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.
The agent refuses neither. The agent is an "agent," not a "principal."
With an agent acting in the clients' best interest, the clients make the decisions to accept, reject, counter. Every time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jswanstr
Right, so you have an obligation to show both offers to the client. Right? Then what happens.
"...the clients make the decisions to accept, reject, counter. Every time."
That is about as clear as I can say it.
"...the clients make the decisions to accept, reject, counter. Every time."
That is about as clear as I can say it.
I am not arguing that. But you, as a Realtor, with a contract with your client for 6%, are not technically obligated to agree to a 3% rebate, but since you have to explain it all to your client, you know your client would lose his marbles if you suggested he should net less so you could keep the whole 6% when that is not what would happen if the same offer came through another Realtor.
Just to be clear... If you had a listing for 100k and you had two offers.
1) An offer for 100k from me, with a 3% rebate.
2) An offer through another Realtor for 99k where you have to pay the other Realtor 3%.
Do you refuse 1?
Is that acting in the best interest of your client?
I am not asking you to earn less than you would with another Realtor. I am just asking you to treat me the same. Refusing to do so would not be acting in your client's best interest.
Well, it's not up to the agent to decide what offer to take; we just present all offers and the client decides.
That being said, offer #1 isn't going to net you your 3%; an agent is under no obligation to provide you any part of an agreed-upon commission. Asking me to treat you the same as a licensed agent is, and provide you the same consideration (i.e. money) for services rendered for the purposes of a real estate transaction is, for starters, illegal in most states; but furthermore, for the purposes of agency, an agent not sharing an agreed-upon commission with an unrepresented, unlicensed buyer in no way violates the agent's fiduciary duty to their client. In your scenario, the seller is paying a 6% commission either way; my deciding with whom to share it with, if I did at all, has no bearing whatsoever towards my duties to my client.
I am not arguing that. But you, as a Realtor, with a contract with your client for 6%, are not technically obligated to agree to a 3% rebate, but since you have to explain it all to your client, you know your client would lose his marbles if you suggested he should net less so you could keep the whole 6% when that is not what would happen if the same offer came through another Realtor.
I don't buy anything after "I am not arguing that." It is conjecture and uninteresting conjecture at that.
But, in multiple offer situation, I might advise my client to request a "best and final" from the parties and see where that led us.
I am not arguing that. But you, as a Realtor, with a contract with your client for 6%, are not technically obligated to agree to a 3% rebate, but since you have to explain it all to your client, you know your client would lose his marbles if you suggested he should net less so you could keep the whole 6% when that is not what would happen if the same offer came through another Realtor.
That's not a rebate; that's an offer where you're stipulating the commission be lowered from it's already-agreed upon amount and the difference applied to the sales price. So, no $$$ ends up in your pocket.
It largely depends on your local market. I started with an agent a few years back and gradually, get to a point that I can handle the negotiation and the rest of the process. If you are a first time home buyer, it's wise to stick with an agent who will teach you a ton about this business. In NY, I find it only beneficial to have a buyer's agent when you are looking for an upscale home(>1.5M). From mid range to lower end, all you need is a trusty-worthy lawyer and a title company.
Also, good agents are rarer than the holy grail these days and bad ones can do you a lot of harm. However, if you are in the business of flipping or rental, a good agent will be worth its weight in gold with all the leads sending your way. Again, agents like this is HARD to find.
Just to clarify the debate: in your scenario, it seems that your definition of a rebate is cash from the commission being directly given to the purchaser. From a seller's perspective, where is the benefit to an offer that will net a rebate to the buyer? None of that money is being given to the seller. The seller is still paying the same commission as if there were another agent involved in the deal, so why would they prioritize an offer with rebate over a regular offer; the net, to the seller, is the same.
Just to clarify the debate: in your scenario, it seems that your definition of a rebate is cash from the commission being directly given to the purchaser. From a seller's perspective, where is the benefit to an offer that will net a rebate to the buyer? None of that money is being given to the seller. The seller is still paying the same commission as if there were another agent involved in the deal, so why would they prioritize an offer with rebate over a regular offer; the net, to the seller, is the same.
That is why I made the one offer larger, so it would net the seller more.
That's not a rebate; that's an offer where you're stipulating the commission be lowered from it's already-agreed upon amount and the difference applied to the sales price. So, no $$$ ends up in your pocket.
Fair enough. You are actually correct that it is how I have functionally done it. I always considered it a rebate, but I was probably using the wrong term. Sorry for the confusion.
It largely depends on your local market. I started with an agent a few years back and gradually, get to a point that I can handle the negotiation and the rest of the process. If you are a first time home buyer, it's wise to stick with an agent who will teach you a ton about this business. In NY, I find it only beneficial to have a buyer's agent when you are looking for an upscale home(>1.5M). From mid range to lower end, all you need is a trusty-worthy lawyer and a title company.
Also, good agents are rarer than the holy grail these days and bad ones can do you a lot of harm. However, if you are in the business of flipping or rental, a good agent will be worth its weight in gold with all the leads sending your way. Again, agents like this is HARD to find.
Huh, that's funny you say that as, in NYC, regardless of price range, a good agent is absolutely essential for dealing with co-ops since there's so much more that goes into closing a co-op deal than the norm due to the board approval process. A lawyer and title company won't be able to help you in that regard, but do second the thought that you absolutely need those elements to successfully purchase real estate in NYC.
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.
