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 didn't realize we were back on just_because's point about conflict of interest when paid on a % basis. He's fought that n numerous topics.
There is no way to eliminate the conflict on paper, in philosophical discussion, in legalese nor in the halls of academia. No way. "I get paid more the more you consume" can never be denied. Unless the "extra" is given away free.
The conflict DOESN'T exist when you hire a professional for a job that you trust does what is needed for your benefit, not doing something because it benefits them.
Sorry.
You are on probation in the conversation for invoking the concept of "Trust."
Let that be a warning. Any mention of "Integrity," and you be banished for quaintly irrelevant, tangential notions.
I didn't realize we were back on just_because's point about conflict of interest when paid on a % basis. He's fought that n numerous topics.
There is no way to eliminate the conflict on paper, in philosophical discussion, in legalese nor in the halls of academia. No way. "I get paid more the more you consume" can never be denied. Unless the "extra" is given away free.
The conflict DOESN'T exist when you hire a professional for a job that you trust does what is needed for your benefit, not doing something because it benefits them.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. One of the most fundamental points regarding a conflict of interest is that it it exists independently of any wrongdoing. Therefore trust, integrity, etc have absolutely nothing to do with whether a conflict of interest exists or not. It may affect how it's handled but not whether it exists or not.
Frankly, anyone working as an agent needs to understand the concept of conflict of interest and it's shocking that you failed on one of the most basic aspects of its definition. Your assertion that a conflict of interest simply does not exist when you hire someone trustworthy is incorrect.
Come to think of it, your misunderstanding on this basic point has wasted a lot of time. I wondered why, upon mention of conflict of interest, you and MikeJ immediately went to questions of trust and "you're good guys". Seriously, what do they teach you about conflicts of interest in agent school? The reason that this is so important is because every agent (and many other professions) must be able to identify conflicts of interest and potential conflicts of interest and deal with them responsibly (discuss with client, or decline taking a client, etc, etc). If you think that no conflicts of interest exist if you are trustworthy then this is a big problem. Presumably you think you're trustworthy (like most of us think of ourselves) so you just think that you don't need to worry about conflicts of interest? Scary, my friend. Very scary.
I'm going to jump in here with some questions that are a change from the current conversation about conflict of interest, trust, etc.
I was just perusing a website for a flat fee, full service agency. It states, "You still need to pay a buyer's agent a commission if one brings you a buyer." Would a seller likely be able to negotiate down from a typical 3% for the buyer's agent? Or would the net proceeds have to be determined by the accepted offer (accepting only an offer high enough to offset the 3% by an acceptable amount?) In other words, in your experience, would a buyer's agent rather walk away from the deal rather than accept a lower percent? Would this agent even be allowed to walk away if the client really wants the house? What would force the seller, who has no contract with the buyer's agent, to pay 3%? (Perhaps that detail is in the contract with the flat fee agency, I don't know).
I'm going to jump in here with some questions that are a change from the current conversation about conflict of interest, trust, etc.
I was just perusing a website for a flat fee, full service agency. It states, "You still need to pay a buyer's agent a commission if one brings you a buyer." Would a seller likely be able to negotiate down from a typical 3% for the buyer's agent? Or would the net proceeds have to be determined by the accepted offer (accepting only an offer high enough to offset the 3% by an acceptable amount?) In other words, in your experience, would a buyer's agent rather walk away from the deal rather than accept a lower percent? Would this agent even be allowed to walk away if the client really wants the house? What would force the seller, who has no contract with the buyer's agent, to pay 3%? (Perhaps that detail is in the contract with the flat fee agency, I don't know).
Most buyer agency agreements indicate that the buyer will make up any shortfall between expected buyer agent compensation and any cobrokerage fee offered.
So, you may be able to list and offer a 2% cobrokerage fee to a buyers agent, but if the buyers' agency agreement says that the agent will make 3% and the buyer will have to make up the shortfall, the impact and outcome on pricing vs. value are similar.
You might expect the buyer to negotiate a price based on making up that shortfall.
I'm sorry but this is incorrect. One of the most fundamental points regarding a conflict of interest is that it it exists independently of any wrongdoing. Therefore trust, integrity, etc have absolutely nothing to do with whether a conflict of interest exists or not. It may affect how it's handled but not whether it exists or not.
Frankly, anyone working as an agent needs to understand the concept of conflict of interest and it's shocking that you failed on one of the most basic aspects of its definition. Your assertion that a conflict of interest simply does not exist when you hire someone trustworthy is incorrect.
I understand the concept, and indeed said it can never be denied. If I lay 10 $100 bills in front of you, and leave the room - you're in a conflict of interest. The entire space we occupy as humans is a series of conflicts of interest.
Did you ever own up to failing on the "All agents must do this" language?
I'm going to jump in here with some questions that are a change from the current conversation about conflict of interest, trust, etc.
I was just perusing a website for a flat fee, full service agency. It states, "You still need to pay a buyer's agent a commission if one brings you a buyer." Would a seller likely be able to negotiate down from a typical 3% for the buyer's agent? Or would the net proceeds have to be determined by the accepted offer (accepting only an offer high enough to offset the 3% by an acceptable amount?) In other words, in your experience, would a buyer's agent rather walk away from the deal rather than accept a lower percent? Would this agent even be allowed to walk away if the client relly wants the house? What would force the seller, who has no contract with the buyer's agent, to pay 3%? (Perhaps that detail is in the contract with the flat fee agency, I don't know).
You are not "required" to pay anything as commissioned sales people can and will get their money from any buyer who will pay the hideous fees. They are trained, as you can see from multiple posts, to extract all the money they can because they are of such high caliber and equal to lawyers and brain surgeons..not. Just because someone wants money, doesn't mean you are obligated to provide anything.
They might threaten to walk away from a deal but that isn't fact. They do seem to follow the group think theory so they will also tell you that no other agent will touch your house to work the fear angle. Think and use a real estate lawyer to protect your interests.
You are not "required" to pay anything as commissioned sales people can and will get their money from any buyer who will pay the hideous fees. They are trained, as you can see from multiple posts, to extract all the money they can because they are of such high caliber and equal to lawyers and brain surgeons..not. Just because someone wants money, doesn't mean you are obligated to provide anything.
They might threaten to walk away from a deal but that isn't fact. They do seem to follow the group think theory so they will also tell you that no other agent will touch your house to work the fear angle. Think and use a real estate lawyer to protect your interests.
none of us has posted that we are equal to lawyers and doctors. You're only obligated to pay a real estate agent when you have freely entered into a contract to do so.
Filling out forms is not rocket science, maybe I should have clarified, nor does it require much training, which is why professional legal advice is required to protect the consumer's interests.
I was pretty sure of the answer. Actually addressing it would have required NOT moving the goalposts.
I'll address whatever you want me to but I don't really know what you're talking about. "All agents must do this...". What does that mean?
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.
