As a buyer, how can I leverage new Realtor commission rules for my benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:as an agent i just got such a buyer and it was great! buyer grossly overpaid and seller cut me additional commission. Buyer had no clue.

And, hence, due to this totally predictable consequence from the new rules, the justice department will “have to” step in and further regulate the industry. Even though they created this mess with their half-baked settlement.

The reason for buyer representation being created in the 80s/90s was precisely this power and knowledge disparity.

Everyone will come out a loser from this in the end.

[Anonymous]

I recently put my home on the market. The first offer was a low-ball offer. I told my agent that we could negotiate close to that price if we removed the 2.5% buyer agent fee that's on the listing. My agent said that she did not want to do that. She didn't want to sour the relationship she has with the the buyer's agent. So it seems that agents are still colluding.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you want the lowest fee, just don't use a buyer's agent at all. It's not that complicated.

+1 Just contact the listing agent. Tell them you're an unrepresented buyer and you want to see the property. Refuse to sign any agreement for them or anyone else to represent you.

Wrote two contracts for unrepresented buyers on Tuesday and played them off each other. I even made one drop the VA financing even though the interest rate was better. After I squeezed them dry, the sellers did about $73,000 more than the best comp from June This is going to be a lot better for sellers because the buyers are easy to manipulate. I will take unrepresented buyers any day.

You mean, because there were no buyers agents there to advise their clients to offer above asking, with escalation clauses, and to waive inspection and all other contingencies? That kind of expert advice?

They were unrepresented and I gave them no advice. For their offer to be considered they had to waive all contingencies. That's why one buyer had to change from VA to conventional financing because he could not waive the appraisal contingency. No escalation clauses. I did several rounds of best and final offers until both reached top of the loan for which they qualified.

The same thing would have happened if the buyers were represented and if they wanted the house. No buyer' agent ever ever has told us to walk away over the course of multiple bids for the 2 condos and 2 houses we have owned.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:as an agent i just got such a buyer and it was great! buyer grossly overpaid and seller cut me additional commission. Buyer had no clue.

And, hence, due to this totally predictable consequence from the new rules, the justice department will “have to” step in and further regulate the industry. Even though they created this mess with their half-baked settlement.

The reason for buyer representation being created in the 80s/90s was precisely this power and knowledge disparity.

Everyone will come out a loser from this in the end.

Wrong. You are factually wrong. The Justice Department was not a party to the settlement (the "new rules").

You are an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can someone explain the new rules? Bc my understanding was that 1) agents can’t show a home without some form of agreement signed outlining who pays compensation (even if it’s short time); and 2) sellers don’t have to pay buyer agent compensation; buyers can ask for them to pay it in their offer, but it’s not automatically assumed sellers pay both.

So if you are unrepresented and call the listing agent don’t they then ask you to sign an agreement and are thus a double agent? EILIF

Agents cannot advertise buyer broker commissions on the MLS. That's it.

Can they offer elsewhere? Yes.
Will they? Yes.
Do they? Yes.

What's the point? The present rules are temporary; the rules will be revised pending ongoing litigation.

Why are we here? The industry. The real estate industry violating antitrust law is why we are here.

Really? Yes. 1.8 billion $$$$$$ Yes.

[Anonymous]

Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to let everyone in on a secret. It's the secret that agents don't want you to know. It will help you win any house. Agents charge tens of thousands for this secret but for this limited time, I'm going to let all of you in on the secret. You ready? Get excited, because here it is. The secret to winning any house is as follows:

Waive all contingencies and bid higher than everyone else.

Using this valuable, proprietary secret, you'll now be in a position to win any house that you're interested in.

You remind me of the saying...That the problem in the world is that stupid people are
so confident and the intelligent ones are filled with doubt. No shit, waive contingencies and bid high but if you think that is all there is to it, you will definitely learn that lesson when you lose in multiple offer situations again and again.

You can’t lose if you make the highest bid and waive all contingencies. You can’t.

+1 The realtors keep claiming that there's "something" that the buyers agents do in addition to advising their buyers to waive contingencies and offer more money, despite their unwillingness to tell us what this mystical thing is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

I'm not a Realtor or an agent, and I think the point is that there's no "leveraging" these new rules. They will inherently put buyers at a disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, I get that there are a lot of people who fancy themselves smart and capable of doing a transaction like this without representation, but in my mind it's akin to divorcing someone without your own lawyer.

I'm not sure where, exactly, you got this idea that there's some benefit to be "leveraged."

Potentially the seller benefits by paying reduced commission overall. But I don't see any inherent benefit to buyers. I see only downside risks.

[Anonymous]

They are not Buyers Agents if Seller Paying Fee. Stop called them that.

