Offered 1% commission for listing

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

So basically do exactly what anyone who has bought a house during the internet age has said it should work!

ie I should be able to put an offer in on a house without a realtor getting in the way, and have my offer be 2.9% less than the next best offer, and still be the most attractive offer for the buyer. But instead, when i posted that question in like 2005 on dcum (which I'm sure I did!! Because this is the obvious answer of how things should work when all houses are available online) I was told there was absolutely no rationale for doing this approach, and under the seller agent contract, the seller agent would just get to keep 6% total commission from the sale. Absolute insanity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parasites not used to working for $$. Will be hard adjustment for them. Sellers now pushing back.

Can you imagine what it will be like for the parasites who have been sucking off he government tit followed by the parasites in government contracting, law, and consultancies. They are really unemployable.

Well, they can sell real estate.

The realtors I meet at open houses in my Arlington neighborhood are personable and can hold intelligent conversations. I cannot say the same for my staff at a government agency. The only reason I am happy that Trump got elected is that I can leave my political appointment and return to my law firm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

+1 Buyers foregoing realtors are much better positioned than buyers using realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

So basically do exactly what anyone who has bought a house during the internet age has said it should work!

ie I should be able to put an offer in on a house without a realtor getting in the way, and have my offer be 2.9% less than the next best offer, and still be the most attractive offer for the buyer. But instead, when i posted that question in like 2005 on dcum (which I'm sure I did!! Because this is the obvious answer of how things should work when all houses are available online) I was told there was absolutely no rationale for doing this approach, and under the seller agent contract, the seller agent would just get to keep 6% total commission from the sale. Absolute insanity.

It didn't work before because sellers generally had to commit in advance to a percentage to be paid to a buyer's agent, which the seller's agent likely would be able to appropriate if a buyer did not use an agent. So a buyer had no means to make an offer with a lower seller concession, and therefore no ability to make an offer more attractive by foregoing an agent. The only workaround was to use a discount agent who would rebate some of the pre-specified amount back to the buyer.

[Anonymous]

Very few people are using buyer's agent due to a chance of either losing on an offer or noone wants to additionally pay money out of their pocket when they are also paying a significant downpayment. In addition, relators are not worth their weight for 1-2% commission. I could see more agents moving towards selling and that competition would bring down the commission more, may be like 1% total in the future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parasites not used to working for $$. Will be hard adjustment for them. Sellers now pushing back.

Can you imagine what it will be like for the parasites who have been sucking off he government tit followed by the parasites in government contracting, law, and consultancies. They are really unemployable.

Well, they can sell real estate.

The realtors I meet at open houses in my Arlington neighborhood are personable and can hold intelligent conversations. I cannot say the same for my staff at a government agency. The only reason I am happy that Trump got elected is that I can leave my political appointment and return to my law firm.

Ok, Mr Realtor. We know you are the best brains out there. Your realtors in Arlington can hold intelligent conversation about telling you what services to use and where to eat and nothing else. They will just push papers on you and sneak a clause that would hold them unaccountable in case something goes wrong.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

So basically do exactly what anyone who has bought a house during the internet age has said it should work!

ie I should be able to put an offer in on a house without a realtor getting in the way, and have my offer be 2.9% less than the next best offer, and still be the most attractive offer for the buyer. But instead, when i posted that question in like 2005 on dcum (which I'm sure I did!! Because this is the obvious answer of how things should work when all houses are available online) I was told there was absolutely no rationale for doing this approach, and under the seller agent contract, the seller agent would just get to keep 6% total commission from the sale. Absolute insanity.

It didn't work before because sellers generally had to commit in advance to a percentage to be paid to a buyer's agent, which the seller's agent likely would be able to appropriate if a buyer did not use an agent. So a buyer had no means to make an offer with a lower seller concession, and therefore no ability to make an offer more attractive by foregoing an agent. The only workaround was to use a discount agent who would rebate some of the pre-specified amount back to the buyer.

That's exactly my point. It was a literal monopoly, that the very basic forces of supply and demand were unable to make a dent in the pricing model.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parasites not used to working for $$. Will be hard adjustment for them. Sellers now pushing back.

Can you imagine what it will be like for the parasites who have been sucking off he government tit followed by the parasites in government contracting, law, and consultancies. They are really unemployable.

Well, they can sell real estate.

The realtors I meet at open houses in my Arlington neighborhood are personable and can hold intelligent conversations. I cannot say the same for my staff at a government agency. The only reason I am happy that Trump got elected is that I can leave my political appointment and return to my law firm.

There's nothing preventing PP from doing that now.

Terrible liar, a dead giveaway this is an agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. Can someone explain how the new rules would impact buying? Could we offer say a flat fee or 1% to a buyers agent?

