Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-15-2019, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Raleigh
13,639 posts, read 12,286,143 times
Reputation: 20059

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by illtaketwoplease View Post
Hope they win. I've posted here numerous times that the system is setup for agents to "control the buyer pool".

The sell side was hammered down - now the buy side should be for those who want that option. System is rigged in favor of agents and against consumers in certain situations. One thing is for sure - millennials are not going to accept the old system as time goes on - no matter how entrenched it may be right now. that goes for real estate and other aspects of the economy they deem unfair.
You really think so? They do accept it on the buyer's side. And Millennials appreciate a good buyers agent, probably more than anyone. They don't necessarily expect the agent to give them a riding tour of town like their parents do, but an agent that will crawl in the crawlspace and up in the attic and can come out with the little things like,

I'm a MIllennial, and our agent (a member of this board) pointed out such valuable insights as:

"Look at the serial number plate, that will give you a rough idea of the age of the HVAC." That let us know that there was a 22 year old unit that had been steam cleaned.

"I don't think the stove works. Try it." He figured that out because there was all sorts of stuff stacked on the stove and a hotplate to the side of it.

That type of thing and a dozen others that helped us along the way to an informed decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2019, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Salem, OR
15,509 posts, read 40,231,078 times
Reputation: 17383
Quote:
Originally Posted by johngolf View Post
If listed at $1.00 why would one spend anytime on something they are not getting paid for?
I feel like you and I are having different conversations. The lawsuit is stating there is collusion to keep fees high and force sellers to pay buyer agent commissions. I pulled my MLS data and that doesn't indicate there is collusion and the sellers do indeed have choices when it comes to real estate brokerage models as long as they shop around. The best deals are with indie brokers based on my MLS data.

The agent can and will get paid. I have had buyers pay my fee before. They have paid it entirely or part of it when the compensation offered wasn't satisfactory to me. This isn't complicated.

The only time buyer agent compensation is an issue is with VA clients as they are not allowed to pay buyer agent fees. I've had low offerings and let my VA clients know about it as we discussed in advance when they hired me. They have always elected to not see the house.

I don't think that is the piece that sellers get. Buyers want representation, but the lending system makes it very difficult for them to wrap it into their mortgage. So if they don't have the cash for it, then they will have to forgo have buyer representation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2019, 04:14 PM
 
390 posts, read 392,571 times
Reputation: 494
Quote:
Originally Posted by MikeJaquish View Post
The entire direction of the market should be to adopt the formality that each party pays their agent directly, that buyers can finance that agent fee, to eliminate the passing of buyer money to the seller, to pass to the listing agent, to pass back to the buyers agent.
I think that this would be a fantastic solution. This could hopefully help bring prices down across the board and let people choose whether or not they want buyer representation. As it is right now, if a buyer was interested in purchasing our on-market house without having a buyer's agent, we'd gladly pass along that 3% to them by way of a price reduction. However, there's no good way to put that into an MLS listing without a lot of people taking offense to that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-18-2019, 04:17 PM
 
1 posts, read 451 times
Reputation: 10
As a selling and buying agent, besides everything else we do, I approach FSBO for sale by owners often . Many times they think that they do not have to pay any commissions to anyone. Mind you, these are sellers NOT on MLS. They however think that an agent is going to bring them a buyer for free? They expect an agent to bring THEM BUYERS and then have the buyers pay out of pocket to a licensed , experienced real estate professional (who by the way is held liable when they make a mistake much like an attorney or doctor) ...and then the buyer is expected to pay asking price for the house on top of it?

Of course not, because we all know that a good broker selling a home for a seller builds the list price around the market and then pads it up for commissions to a point. So, essentially the buyer IS paying the commission because it SHOULD be built into the list price. In my market the sellers are coming out with 30 to 40 % profit proceeds on THIER sale ! Oh , but these snake shark attorneys see a profit in making the seller the poor victim. Its their sale ! Its their profit , and their broker selling THIER sale should have built in the buyers agent fee in the sale price . This way the financing of the buyer does cover it all . AND a 30 year mortgage on say 15 k buyer agent fee (that was built into the sale price) is an extra maybe $12 a month within their monthly mortgage payment. So , what I am saying is , no matter what , the buyer will always be paying their buyers commission ONE WAY OR ANOTHER and should be , but NOT out of pocket.

