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 think a listing agent, even if willing to reduce commission on a two sided deal, shouldn't be expected to handle the buyers side for free. Most sellers wouldn't expect them to and many wouldn't allow it. I've seen my clients get riled up when the other party made a suggestion to cut my pay to benefit them. Asking for your adversary's agent's pay could backfire on you.
I think a listing agent, even if willing to reduce commission on a two sided deal, shouldn't be expected to handle the buyers side for free. Most sellers wouldn't expect them to and many wouldn't allow it. I've seen my clients get riled up when the other party made a suggestion to cut my pay to benefit them. Asking for your adversary's agent's pay could backfire on you.
The rationale we have seen here in the past is that the listing agent has duty to the seller to sell the joint, so handling any buyer documents, inspections, appraisals, contractor visits for the buyer may as well be "Free" or the agent is a bad fiduciary to the seller.
I think a listing agent, even if willing to reduce commission on a two sided deal, shouldn't be expected to handle the buyers side for free. Most sellers wouldn't expect them to and many wouldn't allow it. I've seen my clients get riled up when the other party made a suggestion to cut my pay to benefit them. Asking for your adversary's agent's pay could backfire on you.
Two points. First, I am fairly certain it has backfired on me, but I don't get emotional about things. This is just math and money. Second, I am not actually suggesting a cut in pay, but I am suggesting a little more leg work on your side. If you came back and pointed out it was going to cause you additional work, I would be willing to go down to 2% or something like.
The rationale we have seen here in the past is that the listing agent has duty to the seller to sell the joint, so handling any buyer documents, inspections, appraisals, contractor visits for the buyer may as well be "Free" or the agent is a bad fiduciary to the seller.
I actually don't take that position. I have heard it, but disagree. No one should be expected to just eat it and do additional work. If someone made that point to me and said they wanted 4% (6%-2%) because of the extra work, I wouldn't have a problem. I am not asking anyone to work for free.
Two points. First, I am fairly certain it has backfired on me, but I don't get emotional about things. This is just math and money. Second, I am not actually suggesting a cut in pay, but I am suggesting a little more leg work on your side. If you came back and pointed out it was going to cause you additional work, I would be willing to go down to 2% or something like.
First point; emotion has nothing to do with it. The only reason you're making the offer is because you want the property. Best to structure the offer in a manner that is most likely to succeed. Math, money and psychology.
Second point; In that case, I might suggest to my seller that I would take a reduced commission to make the deal work, but not a full half since I'd be doing the work of two agents. Of course, then your comparison of the two offers being $980 apart would throw the advantage to the other.
Having been in this business many years, I've seen many deals happen because the agents were willing to reduce commission. It almost always happens because one or both the agents decide to concede rather than lose the deal. When a buyer suggests a pay cut, it's usually received like an elevator fart. You may have greater success leaving it up to the agent to consider a cut when she sees a chance to get 4 or 5% rather than making it a condition of your offer.
Sorry, I will be clear. It would be the second one. Or, alternatively you could achieve approximately the same net result with a 97K sales price and a 3.0928% commission.
Right, but a listing agent (or, more correctly, their brokerage) already has an agreed-upon contractually obligated commission; the seller is paying 6% regardless, so your "rebate" doesn't necessarily make your offer more attractive, and, since I have no agency duty to you, I have no obligation to actually grant you your request for a share of my earned commission. My refusal to alter an already agreed-upon, and legally binding, contract does not mean I'm necessarily violating my fiduciary duty to my client.
Fair enough. Sellers will take all sorts of things into consideration and I am in no place to judge them on their reasoning. If they are happy netting less money to spite me, that is their right as the owner of the home. All I am asking is that their Realtor tell them about my offer. I will let human nature sort out the rest.
See my reply to Mike 3 posts up. That is what I am talking about. I just want the seller calling the shots, not the Realtor.
I don't know where you buy and sell property, but where I'm licensed (and I'm fairly certain this applies to most of the US) I am legally required to present any and all offers to my client; failure to do so can result in the loss of my license. Furthermore, it is always the seller's decision as to which offer to go with; it's not the agent's duty to decide for the client.
Two points. First, I am fairly certain it has backfired on me, but I don't get emotional about things. This is just math and money. Second, I am not actually suggesting a cut in pay, but I am suggesting a little more leg work on your side. If you came back and pointed out it was going to cause you additional work, I would be willing to go down to 2% or something like.
By demanding half of the commission, and asking the seller's agent to do work for you, is exactly suggesting a cut in pay. Aside from the fact that by doing what you request, I am then actually violating my fiduciary duty to my seller, by creating a dual agency situation wherein I can't really fully advocate for either side... what you propose is also forcing me to do more work than I was originally contracted to do (by working on both sides of the deal) and receiving half the fee i was originally contracted to have been paid. How you can quantify that as anything other than a cut in pay is a form of mental gymnastics that is standing-ovation worthy. Lastly, your rationale is coming across as your trying to determine my pay based upon how much you feel I work, which is somewhat ridiculous and condescending; if I were to come to your place of employment and tell you I was taking half your salary because I felt you didn't work hard enough, how would that make you feel?
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.
