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:

If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."

As a teacher with an advanced degree (who makes less than half of that), I cannot pay someone with a high school diploma (which is what many of them have) $200 an hour. I don't think it's rocket science to get the RE licensure.

It’s harder than you think and actually involves a lot of weird math

Provide examples.

Sure. Try the 50-question practice exam here: https://realestatelicensewizard.com/real-estate-math/

Be sure to post your score.

Yikes. Lmao how do I take this seriously?

Question 42: Jon buys a property and closes on March 1st. The seller prepaid the properties annual taxes of $6,000 for the year. How much does Jon owe the seller in real estate taxes?

A. $1,000.00
B. $3,000.00
C. $4,000.00
D. $5,000.00

Well in Arlington VA the tax rate is not set until April, so there could be additional taxes due from the seller who paid the tax based on the old rate. Did Jon’s buyer agent add a provision to the contract making the seller reimburse the buyer for the higher taxes due between Jan 1 and March 1.

Yeah and none of this is done by the agent. The title company obviously handles prepaids and prorations, they do it all the time. You don't need a special provision in the contract. By definition you get reimbursed for any taxes paid up to the closing date. If the rate changes that is fine, the title company does it on a daily rate.

Y'all seriously need to try harder with your dumb hypotheticals.

I'm not an agent but put that provision into the contract for a new home. When we closed, the builder only had to pay his share of the taxes based on the house's assessment as a tear down. When the property was re-assessed with the new house on it, the taxes increased substantially and the builder had to pay us for the extra taxes he owed. I put the provision into our contract because friends who had bought new houses were stuck for paying the extra tax owed by their builders.

Just trying to help people like "Y'all."

You wouldn't need that in the contract. If you get a retroactive tax bill from before you owned the property, by definition it's the obligation of the previous owner. You could have just sent the bill to the builder, no matter if you had that provision in the contract or not.

Can you let me know where that provision was located in our builder's contract?

It's not needed because it's a basic concept of any property transfer. Any charges related to before you took ownership remain the obligation of the previous owner. With or without that clause, you would get the bill from the tax agency, do the calculations of what was owed related to the previous ownership period, and send the bill to the builder.

To be clear- you would have to pay the taxes first to remain free of any liens. But the builder would still owe for their previous portion. And also, this is a VERY unusual situation. I work in real estate and have never heard of taxes being retroactively adjusted like this unless there was an error by the taxing authority in the wrong direction, and they reduced it upon appeal. The basics of any sale of the title company managing prepaids and pro ratas works fine 99.9% of the time. It's what allows them to issue title insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

+1 It's an important distinction. The pp is a realtor still trying to hold onto the dual agent system with sellers paying the buyers agents. Many sellers won't be offering any commission to buyers agents in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

DP I disagree. The settlement didn't change this. The settlement merely prevents listing agents from using the MLS to offer buyer broker commission, a practice that was found to be unlawful for reasons the absent the MLS.

The industry latest response (e.g. Bright's recent "Dispelling Myths") is at least something, does little to overturn the evidence presented by plaintiffs; it seems unlikely as of now the next lawsuit will be much different.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

[Anonymous]

Because most of the buyers' agent don't offer anything unless you ask them. They open doors and take 2-3% commission which is unacceptable.

Buyer's agent can take the commission from listing agent and give it to the buyer. It is all legal and had done it a few times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because most of the buyers' agent don't offer anything unless you ask them.

Who is "you" in this case?

Anonymous wrote:They open doors and take 2-3% commission which is unacceptable.

Getting paid by the listing agent would prevent unacceptable buyer representation how?

Anonymous wrote:Buyer's agent can take the commission from listing agent and give it to the buyer.

Again what problem does this solve?

Anonymous wrote:It is all legal and had done it a few times.

What problem does this solve for the seller that isn't solved by a buyer using the concession offer to pay for buyer representation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

+1 As a seller in the near future, I'm not offering money to a buyer's agent. A buyer could offer a lower price and still net me more money at settlement than another buyer with a higher price but with a term for me to pay their useless agent.

