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.
Yeah, I had one of those try that recently. Lost out to client with an agent who negotiated a good deal for he client. Agent knew the comps, new the house was priced right and didn't fiddle faddle around.... The buyer who thought they could *save* the commission lost out. Oh well... and he had lost out at least 2 times before he tried with us.
Actually gretchen the op is not working with a buyer's agent and does not want to work with one. the op is looking for the seller's agent to "give back" part of the commission percentage that was negotiated and agreed upon between seller and seller's agent. the other option is using a discount broker with one of those funky offers.
OIC - I took the OP's Option #2 to mean they'd hire one of "those" companies that offers a rebate to the buyer (regardless of who the home is listed with).
I think a number of us covered Option #1 in depth in another thread. I think most savvy listing agents are totally willing to do that with an unrepresented buyer. That's like sending some street punk up against a heavyweight boxing champion. 2% savings??? That listing agent is going to negotiate a price that will more than cover his 2% commission reduction!
Lorriem - no you won't have to pay an agent to find you a house, unless you choose to hire a buyers agent that requires you to do so. Very few buyers agents will do that, but there are a few. As you mentioned, the commission is customarily paid exclusively by the seller.
What the folks here are talking about is asking a buyers agent to take part of his commission (the co-broke) that he gets at closing from the sellers proceeds, and to rebate part of that to his client, the buyer.
Some agents/companies are doing that. Some of these agents/companies are of the "find it yourself/negotiate it yourself" type. You're pretty much on your own to negotiate the best deal and followup during the inspection/repair and escrow process. Based on the amount of work and level of representation and service these agents/companies offer, they should offer some sort of compensation to their customers.
Thank you Gretchen
I knew that there was buyers agents but I had never heard of paying them.After reading that post I thought boy did we get lucky never having to pay our agents anything unless we were the seller. I have been on City-fourm most of the day and then looking at the pictures of the three homes we might buy and I am getting so confused. Been up since 6 cleaning the house also oon the off chance we might have someone come and look at the house also.
okay, what if this op offered an amount of money say 400,000 for a house .. he has no representation. the seller's real estate agent reduces his/her commission by say 2%. So the price he pays is 400,000 less 2%. Can't the realtor do this legally? I thought that is what the op was trying to say (i'm prob. wrong, though lol).
It actually depends on the state. There is a company called BuySide Realty that will rebate 75% of the buyers commission back to you. This is cash in hand after closing (actually a check 2 weeks later). The company operates in 5 states including mine (GA). Also, it is not considered taxable income.
Thanks for the suggestion. I couldn't tell whether they work in Texas, so I called them, and they said they don't (only six states, so far).
I did find another agent, here in Texas, who advertises a 2% rebate, so I'll call her next.
Buyside actually offers more than what I was hoping to get, so it's too bad they don't work here - yet.
Quote:
Yeah, I had one of those try that recently. Lost out to client with an agent who negotiated a good deal for he client. Agent knew the comps, new the house was priced right and didn't fiddle faddle around.... The buyer who thought they could *save* the commission lost out. Oh well... and he had lost out at least 2 times before he tried with us.
Shelly
Shelly, 2% of a $200K house is $4000.
So it's worth it to me to shop around.
Heck, I spend more time than that shopping for a phone, and there's no way I can save $4K on a telephone.
Actually gretchen the op is not working with a buyer's agent and does not want to work with one. the op is looking for the seller's agent to "give back" part of the commission percentage that was negotiated and agreed upon between seller and seller's agent. the other option is using a discount broker with one of those funky offers.
You've re-framed the question well, surfingatwork.
Here's one issue the op faces: the op is not a party to the legal contract between the listing agency (Real Estate Brokerage firm) and the seller.
OIC - I took the OP's Option #2 to mean they'd hire one of "those" companies that offers a rebate to the buyer (regardless of who the home is listed with).
I think a number of us covered Option #1 in depth in another thread. I think most savvy listing agents are totally willing to do that with an unrepresented buyer. That's like sending some street punk up against a heavyweight boxing champion. 2% savings??? That listing agent is going to negotiate a price that will more than cover his 2% commission reduction!
No, he's not.
What I am worried about, is that he may sabotage negotiations with the seller, since I'm forced to use him as an intermediary. If I wasn't worried about it, I'd offer him the 4%, and proceed without a buyer's agent. Which is what I'd rather do. But since I am worried about it, I think it's safer to get the buyer's agent, and negotiate with him. I know how sanctimonious agents are about the number 6.
The seller's agent is no Mike Tyson, and I am not a "punk." The dude is not even a particularly good salesman. Even my wife doesn't like him, and she's as naive and trusting as the day is long.
A real estate transaction is nothing like a phone purchase! It is a legal transaction involving multiple parties (lender, escrow, title etc.) and usually hundreds of thousands of dollars. For most people real estate represents the biggest financial asset they have. Why someone would choose not be properly represented is beyond me. I suppose there are buyers who'll forgo a home inspection in order to save the $500.
The fact that it is a major purchase is the reason it's so important to be educated about the process, to do your homework, and to shop around. Especially considering that you're conducting a transaction in which the people agents encourage you to rely on - agents - have a financial interest that is contrary to your own.
For example: agents who recommend a particular home inspector, because they know he's is unlikely to find problems that might slow the transaction down.
Or agents who encourage buyers to think that representation is "free," because it's hidden in the price of the home.
What I am worried about, is that he may sabotage negotiations with the seller, since I'm forced to use him as an intermediary. If I wasn't worried about it, I'd offer him the 4%, and proceed without a buyer's agent. Which is what I'd rather do. But since I am worried about it, I think it's safer to get the buyer's agent, and negotiate with him. I know how sanctimonious agents are about the number 6.
The seller's agent is no Mike Tyson, and I am not a "punk." The dude is not even a particularly good salesman. Even my wife doesn't like him, and she's as naive and trusting as the day is long.
It sounds like you're an experienced negotiator, know home prices in the area like the back of your hand, and are pretty sure the listing agent is a bozo. So go for it if you want. My suggestion, though, is to just leave the whole commission issue out of it, since you're not party to the contract between the seller and his agent. Just negotiate the net price you want. Period. Why mess with two negotiation processes when one will work?
In other words - say the house is priced at $300k. You don't want to spend more than $270k for the house. You could either negotiate the price to $270k and be done with it, or negotiate the price to $275,500 and then negotiate the extra 2% commission rebate. Doesn't it make more sense to just negotiate what you want to pay for the house, and let the seller decide if he wants to try to get his agent to reduce the commission he pays?
I don't know - just seems like you're taking the more difficult route, here.
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.
