Sellers, pls stop offering pay buyer's agent commission!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unrepresented buyers are a nightmare. Most sellers would prefer to work with a buyers agent who will get the deal to the closing table.

Yes I posted above. I would take a lower offer from a represented buyer over an unrepped higher offer.

Are you the seller or the seller’s agent? Because if an unrepped buyer means the seller nets an extra 3%, that seems worth it.

No, because unrepped buyers expect a discount for not being repped.

It doesn’t matter what they expect - it’s a negotiation.

Play this out from a seller’s perspective.

You list your house for $100,000 (to keep the math simple).

You get two offers.

Offer 1 is full price and they have a buyer agent who wants 2.5%. The buyer wants you to pay it. Your net is $97,500 (ignoring other closing costs for purposes of this example).

Offer 2 is an unrepresented buyer. They offer $98,000 and point out they don’t have an agent so you will net more.

Which are you taking? Spoiler: I am not automatically taking Offer 2. Too many other factors, the biggest of which is can they get to settlement?

Other things I am going to be asking is how much are they offering in EMD? What is their financial situation/lending status? How difficult are they going to be on the home inspection negotiations (since they’ve already telegraphed they’re kind of miserly with their attitude about agents)? How much more work is my LISTING agent going to have to do to make this deal happen. And then I am going to have ask whether there is higher risk of the transaction not closing since the buyer isn’t represented. If the answer to all these things is satisfactory I might take Offer 2. But it’s hardly a reflex.

All things being equal I’m taking 2, because I’m not into throwing away money. My listing agent is getting a lot lf money already out if the deal so they can do the work. This would be worth $30k to me (based on sales price for my home) so heck, I’d be perfectly willing to give the buyer a few thousand to pay a RE attorney to understand the closing process.

It’s not being “miserly” to not want to throw away 30k.

But that’s just it: Never, ever, are two offers the same except the price. So there’s never, ever an “all things being equal” scenario.

Sure well, being willing to forgo buyer’s agent commission significantly sweetens the offer for most rational people ….

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

Try to keep up: If you really believe the market will “correct” because of the NAR settlement, you believe prices will fall. And you will be out that $50,000 or more anyway.

You seem to cling to this fantasy that you are going to both get top dollar AND somehow pay less in commissions. Which kind of perfectly sums up your fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and is interrelated.

Which makes sense because I had you pegged as an irrational, overly emotional fool in the first place. Which is exactly why I would want an agent when transacting with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

Try to keep up: If you really believe the market will “correct” because of the NAR settlement, you believe prices will fall. And you will be out that $50,000 or more anyway.

You seem to cling to this fantasy that you are going to both get top dollar AND somehow pay less in commissions. Which kind of perfectly sums up your fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and is interrelated.

Which makes sense because I had you pegged as an irrational, overly emotional fool in the first place. Which is exactly why I would want an agent when transacting with you.

No, because that 50K was the direct product of anticompetitive players. When agents stop skimming off the top, buyers and sellers will benefit. Your argument is just idiotic beyond belief. Anyone with an ounce of brains who has learned about the market themselves knows that agents fees are vastly inflated.

I bought my home without a buyer’s agent and will be perfectly happy to sell it to someone unrepresentative and split the difference with them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

Try to keep up: If you really believe the market will “correct” because of the NAR settlement, you believe prices will fall. And you will be out that $50,000 or more anyway.

You seem to cling to this fantasy that you are going to both get top dollar AND somehow pay less in commissions. Which kind of perfectly sums up your fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and is interrelated.

Which makes sense because I had you pegged as an irrational, overly emotional fool in the first place. Which is exactly why I would want an agent when transacting with you.

No, because that 50K was the direct product of anticompetitive players. When agents stop skimming off the top, buyers and sellers will benefit. Your argument is just idiotic beyond belief. Anyone with an ounce of brains who has learned about the market themselves knows that agents fees are vastly inflated.

I bought my home without a buyer’s agent and will be perfectly happy to sell it to someone unrepresentative and split the difference with them.

Oh and for all your fulminating - OP’s post is about sellers offering buyer’d commissions. Surely if you so steadfastly believe in the value of buyer’s agents you can agree that the buyer can just pay their agent directly whatever they think they are worth?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

+1. It's so galling that agents think people shouldn't care about $50,000. Can you imagine if you had invested $100,000 in the stock market 40 years ago, and it was now worth $1 million, and when you went to cash it out from Fidelity, they told you that there was a $50,000 fee but that you shouldn't be upset about it? It's so absurd. It's going to take a long time to get all the rot and collusion of out the real estate agent profession, but now that there's been one highly successful lawsuit, I expect the plaintiffs' lawyers and DOJ will get the job done over the coming years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

+1. It's so galling that agents think people shouldn't care about $50,000. Can you imagine if you had invested $100,000 in the stock market 40 years ago, and it was now worth $1 million, and when you went to cash it out from Fidelity, they told you that there was a $50,000 fee but that you shouldn't be upset about it? It's so absurd. It's going to take a long time to get all the rot and collusion of out the real estate agent profession, but now that there's been one highly successful lawsuit, I expect the plaintiffs' lawyers and DOJ will get the job done over the coming years.