Sellers no longer commit to a percentage paid to a buyers' agent in advance. Buyers can request concessions in their offer, including to pay an agent. Offers requesting lower concessions will be more attractive to sellers. This benefits buyers because a buyer can forego using an agent or use a discount agent and make a more attractive offer at a lower price. For instance, if buyer A offers $1M and requests a 2.5% seller concession to pay her agent, A's offer is really $9,750,000. If buyer B foregoes an agent B can offer, say, $980,000 with no concession and the seller will likely accept B's offer over A's, even though it's nominally for a lower price. B could also, say, offer $1M and request a $20,000 concession to be paid towards the buyer's closing costs and would still beat A's offer by $5K.

If B wanted to use an agent, B could find a discount agent charging, say, 1%, and could, for example, offer $990,000, request a $10K concession for the agent, and still beat out A's offer.

So basically do exactly what anyone who has bought a house during the internet age has said it should work!

ie I should be able to put an offer in on a house without a realtor getting in the way, and have my offer be 2.9% less than the next best offer, and still be the most attractive offer for the buyer. But instead, when i posted that question in like 2005 on dcum (which I'm sure I did!! Because this is the obvious answer of how things should work when all houses are available online) I was told there was absolutely no rationale for doing this approach, and under the seller agent contract, the seller agent would just get to keep 6% total commission from the sale. Absolute insanity.

It didn't work before because sellers generally had to commit in advance to a percentage to be paid to a buyer's agent, which the seller's agent likely would be able to appropriate if a buyer did not use an agent. So a buyer had no means to make an offer with a lower seller concession, and therefore no ability to make an offer more attractive by foregoing an agent. The only workaround was to use a discount agent who would rebate some of the pre-specified amount back to the buyer.

That's exactly my point. It was a literal monopoly, that the very basic forces of supply and demand were unable to make a dent in the pricing model.

This is for the best. Market will adjust and gravitate towards very low commission. Noone likes giving money to agents and they will do the same job in 1% as they have been doing for 5%. We might have fewer agents but at least commission will be lower.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parasites not used to working for $$. Will be hard adjustment for them. Sellers now pushing back.

Can you imagine what it will be like for the parasites who have been sucking off he government tit followed by the parasites in government contracting, law, and consultancies. They are really unemployable.

Well, they can sell real estate.

The realtors I meet at open houses in my Arlington neighborhood are personable and can hold intelligent conversations. I cannot say the same for my staff at a government agency. The only reason I am happy that Trump got elected is that I can leave my political appointment and return to my law firm.

There's nothing preventing PP from doing that now.

Terrible liar, a dead giveaway this is an agent.

I am not an agent or a political appointee but what does happen to political appointees? Do all of them just leave when Trump is elected, or do they have to stay until the inauguration? Are there a lot of political appointees and if they leave without replacements does it have a big impact on the government?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parasites not used to working for $$. Will be hard adjustment for them. Sellers now pushing back.

Can you imagine what it will be like for the parasites who have been sucking off he government tit followed by the parasites in government contracting, law, and consultancies. They are really unemployable.

Well, they can sell real estate.

The realtors I meet at open houses in my Arlington neighborhood are personable and can hold intelligent conversations. I cannot say the same for my staff at a government agency. The only reason I am happy that Trump got elected is that I can leave my political appointment and return to my law firm.

There's nothing preventing PP from doing that now.

Terrible liar, a dead giveaway this is an agent.

I am not an agent or a political appointee but what does happen to political appointees? Do all of them just leave when Trump is elected, or do they have to stay until the inauguration? Are there a lot of political appointees and if they leave without replacements does it have a big impact on the government?

You will be "happy" to leave your political appointment and return to your law firm - if the law firm is a happier more desirable position, then you would already be there.

Whatever you are - agent, appointee, troll - you cannot be taken seriously.

[Anonymous]

Most of the agents are scums and would do anything to make a buck. I have seen agents pushing bad homes on their own families just to make some money. Pathetic. I think after politicians, and car salesman, agents have the worst reputation on ethics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agents are scums and would do anything to make a buck. I have seen agents pushing bad homes on their own families just to make some money. Pathetic. I think after politicians, and car salesman, agents have the worst reputation on ethics.

I suppose it's a benign hobby monitoring the behavior of real estate agents. But then what else can those of a limited sort do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the agents are scums and would do anything to make a buck. I have seen agents pushing bad homes on their own families just to make some money. Pathetic. I think after politicians, and car salesman, agents have the worst reputation on ethics.

I suppose it's a benign hobby monitoring the behavior of real estate agents. But then what else can those of a limited sort do?

May be not do unethical things to make a quick buck.