A true buyers agent buyer pays fee and they are fiduciary bound to buyer not the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

That's just the thing, however. It's extremely rare for "all else being equal" to be true with competing offers where the only consideration is a tiny differential in price offered. Also, in your example, Buyer B is overpaying for the house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

I'm not a Realtor or an agent, and I think the point is that there's no "leveraging" these new rules. They will inherently put buyers at a disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, I get that there are a lot of people who fancy themselves smart and capable of doing a transaction like this without representation, but in my mind it's akin to divorcing someone without your own lawyer.

I'm not sure where, exactly, you got this idea that there's some benefit to be "leveraged."

Potentially the seller benefits by paying reduced commission overall. But I don't see any inherent benefit to buyers. I see only downside risks.

Found the buyer's agent. The only thing my buyer's agents have done was to tell me to BID MORE, NOW, and WAIVE EVERYTHING even when it turned out we didn't need to. I'd rather save that 2% and pay less for the house, it's a no brainer. Plus I don't have to deal with their BS false pressure. Buyer's agents are nothing like attorneys and anyone who has done a real estate transaction before can do 1,000 more without any help from an agent. Like someone else said, they're in it for getting a deal at the highest price possible, not for their "client's" interests.

Ever notice how realtors will always tell you it's the best time to buy/sell? Interest rates are low, buy a house now to save on financing costs! Interest rates are low, better sell your house because there are tons of buyers! Interest rates are high, better buy a house now before rates drop and prices go higher! The market is slow, better buy now before it heats up! The market is hot, better buy now before you get locked out! SO tired of their BS, it's hugely contributed to the increased cost of housing in this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

That's just the thing, however. It's extremely rare for "all else being equal" to be true with competing offers where the only consideration is a tiny differential in price offered. Also, in your example, Buyer B is overpaying for the house.

Are you saying that Buyer B should instead offer $980,001? Sure, if they knew what Buyer A was offering, but they don't. So isn't it the case then that every highest bid offer is "overpaying" if they are more than $1 over the next highest offer?

Also, why wouldn't "everything being equal" be true? Again, the "special sauce" that a buyers agent brings is, what exactly? If it's "waive contingencies", then why wouldn't the seller just go back to Buyer B and say "if you can keep your offer at the same level, but waive contingencies, we will accept? Sending that email is worth an extra $5k if I am the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:as an agent i just got such a buyer and it was great! buyer grossly overpaid and seller cut me additional commission. Buyer had no clue.

And, hence, due to this totally predictable consequence from the new rules, the justice department will “have to” step in and further regulate the industry. Even though they created this mess with their half-baked settlement.

The reason for buyer representation being created in the 80s/90s was precisely this power and knowledge disparity.

Everyone will come out a loser from this in the end.

Wrong. You are factually wrong. The Justice Department was not a party to the settlement (the "new rules").

You are an idiot.

You sound like a really nice, balanced and happy person. You must be a joy to be around in general! You may be technically correct (big pat on the back for sticking it to one of the stupid and incompetent real estate agents.) Arguably, DOJ played and is still playing the major role in influencing/dictating the actual terms that are acceptable in the multiple lawsuits and for sure in the overall antitrust lawsuit. E.g. https://www.axios.com/2024/03/21/doj-nar-settlement-home-buying

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

I'm not a Realtor or an agent, and I think the point is that there's no "leveraging" these new rules. They will inherently put buyers at a disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, I get that there are a lot of people who fancy themselves smart and capable of doing a transaction like this without representation, but in my mind it's akin to divorcing someone without your own lawyer.

I'm not sure where, exactly, you got this idea that there's some benefit to be "leveraged."

Potentially the seller benefits by paying reduced commission overall. But I don't see any inherent benefit to buyers. I see only downside risks.

Found the buyer's agent. The only thing my buyer's agents have done was to tell me to BID MORE, NOW, and WAIVE EVERYTHING even when it turned out we didn't need to. I'd rather save that 2% and pay less for the house, it's a no brainer. Plus I don't have to deal with their BS false pressure. Buyer's agents are nothing like attorneys and anyone who has done a real estate transaction before can do 1,000 more without any help from an agent. Like someone else said, they're in it for getting a deal at the highest price possible, not for their "client's" interests.

Ever notice how realtors will always tell you it's the best time to buy/sell? Interest rates are low, buy a house now to save on financing costs! Interest rates are low, better sell your house because there are tons of buyers! Interest rates are high, better buy a house now before rates drop and prices go higher! The market is slow, better buy now before it heats up! The market is hot, better buy now before you get locked out! SO tired of their BS, it's hugely contributed to the increased cost of housing in this country.

Sigh. Do you know how obnoxious you sound when every contrarian reply to your strongly held but invalid opinion is "found the buyer's agent?"

I'm not connected to the industry in any way. I just know more than you.

You sound like the type who's frequently wrong but rarely in doubt.