 after I already put in $5,000 more than I was going to have to and I think the Agent could take a little less to help the deal go thru.
The Agent didn't even find the Buyer, I did but that isn't even the issue.
When everyone else is negotiating (Buyer and myself) and we've done as much as we can do, then why not have the Agent take $2,000 off of his $10,000 commission instead of canceling the whole deal.
If you are the seller and under full legal and executed contract with a buyer, you can't just terminate the contract because you are short the funds. They could sue you in most cases for performance and damages.
If you are short some cash, better talk to mom, dad, the credit union or whoever to come up with the shortage.
If you are the seller and under full legal and executed contract with a buyer, you can't just terminate the contract because you are short the funds. They could sue you in most cases for performance and damages.
If you are short some cash, better talk to mom, dad, the credit union or whoever to come up with the shortage.
That statement is true of every real estate transaction, whether dual agency or full representation. Or frankly, with no agents involved.
Could have omitted "...honest..."
There is just no way, with one sales price, regardless of agent count, that it is both the highest and the lowest.
It is only repeated by folks who think the dual agent is "representing both parties."
Of course, dual agency is not representation of anyone. It is facilitating the transaction, fairly and honestly, favoring neither party.
Two real caveats on dual agency:
1. The restriction on guidance that either party may receive from the agent, and the possiblility that the playing field cannot be leveled if one party is much more knowledgeable than the other.
2. Doubt from a party regarding favoritism from an inept or unethical agent can cast a real shadow on the proceedings.
One Buyer strategy is to only call Listing Agents and only proceed in Dual agency to tie the agent's hands. For some Buyers who are very knowledgeable, this may handicap the Seller, who cannot obtain advice and guidance from the agent.
I.e., force dual agency to try to gain an advantage over the other party.
I have referred a client out of the office to receive full representation.
I have only closed one transaction where I received both sides. And, I believe that with another agent involved, that one may have not closed. It was odd.
And, I have been in transactions where I had wished I was the only agent because of my ethical concerns or observation of obvious ineptitude on the other side.
The dual agency system isn't inherently bad or wrong. People can decide to make things hard.
I get your general point, plus we've gone back and forth quite a bit - DMed each other several times... I know your general philosophy when it comes to RE and would consider someone like you for dual agency. But, I just think that's the exception rather then the rule. Not all agents are created equal.
In the end, we all want to feel we got the "better deal"... that the other side "gave up more". It's an unfortunate emotion involved in buying a home. Dual agency increases the likelihood of issues here.
It's funny - I actually considered using the buying strategy you mentioned... "tying the seller's hands". But, frankly considering the amount of homes I'll end up walking through and coordinating showings it's not worth it overall. I'd hate to use a buyer's agent for only part of the process. I'd rather "interview" perspective buyer's agents during the search process and choose the one who showed me the property I will eventually offer on.
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.