For example: Buyer A offers $990K, no buyers agent. Buyer B offers $1M and wants me to pay their agent 1.5% ($15K), so really the offer is $985 with the privilege of me still paying taxes on that extra $15K. I'm going with Buyer A.

Even if Buyer B wants 1% ($10K), I'd still be financially better off selecting Buyer A because I wouldn't have to pay taxes or commissions on that $10K. And if they're exactly the same net to me, then I'm picking the unrepresented buyer on principle.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

To get the deal done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

To get the deal done.

This is the sort of non-answer we've come to expect from the Weird Math industry professionals of DCUM.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

+1 As a seller in the near future, I'm not offering money to a buyer's agent. A buyer could offer a lower price and still net me more money at settlement than another buyer with a higher price but with a term for me to pay their useless agent.

For example: Buyer A offers $990K, no buyers agent. Buyer B offers $1M and wants me to pay their agent 1.5% ($15K), so really the offer is $985 with the privilege of me still paying taxes on that extra $15K. I'm going with Buyer A.

Even if Buyer B wants 1% ($10K), I'd still be financially better off selecting Buyer A because I wouldn't have to pay taxes or commissions on that $10K. And if they're exactly the same net to me, then I'm picking the unrepresented buyer on principle.

Another clueless seller you don't pay the capital gains tax on selling costs which includes commission. But sure keep standing on principle as the sale falls thru because you chose the weaker offer overall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

+1 As a seller in the near future, I'm not offering money to a buyer's agent. A buyer could offer a lower price and still net me more money at settlement than another buyer with a higher price but with a term for me to pay their useless agent.

For example: Buyer A offers $990K, no buyers agent. Buyer B offers $1M and wants me to pay their agent 1.5% ($15K), so really the offer is $985 with the privilege of me still paying taxes on that extra $15K. I'm going with Buyer A.

Even if Buyer B wants 1% ($10K), I'd still be financially better off selecting Buyer A because I wouldn't have to pay taxes or commissions on that $10K. And if they're exactly the same net to me, then I'm picking the unrepresented buyer on principle.

Another clueless seller you don't pay the capital gains tax on selling costs which includes commission. But sure keep standing on principle as the sale falls thru because you chose the weaker offer overall.

Not true. You pay the transfer tax and commission on the entire sales price.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

+1 It's an important distinction. The pp is a realtor still trying to hold onto the dual agent system with sellers paying the buyers agents. Many sellers won't be offering any commission to buyers agents in the future.

Anyone who is pushing to keep the same agent's commission is crazy and obviously an agent himself/herself. It is coming down significantly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agent here. Last weekend was the first weekend the commission change became real for agents. I am offering 1% to buyer agents on listings and any additional can be paid by the buyer or negotiated with the seller.

In three multiple offer situations, the three agents who wanted only the 1% commission got the deal. The offers were similar and the sellers took the offers that netted the must to them. Agents were angry but I told them that our industry had done it to them. If they want to succeed, they have to prove their worth to buyers and get paid by buyers.

As a Realtor, you are not offering anything to a buyer’s agent under the new terms, the seller is. Please use the right verbiage to avoid confusion with the public

As a Realtor, I never offered anything to a buyer's agent. The company I am affiliated with offered a co-operating commission to the buyer agent's company. Under the "new terms" the listing agent can now ask the seller to pay a higher commission to the listing agent and that agent can credit some of the commission to the buyer as a subsidy.

Why launder the credit through realtor commissions? The seller can simply offer a concession. A simple concession. From seller to buyer.

Why, as a fiduciary, would you advise as seller who wishes to offer money to a buyer, to do so by paying a higher commission to the listing agent, who would credit the buyer? And through what mechanism?

To get the deal done.

This is the sort of non-answer we've come to expect from the Weird Math industry professionals of DCUM.

+1