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.
And that 3% discount will be soooooo worth it when you don't have your own agent representing your best interests in what is likely to be the largest single purchase of your life.
OP, think of it this way. I'm not sure what you do for a living, or whether you're paid on commission or by salary. But let's say salary, a salary that you negotiated with your boss to be paid, and let's say you work for a boss who has customers. Suppose you are doing your job, and customer comes in and says to your boss, I want to buy what you're selling, but I want you to take away half of over here's salary and give it to me so I can do it without spending as much". "This guy over here" being you. Is that the right thing, the ethical thing, for the customer to do?
Does that make it more clear to you what you're asking if you can do? Sure, you can ask, and you might even find a listing agent who will agree to it. But does that make it right?
This has been hashed out here over and over again. There is a huge difference in your scenario and in real-estate. In real-estate you are simply a middle man - its common in all industries to cut out the middleman. The middleman adds cost to every transaction, in some instances, they are able to save you money while adding cost because of their vast knowledge, skills, leverage, etc.
If your knowledge of the market is able to negotiate a price better than the person could negotiate on their own and pay a commission, then you earned your keep. If the person can do it on their own, and do the same, or similar job, then the middle man did nothing more than add cost to the transaction. I do not think it is unethical in any way to ask for a commission back if you are unrepresented. The industry norm is for a commission that is split between two agents, a buyers and a sellers, the public KNOWS this. They believe that if they do not utilize the skills of someone on their side, the price should be lowered. Its not unreasonable, only agents/brokers find this to be unreasonable or unethical.
My opinion on this has not changed at all since I got my license. I still think this is something in real-estate that needs to change.
marksmu, how long have you been licensed to sell real estate, and how many transactions do you have under your belt since getting that license that are for anyone other than family and friends?
I think of it like this. Offer whatever you think is fair. If you think it is fair to include a 3% (or whatever %) discount in to your offer because you don't have an agent then do so. The rest will work itself out without you having to "ask" for a discount or a rebate or anything like that.
The other problem with asking for a discount is you have no idea how low the seller is willing to go in the first place. How do you really know you are getting whatever discount you are asking for unless you don't even bring the issue up until you have settled on a price?
And that 3% discount will be soooooo worth it when you don't have your own agent representing your best interests in what is likely to be the largest single purchase of your life.
I don't understand what you are implying. The "buyer's agent" is paid his customary 3% by the seller's agent, and works on commission. He doesn't represent the buyer's best interests. The name "buyer's agent" seems like a misnomer.
I don't understand what you are implying. The "buyer's agent" is paid his customary 3% by the seller's agent, and works on commission. He doesn't represent the buyer's best interests. The name "buyer's agent" seems like a misnomer.
That's simply because you don't understand how it works. Back when we bought our current place (almost 20 years ago), before I was an agent, we had one of the first buyer's agents in our area because it was a new concept. It was invaluable to have someone on our side, and he truly WAS on our side. Before then, all agents represented the seller's interests, by law, but buyers often thought that the agent they were working with was representing their, the buyer's, interests.
With the buyer's agent system, the buyer's agent is contractually and legally bound to represent the buyer's interests. Yeah, yeah, I know, the old "but the buyer's agent will make more money if they talk the buyer into paying more". However, if you have a clue about commission structure and commission splits and do the math, you'll quickly find that that doesn't wash, because the difference in most cases (excluding the really high end properties which most agents don't handle) is a matter of a very few hundred dollars at most, and the potential loss in having an unhappy client after one deal can be many, MANY times that.
So, your lack of understanding of the system encourages you to pass on that lack of understanding and the misconception that the buyer's agent does not represent the buyer's interests over not only the seller's, but over their own. Or they can lose not only any hope of future deals and income, but their license.
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.
