Total Commission-Going rate ?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

The jury and evidence I referenced disagrees with your take on this.

Anonymous wrote:I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

That nothing has changed is partially the basis for the additional lawsuits. Because commission can be communicated elsewhere means the buyers agents who were found to be steering can continue to steer. Steering has been major factor in antitrust lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

I never mentioned Freakonomics. Is someone attacking you?

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

You should offer your legal representation to NAR.

Maybe you could run your thoughts up to the Supreme Court and get these settlements overturned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.

Sellers NEVER HAD to pay commission for buyers. It was always an incentive to attract buyers.

DP

Sellers had to offer commission in an environment where buyers agents were commission steering their clients (see Burnett v. NAR, fact finding). If buyers agents were acting in the best financial interests of their clients (their fiduciary duty) sellers would be in more of a position to negotiate.

No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

+1

[Anonymous]

You all have heard of finders fees, right? Or know that political fundraisers are paid a percent of whatever donations they bring in? Or know that M&A brokers get a cut of the deal if they bring together the 2 parties? Or “strategic political advisers” get paid by Qatar for securing a big meeting for their client? Or media buy brokers get a cut of every buy?

Each of these people can make millions on a single introduction / race / ad / etc.

Compensation isn’t always a 1-1 to effort or time and anyone in business understands this.

[Anonymous]

it shouldnt cost more than 1500 on both sides to sell a house (not including attorney, title tax etc)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

The jury and evidence I referenced disagrees with your take on this.

Anonymous wrote:I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

That nothing has changed is partially the basis for the additional lawsuits. Because commission can be communicated elsewhere means the buyers agents who were found to be steering can continue to steer. Steering has been major factor in antitrust lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

I never mentioned Freakonomics. Is someone attacking you?

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

You should offer your legal representation to NAR.

Maybe you could run your thoughts up to the Supreme Court and get these settlements overturned.

You sound unhinged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You all have heard of finders fees, right? Or know that political fundraisers are paid a percent of whatever donations they bring in? Or know that M&A brokers get a cut of the deal if they bring together the 2 parties? Or “strategic political advisers” get paid by Qatar for securing a big meeting for their client? Or media buy brokers get a cut of every buy?

Each of these people can make millions on a single introduction / race / ad / etc.

Compensation isn’t always a 1-1 to effort or time and anyone in business understands this.

In comparable international markets, total compensation is as low a 2% and 1%. The United States has been historically higher due to the history price fixing schemes. Anybody paying attention to antitrust law understands this.

"In competitive foreign markets, home buyers pay their brokers, if they choose to use one, and they pay less than half the rate paid to buyer brokers in the United States. These international markets include United Kingdom, Germany, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. In these markets, which are not affected by any policy like the Adversary Commission Rule, buyer brokers are paid by home buyers, rather than home sellers. According to the Executive Director of the Consumer Federation of America, total commission rates in “a number of developed countries” range “between 1% and 4%” whereas in the United States the average total commission rates continue to remain between 5% and 6%, which is “no lower than it was in 2001” despite significant advances in technology" ~ Burnett v. NAR

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I agree. A total of 3.5% is common now but realtors are still pushing for 5% commission. They do get a sucker or two now and then otherwise business is down for them.

That's not true if you look at research that has been done since Burnett.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

why wrong thing? If you are the seller then it is your money and the right thing but if you are an agent then ofcourse you would say so. LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. A total of 3.5% is common now but realtors are still pushing for 5% commission. They do get a sucker or two now and then otherwise business is down for them.

That's not true if you look at research that has been done since Burnett.

I am just telling you what deals I have done recently. Suckers will pay more ofcourse and greedy agents would take their money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

why wrong thing? If you are the seller then it is your money and the right thing but if you are an agent then ofcourse you would say so. LOL

Anyone who is smart with their money thinks about the value of services they pay for.

On a 1 million transaction, A few % is a huge amount and absolutely something to focus on.

Unfortunately because buying / selling is a house is such a time consuming and confusing event for most people, every step of the process is full of people wanting to skim off the top with the hopes you don’t notice. Realtors, loan agents, title companies, etc.

[Anonymous]

So how do you find an agent like this? We tried to sell our house last year but got no offers. A LOT was all the instability and uncertainty with the new administration. I’m unclear if my agent could’ve done more. When we signed, there wasnt really an option to negotiate rate (split 5% commission) as their boss/company set the rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't offer anything to the buyers' agent upfront. Just evaluate offers on purchase price minus whatever concessions they are asking for, and choose the highest number with the greatest certainty of closing.

For a seller's agent, 1% is easily obtainable if you look around. If you want to use some particular agent, they will probably be willing to go down to 2% or lower unless they're super busy.

What agents are working for 1 percent? That is less than Redfin.

None officially. But if you have an easy property to sell, you have leverage and can negotiate. Especially with an agent who is eager to break into your market. Play the game to your advantage. There is no set price for selling your house (some degree of tacit collusion exists out there but no commission percentages are set in stone).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

why wrong thing? If you are the seller then it is your money and the right thing but if you are an agent then ofcourse you would say so. LOL

Anyone who is smart with their money thinks about the value of services they pay for.

On a 1 million transaction, A few % is a huge amount and absolutely something to focus on.

Unfortunately because buying / selling is a house is such a time consuming and confusing event for most people, every step of the process is full of people wanting to skim off the top with the hopes you don’t notice. Realtors, loan agents, title companies, etc.

LOL! YES, they get the same value if they have 3.5% or 5%. If you think cajoling clients by throwing a good champagne in your office then I have to be really stupid to accept that than 1.5% fees which could be around $15K in this area. Agents push their own people and get kick-backs so WTH you talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So how do you find an agent like this? We tried to sell our house last year but got no offers. A LOT was all the instability and uncertainty with the new administration. I’m unclear if my agent could’ve done more. When we signed, there wasnt really an option to negotiate rate (split 5% commission) as their boss/company set the rate.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't offer anything to the buyers' agent upfront. Just evaluate offers on purchase price minus whatever concessions they are asking for, and choose the highest number with the greatest certainty of closing.

For a seller's agent, 1% is easily obtainable if you look around. If you want to use some particular agent, they will probably be willing to go down to 2% or lower unless they're super busy.

What agents are working for 1 percent? That is less than Redfin.

None officially. But if you have an easy property to sell, you have leverage and can negotiate. Especially with an agent who is eager to break into your market. Play the game to your advantage. There is no set price for selling your house (some degree of tacit collusion exists out there but no commission percentages are set in stone).

LOl! Their boss/company is not law and ofcourse they set rates that benefits them. negotiate hard and they all come down. If you go in with the fear or hesistance of your own then this is the kind of BS answer they would give you. Don't be naive please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

why wrong thing? If you are the seller then it is your money and the right thing but if you are an agent then ofcourse you would say so. LOL

Instead of focusing on things that really matter— getting top dollar, quickly, you’re going to fixate on a selling cost?

Stupid. So stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

why wrong thing? If you are the seller then it is your money and the right thing but if you are an agent then ofcourse you would say so. LOL

Instead of focusing on things that really matter— getting top dollar, quickly, you’re going to fixate on a selling cost?

Stupid. So stupid.

DP Yes. Selling costs reduce profit.

Provide your evidence that higher commissions are correlated with higher sales price.