This class action suit is being looked at all wrong in that the sellers are not the victims. How can that be when they are making in most cases in the US a large profit on their home if they bought wisely previously when buying the home. This is capitalism, right? oh that right, we are going socialism ...I see where this is taking us …

The idea that this is a Sherman law issue is BS . How about the 33,3% commissions the attorneys are seeking in this class action case? Is that negotiable? Hell No way it is. WOW then … the Poor previous sellers (who the layers are representing) are getting ripped off by greedy lawyers who demand a VERY LARGE piece of their lawsuit 'compensation'. They really should do it for say 5 to 10% then right? Such a nobel cause and all. HA! Its a complete scam and con job . The lawyers DO NOT negotiate what they consider a fair 33,3% up to 40% skim off the proceeds which is very standard in the US. Like MLS split commissions at 5% or 6%, class action and injury attorneys in the US set their fees at 33.3% to 40%. Period! Think about it.

THIS ARTICLE and others mention how England, Germany etc doesn't use buyer agents and its more competitive because of it. What a joke. The structure is very different in England , AND the prices skewed and very high to be able to pay the sales / excise taxes , and ..BTW Does anyone reading this know what kind of taxes the government imposes on house sales in those countries?? The buyers certainly aren't walking away with massive profit capital gains on their primary homes, tax free, like sellers are in the US.
In my market and most the sellers set their sales price with advice from thier brokers based on comparable sales in the past 6 months. And naturally, many overprice of course and that then is negotiated with the buyer, but that's their prerogative in our free and capitalistic system. You don't think homes are going up in price because of sales commissions? You are gravely mistaken if you think that . Well Im done here so just research it.

Last edited by JNewnam1; 03-18-2019 at 04:32 PM.. Reason: more thoughts
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2019, 01:29 PM
 
758 posts, read 848,866 times
Reputation: 2764
It is high time that realtors stopped negotiating a commission rate based on the nameless, faceless realtor who will show up, maybe with a buyer and expect that seller to pay their commission. Every single MLS has the "cc", cooperating commission right on the listing sheet, except the seller isn't made aware of how that is split. Every single time I made them aware, they were aghast that I would do all the marketing and pay for same, from billboards, to tv advertising, etc, and it would come out of the listing commission, but nothing comes out of the buying commission. As a listing agent, you can negotiate what YOU will work for, but you are always attempting to negotiate another's commission out of this same pool. I worked as a darn good realtor for over 30 years licensed in three states and obviously, 3 MLS systems and the minute the buyer brokerage agreement was a fact, I knew it was a problem. Never once did I do business with that supposed contract. If the buyer didn't think I was doing a fair job for them, I didn't want them to work with me based on that idiotic contract. Real Estate and the way it is bought and sold is archaic and it is so time for a change. Believe that the attorneys who have filed suit, know what they are doing and maybe they will get it right this time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2019, 01:48 PM
 
Location: Rochester, WA
14,342 posts, read 11,842,080 times
Reputation: 38552
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnKrause1 View Post
It is high time that realtors stopped negotiating a commission rate based on the nameless, faceless realtor who will show up, maybe with a buyer and expect that seller to pay their commission. Every single MLS has the "cc", cooperating commission right on the listing sheet, except the seller isn't made aware of how that is split. Every single time I made them aware, they were aghast that I would do all the marketing and pay for same, from billboards, to tv advertising, etc, and it would come out of the listing commission, but nothing comes out of the buying commission.

It's right in our listing agreement, how the commission will be split... and most sellers would be AGHAST if it were anything other than 50-50. They'd wonder what their agent was trying to pull. BOTH sides work hard, and spend their own money, making sales happen. I think we're better off NOT belittling the other side in a transaction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2019, 01:49 PM
 