+100. Anyone paying the most minimal attention to investments understands that minimizing fees is really important. The idea that sellers are supposed to swallow a 5-6% fee on a huge transaction with no questions is crazy. Realtors were conspiring to keep these fees high so hopefully we’ll start to see them come down significantly soon and DOJ/AGs will step in to stop the contiuing collusion (like sellers agents supposedly boycotting unrepresented buyerw or discount brokers, or trying to force buyers to accept buyers agent fees set by the seller).

[Anonymous]

OP here: to clarify I’m not an erratic emotional first time home buyer. I have 11 rental units and successful RE transactions to which my loan officer attested to with selling agent. My offer was professionally written by an attorney with 60 years of experience. There were no contingencies in the offer besides financing and I would take the property as is. I closed my prior purchases unrepresented just fine.
The person who was forced on my as my “buyers agent” did literally nothing with the paperwork and didn’t find the house for me in the first place. I identified this property for development using complex spreadsheets and paid $400 to architect for feasibility study of zoning regs before drafting an offer


It’s the shady nature of transaction and scam committed by the agents that scared me away. I would have absolutely bought the house directly but I couldn’t find the owner

I believe sellers DO need to stop offering buyers commission and let buyers contract agents themselves if they want

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: to clarify I’m not an erratic emotional first time home buyer. I have 11 rental units and successful RE transactions to which my loan officer attested to with selling agent. My offer was professionally written by an attorney with 60 years of experience. There were no contingencies in the offer besides financing and I would take the property as is. I closed my prior purchases unrepresented just fine.
The person who was forced on my as my “buyers agent” did literally nothing with the paperwork and didn’t find the house for me in the first place. I identified this property for development using complex spreadsheets and paid $400 to architect for feasibility study of zoning regs before drafting an offer


It’s the shady nature of transaction and scam committed by the agents that scared me away. I would have absolutely bought the house directly but I couldn’t find the owner

I believe sellers DO need to stop offering buyers commission and let buyers contract agents themselves if they want

You’re not wrong, but as someone planning to sell in the spring, these threads have convinced me that the realtors are still playing games and we might mysteriously lack buyers if we don’t offer something to their agents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

Try to keep up: If you really believe the market will “correct” because of the NAR settlement, you believe prices will fall. And you will be out that $50,000 or more anyway.

You seem to cling to this fantasy that you are going to both get top dollar AND somehow pay less in commissions. Which kind of perfectly sums up your fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and is interrelated.

Which makes sense because I had you pegged as an irrational, overly emotional fool in the first place. Which is exactly why I would want an agent when transacting with you.

DP here. If caring about saving $50K makes someone an irrational, overly emotional fool, then I guess I'm one too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

Try to keep up: If you really believe the market will “correct” because of the NAR settlement, you believe prices will fall. And you will be out that $50,000 or more anyway.

You seem to cling to this fantasy that you are going to both get top dollar AND somehow pay less in commissions. Which kind of perfectly sums up your fundamental misunderstanding of how all of this works and is interrelated.

Which makes sense because I had you pegged as an irrational, overly emotional fool in the first place. Which is exactly why I would want an agent when transacting with you.

No, because that 50K was the direct product of anticompetitive players. When agents stop skimming off the top, buyers and sellers will benefit. Your argument is just idiotic beyond belief. Anyone with an ounce of brains who has learned about the market themselves knows that agents fees are vastly inflated.

I bought my home without a buyer’s agent and will be perfectly happy to sell it to someone unrepresentative and split the difference with them.

+1 There's also the listing agent there to serve as a buffer (although this trope about "emotional buyers and sellers" is just the latest NAR excuse to price fix). No need for two realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here: to clarify I’m not an erratic emotional first time home buyer. I have 11 rental units and successful RE transactions to which my loan officer attested to with selling agent. My offer was professionally written by an attorney with 60 years of experience. There were no contingencies in the offer besides financing and I would take the property as is. I closed my prior purchases unrepresented just fine.
The person who was forced on my as my “buyers agent” did literally nothing with the paperwork and didn’t find the house for me in the first place. I identified this property for development using complex spreadsheets and paid $400 to architect for feasibility study of zoning regs before drafting an offer


It’s the shady nature of transaction and scam committed by the agents that scared me away. I would have absolutely bought the house directly but I couldn’t find the owner

I believe sellers DO need to stop offering buyers commission and let buyers contract agents themselves if they want

