Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

The license won't be safe in this scenario because the agent could face disciplinary action from state licensing authorities for breaching duties toward the seller. I would encourage all buyers confronted with this illegal behavior to report it to the licensing board every time it happens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

The license won't be safe in this scenario because the agent could face disciplinary action from state licensing authorities for breaching duties toward the seller. I would encourage all buyers confronted with this illegal behavior to report it to the licensing board every time it happens.

+1. Also, buyers who encounter this should drop a written note to the seller (google them and message them through linkedin, drop a note in their mailbox, etc.) to let them know about the conduct of their agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

The license won't be safe in this scenario because the agent could face disciplinary action from state licensing authorities for breaching duties toward the seller. I would encourage all buyers confronted with this illegal behavior to report it to the licensing board every time it happens.

+1. Also, buyers who encounter this should drop a written note to the seller (google them and message them through linkedin, drop a note in their mailbox, etc.) to let them know about the conduct of their agent.

What you probably need to google first is the concept of "PROCURING CAUSE."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

The license won't be safe in this scenario because the agent could face disciplinary action from state licensing authorities for breaching duties toward the seller. I would encourage all buyers confronted with this illegal behavior to report it to the licensing board every time it happens.

+1. Also, buyers who encounter this should drop a written note to the seller (google them and message them through linkedin, drop a note in their mailbox, etc.) to let them know about the conduct of their agent.

What you probably need to google first is the concept of "PROCURING CAUSE."

This person is hilarious. Responding to a claim about potential breach of basic fiduciary duty, by apparently discussing the potential for battling over who gets the sales commission.

Why, specifically, would showing a house to an unrepresented buyer put a sellers agent license in danger?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

If a sellers agent refuses to show me a house as an unrepresented buyer, not only will I attempt to contact the seller to let them know about this behavior but I will leave negative reviews for that agent everywhere I can.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

Not my rule. The new NAR rule. Effective 8.17.24. Sight unseen offers are always allowed and will always be presented to the Seller as will all offers. But all NAR agents are now prohibited from showing properties without a Buyer's agency agreement now, unlike before. Is this clear.

This that rule applies to the buyer agent, not the listing agent.

Your statement suggests listing agents are prevented from showing a listing to an unrepresented buyer:

"The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first."

I hear you. But there are also practical realities to consider. Is the Listing Agent/Seller Agent going to use their Sentrilock key to let an unrepresented Buyer into their Listing with no upfront agreement regarding their specific Property signed by the Buyer, I think NOT... From elsewhere on the web...
"I am already hearing from some listing agents that they will not show the homes to an unrepresented buyer as they do not want to end up in a dual agency lawsuit. I have heard that some agents are talking about having buyers sign a buyers agreement to access an open house or not do open houses at all."

What happens when the agent refuses to show the house and the seller finds out? Do real estate agents have any clue about how courts interpret fiduciary duties?

The Agent is not refusing to show the property. The Agent is simply requiring a signed Buyer agency agreement upfront prior to showing the property so that the Agent can ensure that his/her own license is safe.

So.... refusing to show the property unless the buyer meets criteria not required by law and contrary to law (the fiduciary duties of the listing agent).

That's the same a refusing.

No one is talking about "criteria" not sure what you are referring to there. Potential Buyer agrees to pay commission to the Agent (listing broker or buyer broker) who showed them the property in a signed buyer agency agreement in the event that the Potential Buyer purchases that property (if the state allows dual agency and if not in a designated agency/referral format). And then. Is shown the property. No criteria. Just an clear agreement for specified compensation in the event of that potential buyer's purchase of that property.

Holy s---t what are you talking about??? Why would I as a buyer pay anything to the sellers agent? They are compensated by the seller per their agreement, and that agreement includes....showing the property to prospective buyers.

Sound like you're trying to have a Listing agent take on 2 clients (their Seller and the unrepresented Buyer) for the price of 1.

Again, what on earth are you talking about? I bought a house without a buyers agent. The sellers agent didn't represent me, and I didn't expect them to. The agent sent me the form contract. I filled out the blanks and checked the boxes, sent it back, we signed it, and then closed a few weeks later.

Sounds like you are very savvy. Everyone is not. Review and consider.
"Unrepresented Buyers - Just Say No!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtRJv7phItM

Not gonna watch some random YouTube video, sorry. Your arguments make no sense. Nobody is forcing you to act as their buyers agent for free. Just...show the house as your sellers agent agreement calls for. If the seller likes the offer and considers it viable, why does it matter?

And yes, I do have some knowledge of the field, but filling out a standard sales contract is not rocket science. There are probably, what 5 blanks and 10 boxes to check? The entire reason there is a standard sales contract is to simplify and routinize the process so everyone works from the same starting point.

Somehow most people in other industrialized countries survive just fine without buyers agents. Every argument is some hypothetical that gets more and more esoteric as it goes. As opposed to the tens of billions that consumers have lost to exorbitant fees enforced by a cartel, as found by a federal jury, and as compared to similar countries.

[Anonymous]

All the agents on this board giving suggestions to support their commission sound moronic. The industry is not supposed to be kind to agents in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was recently pricing wedding photographers. They want $5,000 or more. Which is ridiculous! They don't add any value! I can get the minister to take photos or my Aunt Sarah! Or maybe I can get second cousin's nieces's son, who's working for a newspaper in Ohio! Hell, we can put those disposable cameras on the tables!

The wedding photography industry has a scheme in place that sets a fee of X% the total cost of the wedding, no matter the skill or effort or services brought by the photographer. An amateur moron with no experience whatsoever gets paid the same as Annie Leibovitz. The fee is there whether you need the service or not. This makes complete economic sense for the industry! Who cares if buyers and sellers of real estate are paying inflated fees! Think about the morons!

This is not correct at all. I have done multiple wedding photography projects and get paid well. We negotiate our rates separately and also with the couples getting married or their family member. Very rarely I have seen an x% of the wedding cost to the photographer.

[Anonymous]

That was a point of that post. Your response illustrates the problem with the real estate industry; that industry should play by your rules of commerce.