Location: Just south of Denver since 1989
11,815 posts, read 34,300,444 times
Reputation: 8935
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnKrause1 View Post
It is high time that realtors stopped negotiating a commission rate based on the nameless, faceless realtor who will show up, maybe with a buyer and expect that seller to pay their commission. Every single MLS has the "cc", cooperating commission right on the listing sheet, except the seller isn't made aware of how that is split. Every single time I made them aware, they were aghast that I would do all the marketing and pay for same, from billboards, to tv advertising, etc, and it would come out of the listing commission, but nothing comes out of the buying commission. As a listing agent, you can negotiate what YOU will work for, but you are always attempting to negotiate another's commission out of this same pool. I worked as a darn good realtor for over 30 years licensed in three states and obviously, 3 MLS systems and the minute the buyer brokerage agreement was a fact, I knew it was a problem. Never once did I do business with that supposed contract. If the buyer didn't think I was doing a fair job for them, I didn't want them to work with me based on that idiotic contract. Real Estate and the way it is bought and sold is archaic and it is so time for a change. Believe that the attorneys who have filed suit, know what they are doing and maybe they will get it right this time.
The COE Standard of Practice 1-13 https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar/go...#DutiestoCandC
and Article 3 specifically address this. REALTORS® shall cooperate with other brokers except when cooperation is not in the client’s best interest. The obligation to cooperate does not include the obligation to share commissions, fees, or to otherwise compensate another broker.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-21-2019, 04:52 PM
 
Location: Salem, OR
15,509 posts, read 40,231,078 times
Reputation: 17383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnKrause1 View Post
It is high time that realtors stopped negotiating a commission rate based on the nameless, faceless realtor who will show up, maybe with a buyer and expect that seller to pay their commission. Every single MLS has the "cc", cooperating commission right on the listing sheet, except the seller isn't made aware of how that is split. Every single time I made them aware, they were aghast that I would do all the marketing and pay for same, from billboards, to tv advertising, etc, and it would come out of the listing commission, but nothing comes out of the buying commission. As a listing agent, you can negotiate what YOU will work for, but you are always attempting to negotiate another's commission out of this same pool. I worked as a darn good realtor for over 30 years licensed in three states and obviously, 3 MLS systems and the minute the buyer brokerage agreement was a fact, I knew it was a problem. Never once did I do business with that supposed contract. If the buyer didn't think I was doing a fair job for them, I didn't want them to work with me based on that idiotic contract. Real Estate and the way it is bought and sold is archaic and it is so time for a change. Believe that the attorneys who have filed suit, know what they are doing and maybe they will get it right this time.
I know on our MLS forms, signed by the seller, the buyer agent commission is stated quite clearly on there. It has been that way my entire 15 years as a real estate agent. While I agree that sellers and buyers should pay for their own representation, until lending rules change, I don't see that happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2019, 09:34 AM
 
Location: Columbia, SC
10,907 posts, read 21,872,076 times
Reputation: 10539
Quote:
Originally Posted by LynnKrause1 View Post
It is high time that realtors stopped negotiating a commission rate based on the nameless, faceless realtor who will show up, maybe with a buyer and expect that seller to pay their commission. Every single MLS has the "cc", cooperating commission right on the listing sheet, except the seller isn't made aware of how that is split. Every single time I made them aware, they were aghast that I would do all the marketing and pay for same, from billboards, to tv advertising, etc, and it would come out of the listing commission, but nothing comes out of the buying commission. As a listing agent, you can negotiate what YOU will work for, but you are always attempting to negotiate another's commission out of this same pool. I worked as a darn good realtor for over 30 years licensed in three states and obviously, 3 MLS systems and the minute the buyer brokerage agreement was a fact, I knew it was a problem. Never once did I do business with that supposed contract. If the buyer didn't think I was doing a fair job for them, I didn't want them to work with me based on that idiotic contract. Real Estate and the way it is bought and sold is archaic and it is so time for a change. Believe that the attorneys who have filed suit, know what they are doing and maybe they will get it right this time.
Why did you care who sells the home? My primary concern was always selling the home, not worrying about who the co-broke is. Heck, I have shown homes for buyers agents that were out of town and their buyer wanted to look. Sold one of the most expensive homes I ever listed that way, and I happily paid the co-broke at closing!

The only reason commissions are structured like they are is because the buyer wanted protection and representation! People seem to have forgot that little bit of history. "Buyer beware" wasn't all that long ago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-23-2019, 11:04 AM
 
Location: Union County
6,150 posts, read 9,977,210 times
Reputation: 5831
I will state at a glance this entire thing is foolhardy from a lawsuit perspective... for me I think the problem lies in the perception that a buyer's agent is "free" or more commonly I hear, "you're being foolish not to get representation as a buyer because the listing agent does NOT represent you and buyer representation doesn't cost you anything". The issue is the misconception that any RE agent is working for free... they aren't, they are trying to run a business.

The reality is deep down I know the vast majority of RE brokers are not "getting rich" and that they have every right to make money for what they do. It's just very confusing to the layman how the whole model really works end to end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top