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.
In the present environment a buyer is unlikely to save money by not having a buyer's agent. (Exceptions are FSBO sales and the rare cases in which a reduced price can be negotiated by persuading the seller's agent to forgo part of the commission. We're talking about 3% max and this is mostly lost in the noise because we don't really know the value of a property). A buyer without an agent would find it more difficult to obtain viewings, might be at a disadvantage in negotiation, and might be viewed as less likely to close.
We can all argue about whether this is how it should be. But in the present world one can tilt at windmills or get on with the business of finding a place to live.
Consider the following scenario: I make an offer on a house and my offer is the same or close to another buyer's offer. I do not have a buyer's agent and the other person making an offer does have a buyer's agent. The seller's agent will make significantly more money from the sale if my offer is the one selected, because they will not have to share the commission with anyone. In this current climate of multiple offers, I think not having a buyer's agent could make me a more appealing buyer to the seller's agent, and that may cause them to nudge the seller in my direction since the seller will make the same money either way but their agent will make a lot more if my offer is the one accepted.
Consider the following scenario: I make an offer on a house and my offer is the same or close to another buyer's offer. I do not have a buyer's agent and the other person making an offer does have a buyer's agent. The seller's agent will make significantly more money from the sale if my offer is the one selected, because they will not have to share the commission with anyone. In this current climate of multiple offers, I think not having a buyer's agent could make me a more appealing buyer to the seller's agent, and that may cause them to nudge the seller in my direction since the seller will make the same money either way but their agent will make a lot more if my offer is the one accepted.
Agents should be working for the benefit of their client.
If you suspect an agent is self-dealing, you have to ask if that is someone you want to tangle with.
Smart agents avoid dual agency and avoid unrepresented buyers. It is too easy to have some clown whine about how they were treated.
Consider the following scenario: I make an offer on a house and my offer is the same or close to another buyer's offer. I do not have a buyer's agent and the other person making an offer does have a buyer's agent. The seller's agent will make significantly more money from the sale if my offer is the one selected, because they will not have to share the commission with anyone. In this current climate of multiple offers, I think not having a buyer's agent could make me a more appealing buyer to the seller's agent, and that may cause them to nudge the seller in my direction since the seller will make the same money either way but their agent will make a lot more if my offer is the one accepted.
I can only speak for myself, but as an agent it wouldn't sway me to push your offer unless I had some good conversations with you and you seemed like a sane, rational person with a cash offer. Part of my job is to get my client to closing, and if you don't have an agent I assume instantly the worst and that my odds of getting you to closing will be automatically reduced compared to a buyer with a good agent. If you were competing with a buyer with a bad agent, the bad buyer agent may work to the benefit of an unrepresented client.
In scenarios like yours, I present agency disclosure and make you sign a statement that you are unrepresented, I represent the seller, and you understand that me or my company do not represent you. Also, I had plenty of these types of calls over the last 2 years. Often times when I got the call the property was already under contract, had multiple offers, and the buyer didn't want to share info I requested such as a PQ letter or sign the agency disclosure I just referenced before I'll commit to showing.
Also, some agents reduce their commission if there isn't a buyers agent which means they'd be doing all the work for half a commission as opposed to half the work for half the commission. Your theory sounds great and all but much like other theories, it doesn't always play out like that in real life.
Agents should be working for the benefit of their client.
If you suspect an agent is self-dealing, you have to ask if that is someone you want to tangle with.
Smart agents avoid dual agency and avoid unrepresented buyers. It is too easy to have some clown whine about how they were treated.
You said agents should be working for the benefit of their client. Then you said agents should avoid unrepresented buyers. If the seller's agent avoids unrepresented buyers, that means they are blocking potential offers that might actually be the best for the seller, their client.
You said agents should be working for the benefit of their client. Then you said agents should avoid unrepresented buyers. If the seller's agent avoids unrepresented buyers, that means they are blocking potential offers that might actually be the best for the seller, their client.
Eh.
Shielding clients from the sort of mopes that Brandon mentions is also part of the job. Of course, with transparency to the client. Client chooses how to proceed.