The only people accusing you of being emotional are realtors. Everyone else sees that having a second parasitic realtor trying to get get their cut is problematic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: to clarify I’m not an erratic emotional first time home buyer. I have 11 rental units and successful RE transactions to which my loan officer attested to with selling agent. My offer was professionally written by an attorney with 60 years of experience. There were no contingencies in the offer besides financing and I would take the property as is. I closed my prior purchases unrepresented just fine.
The person who was forced on my as my “buyers agent” did literally nothing with the paperwork and didn’t find the house for me in the first place. I identified this property for development using complex spreadsheets and paid $400 to architect for feasibility study of zoning regs before drafting an offer


It’s the shady nature of transaction and scam committed by the agents that scared me away. I would have absolutely bought the house directly but I couldn’t find the owner

I believe sellers DO need to stop offering buyers commission and let buyers contract agents themselves if they want

The only people accusing you of being emotional are realtors. Everyone else sees that having a second parasitic realtor trying to get get their cut is problematic.

Yes. The point here is that the second agent was imposed on the buyer completely artificially. It’s basically the selling agent and their friend you are dealing with, doubling the commission. They split it under the table. Basically, a kick off, totally illegal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here: to clarify I’m not an erratic emotional first time home buyer. I have 11 rental units and successful RE transactions to which my loan officer attested to with selling agent. My offer was professionally written by an attorney with 60 years of experience. There were no contingencies in the offer besides financing and I would take the property as is. I closed my prior purchases unrepresented just fine.
The person who was forced on my as my “buyers agent” did literally nothing with the paperwork and didn’t find the house for me in the first place. I identified this property for development using complex spreadsheets and paid $400 to architect for feasibility study of zoning regs before drafting an offer


It’s the shady nature of transaction and scam committed by the agents that scared me away. I would have absolutely bought the house directly but I couldn’t find the owner

I believe sellers DO need to stop offering buyers commission and let buyers contract agents themselves if they want

The only people accusing you of being emotional are realtors. Everyone else sees that having a second parasitic realtor trying to get get their cut is problematic.

Yes. The point here is that the second agent was imposed on the buyer completely artificially. It’s basically the selling agent and their friend you are dealing with, doubling the commission. They split it under the table. Basically, a kick off, totally illegal

Realtors pre-settlement: "no we aren't price fixing, why would you ever say that???"

Realtors post-settlement- "yeah I know what the settlement says, nobody is going to go along with that, here is the price which we have fixed"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

I'm a neutral party to this dispute (and a new poster to this thread).
I'm not a realtor, I'm not an agent, I'm not a lender, I have absolutely nothing to do with the real estate industry at all.

What I am, is simply curious as to how you're still struggling to grasp the logic, here?

You’re seeking to procure top-tier pricing for your property (profitting significantly beyond what you initially invested) while simultaneously expecting to pay minimal commission?

You're happy to reap the benefits⅞ of an overabundantly inflated real estate market; and yet... somehow you believe that no one else but you deserves a share of the gains?

There's a term for your mindset — it's called greed.

You're greedy.

And greed is such an ugly look.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

Who isn’t obsessed with paying 6% of the value of your house to people who either do minimal work for you, or don’t work for you at all? Six percent is a LOT. That would be almost 40% of the appreciation of my house, and would be the single biggest cost of the transaction - more than lender fees, more than title insurance, more than taxes. It’s a massive market failure.

Setting aside the point that 6% hasn’t been typical in well over two decades, you sound math challenged. Or maybe you just haven’t owned your house very long.

The only reason 5% seems so much now is the wild appreciation in houses in the first place. You probably don’t think THAT appreciation was ridiculous, right?

When houses cost $100,000, 6% commission might have netted around $1,200 for an individual agent after splits with their brokerage. Was that a reasonable charge to get a deal done?

It’s just now that houses cost closer to $1 million. At 5% that’s netting probably around $10,000 for an individual agent after splits and other brokerage fees. Is it a lot? Sure. But that’s driven by the value of the home. And if you bought that home at $100,000 and are now selling at $1 million, you’re really going to have a hissy fit over $50,000 in commission charges?

FFS yes I am having a hissy fit over FIFTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. That is a TON of money, the single biggest fee in the transaction, and in my particular case would amount to 40% of my appreciation. It’s absolutely absurd. I accept that I’ll probably end up paying some agents fees because the market hasn’t corrected yet (and there is still collusion) but I’m going to minimize what I can.

I'm a neutral party to this dispute (and a new poster to this thread).
I'm not a realtor, I'm not an agent, I'm not a lender, I have absolutely nothing to do with the real estate industry at all.

What I am, is simply curious as to how you're still struggling to grasp the logic, here?

You’re seeking to procure top-tier pricing for your property (profitting significantly beyond what you initially invested) while simultaneously expecting to pay minimal commission?

You're happy to reap the benefits⅞ of an overabundantly inflated real estate market; and yet... somehow you believe that no one else but you deserves a share of the gains?

Not the PP, but if anyone who deserves to benefit from inflated prices is the person who took risk with capital to buy it. Agents certainly does not deserve a piece here.