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.
No not for free for a reduced fee based on the fact its an FSBO and the terms may be different. The issue is some realtors wont do what is in the best interest of their clients because they might not get the fatty check they are used too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
Anytime there are significant amounts of money leaving my pocket its a necessary evil. I am a strong DIY person but the law does not always allow for that and that's when there are issues.
It is hard for me to see value in something that I could otherwise do myself but don't have the time to check off all the boxes the state requires to get my own certs. Trying to compel someone to sign a contract that is not in their best interests is not being treated like a rock star, it is being fleeced with a smile. Now if I can red line the contract and go back and forth until it is a fair and equitable agreement then that's fine, but I wont sign a canned contract put out by the brokerage to maximize their profits off my ignorance and to cover their own rear ends.
I have also heard that there is language in these contracts that absolve the realtor and the brokerage of legal liability, why on earth would I want to release you of that if I am paying out 5 figures? Brokerages get paid enough that they should be absorbing that liability.
Please stop.
Your ignorance on the subject is justified because you are not an agent but bragging that you know better is embarrassing.
I am going to put up my single family home on the market in Spring. I will use a flat fee MLS. Is a 1% Buyer's reasonable? The home will probably sell for $500K for $5000 buyer's agent commission.
I'd offer the listing agent that amount and see what happens! I've seen many listing agents who obtain the listing and then do absolutely nothing but wait for someone else to sell the house and get their 2-3%.
Cries of "Collusion" often seem to equal, "I cannot easily bend you to my will, so you are a cheater."
If consumers actually wanted what Redfin had to offer, and Redfin quit offering it due to profitability concerns, then it would appear that Redfin was undercapitalized or poorly managed their capital.
Everyone starting up a business in any endeavor has to have adequate resources to ride out the lean times to get to their goal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish
Please support your positions above with fact.
Attitudes, while their existence may be confirmed, don't pass as fact.
1. Name a US market where arm's length real estate transactions are exclusively conducted only via MLS advertising.
2. Name an MLS... No, make it 3... Covering 1,000,000 or more population where commissions are inflexible.
3. Oh, 1 & 2 will do for now.
****
"What exactly do you think anti trust is, its having control of some asset or product that has become integral in the society so that controlling entity or group of entitys can jack up the price and fleece everyone else."
I believe you are confused about "anti trust" (sic).
This is also in response to the above. Clearly the DOJ disagreed with your statement that "cirres of collusion equal "I cannot bend you to my will so you are a cheater". And not only did they disagree but they prevailed in court several times
No it was answered you just don't like the answer.
Come on now. You have always seemed smarter than these other guys appear.
This really isn't a difficult thread to follow.
The poster spoke only in present tense and clearly claimed current, present monopoly and exclusivity in trade. He is wrong and your archival information is not cogent to the discussion.
I asked the poster for two bits of information in support:
1. Name a US market where arm's length real estate transactions are exclusively conducted only via MLS advertising.
2. Name an MLS... No, make it 3... Covering 1,000,000 or more population where commissions are inflexible.
How does a citation of stuff from seven or eight years ago, answer those reasonable requests?
Here is some good reading regarding MLSs owned by Realtors, and the standards enforced by NAR due to use of the mark: http://www.realtor.org/handbook-on-m...pliance-policy
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 12-31-2015 at 04:40 AM..
1. Name a US market where arm's length real estate transactions are exclusively conducted only via MLS advertising.
2. Name an MLS... No, make it 3... Covering 1,000,000 or more population where commissions are inflexible.
Seeing as there are around 900 separate MLS systems, with many of them operating in small population areas - the poster doesn't have to submit to your request based on population. Guessing you included that 1MM figure to suit your argument.
There are many, many towns where there are only one or two brokerages, and they both tell you when you call them that their listing rate is inflexible. And they do all of their listings through the MLS. I personally own property in a town with only one brokerage - and the "big" town next door has two, and it works this way. In my area it is custom for the listing agent or a member of their firm to be present on all showings. Based on this it is easy to see why the poster has arrived at their opinions on the industry.
Seeing as there are around 900 separate MLS systems, with many of them operating in small population areas - the poster doesn't have to submit to your request based on population. Guessing you included that 1MM figure to suit your argument.
There are many, many towns where there are only one or two brokerages, and they both tell you when you call them that their listing rate is inflexible. And they do all of their listings through the MLS. I personally own property in a town with only one brokerage - and the "big" town next door has two, and it works this way. In my area it is custom for the listing agent or a member of their firm to be present on all showings. Based on this it is easy to see why the poster has arrived at their opinions on the industry.
The poster doesn't HAVE to do ANYTHING, as far as I am concerned. I just thought that he may care to provide some substance to his unsupported claims.
While it is kind of you to step in with a smidgen of anecdotal quantification, your small MLSs and one-brokerage town are hardly evidence of a broad market trend.
And, DOJ nonsense doesn't prohibit a brokerage from setting their fees as they decide to, as long as they don't conspire with other firms.
A firm has the right to be inflexible in their fees, without question.
And, absent a joint conspiracy, it may well be that two firms arrive at the same fee structure by watching what the market will bear. Rather like gas stations competing with each other and setting price based on what the competition is getting.
If I charge 4.8%, and I find I am the lowest in the market, and want to raise to 5% to improve margin, that is my right. If I conspire with other firms to set 5% as a minimum, that is illegal.
But, your example clearly supports my point: "Cries of collusion often seem to equal 'You can't easily be bent to my will so you are a cheater.'"
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 12-31-2015 at 08:59 AM..
So typical of buyer's agents putting their own personal financial interests over the interests of their client by not showing them houses that pay a lower commission. Buyers need to do their homework and their own due diligence.
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.