It is not all cut and dried as a few bucks of commission that impresses short-sighted people.
To wit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon Hoffman
I can only speak for myself, but as an agent it wouldn't sway me to push your offer unless I had some good conversations with you and you seemed like a sane, rational person with a cash offer. Part of my job is to get my client to closing, and if you don't have an agent I assume instantly the worst and that my odds of getting you to closing will be automatically reduced compared to a buyer with a good agent. If you were competing with a buyer with a bad agent, the bad buyer agent may work to the benefit of an unrepresented client.
In scenarios like yours, I present agency disclosure and make you sign a statement that you are unrepresented, I represent the seller, and you understand that me or my company do not represent you. Also, I had plenty of these types of calls over the last 2 years. Often times when I got the call the property was already under contract, had multiple offers, and the buyer didn't want to share info I requested such as a PQ letter or sign the agency disclosure I just referenced before I'll commit to showing.
Also, some agents reduce their commission if there isn't a buyers agent which means they'd be doing all the work for half a commission as opposed to half the work for half the commission. Your theory sounds great and all but much like other theories, it doesn't always play out like that in real life.
I can only speak for myself, but as an agent it wouldn't sway me to push your offer unless I had some good conversations with you and you seemed like a sane, rational person with a cash offer. Part of my job is to get my client to closing, and if you don't have an agent I assume instantly the worst and that my odds of getting you to closing will be automatically reduced compared to a buyer with a good agent. If you were competing with a buyer with a bad agent, the bad buyer agent may work to the benefit of an unrepresented client.
In scenarios like yours, I present agency disclosure and make you sign a statement that you are unrepresented, I represent the seller, and you understand that me or my company do not represent you. Also, I had plenty of these types of calls over the last 2 years. Often times when I got the call the property was already under contract, had multiple offers, and the buyer didn't want to share info I requested such as a PQ letter or sign the agency disclosure I just referenced before I'll commit to showing.
Also, some agents reduce their commission if there isn't a buyers agent which means they'd be doing all the work for half a commission as opposed to half the work for half the commission. Your theory sounds great and all but much like other theories, it doesn't always play out like that in real life.
If my offer is full cash and I have proof of funds but no agent, would you worry about inability to close? I'd be happy to make the seller's agent my "agent" for the sale in order to give them the full commission. I think this would make me stand out as the better option and cause the seller's agent to nudge their client my way if I'm competing with a comparable offer (same or almost same amount, same terms, all cash) and the only difference is if they go with me the seller's agent makes a lot more money. It wouldn't be a disservice to their client to sway them my way, their client makes the same money either way since my offer is the same as the other offer from the represented buyer. Shouldn't be any concerns about closing because I can show I have the cash.
If my offer is full cash and I have proof of funds but no agent, would you worry about inability to close? I'd be happy to make the seller's agent my "agent" for the sale in order to give them the full commission. I think this would make me stand out as the better option and cause the seller's agent to nudge their client my way if I'm competing with a comparable offer (same or almost same amount, same terms, all cash) and the only difference is if they go with me the seller's agent makes a lot more money. It wouldn't be a disservice to their client to sway them my way, their client makes the same money either way since my offer is the same as the other offer from the represented buyer. Shouldn't be any concerns about closing because I can show I have the cash.
There is more to getting to closing than Cash. Much more.
Any good agent knows that, and they also know that buyers with a sense of entitlement are often hazardous to their clients.
I LIKED having another professional to share liability and to act as a buffer, and I know many agents who feel the same way.
The last house we bought, we did not use an agent. We found a house we wanted and told the seller's agent we want to make sure she gets the full commission. She ended up giving 1% of that commission back to the sellers since that way she was still making more than usual and it sweetened the deal for her clients as well.
The last house we bought, we did not use an agent. We found a house we wanted and told the seller's agent we want to make sure she gets the full commission. She ended up giving 1% of that commission back to the sellers since that way she was still making more than usual and it sweetened the deal for her clients as well.
Fine.
That anecdote renders nothing Brandon or I said irrelevant.
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.
