Want to buy a house without an agent - the listing agent has cancelled the showing. Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This thread is really amusing. The power belongs to the sellers and listing agents in the market, buyers may either play according to their rules or suffer (by not getting the house they want). Sure it's great if you think you can do it yourself and get the buyers agents commission, but in a multiple offer situation do you really think the listing agent is going to accept an unrepresented buyers offer above those with buyers agents? (which 95% will be)...
The same goes for redfin agents, sorry but i dont know a good listing agent who will recommend to a seller that they accept one in this market.
No, it's not fair, but working with a good well connected buyers agent (who the listing agent wants to work with) is really in a buyers favor. Maybe you don't save the commission but perhaps you get the house you want instead.

The LISTING AGENT should NEVER be the one to close the door on an offer or a potential buyer. The listing agent is supposed to be representing the SELLER, not themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.

If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...

what a lot of people here seem not to understand is that all OP wants is "saving" 1 or 2or more % of the sale price but getting it back as a rebate from the seller's agent. there is no law that says that OP has the right to get that money if OP does not havea an agent. the ^% (or 5% or whatever ois in the contract between seller and the agent) simply goes to the seller's agent, who will split with the buyer's agent if there is one. OP is not an agent, he has not right to the rabate. if OP contacts the seller directly, and the sale goes through, l still have to pay 6% o the sale to the seller's agent, since most agreemetns are exclusive for a period of time, so a seller who is paying an agent will still use the seller's agent even if OP contact the seller directly. this issue here is the market - getting money back was easier on the past,nnow it is a seller's marlket., super hot in some areas, houses sell super fast ion days from listing, with multiple offers, so OP's technique is not going to fly if he is trying to buy n a super hot market. and now many sellers negotiate a lower % commission to the seller's agent (I heard of seller giving 5% or even 4% to agents since the market is so hot and often a house goes under contract even before any open house), so seller's agent may not be inclined to cut their commossion even further when there are plenty of buyers and OP would makde them work more (case in point, if OP had his own agent, the seller's agent would not need to get up and gpo to open the house for him)

THANK YOU!
I haven't been back to this thread in a few days but am the PP who called the OP a piece of work for trying to horn in on this arrangement. The comment after me who said I was wrong because the agent has an obligation to present all offers is correct - if the OP is making an offer. He's not. He's just asking for someone to show the place. I can't even read all these attorney comments back and forth with the misinformation, it's actually so funny. And now I know why people don't know what they're doing in real estate transactions now.

A buyer thinking they can get some of the commission money is just - so odd to me. I wouldn't even think of asking for something like that. And it's not the buyer who "pays" because he leaves money on the table - the commission is reduced from the seller's proceeds. The seller pays.

The misinformation in the thread is proof positive that people need agents. Too funny.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.

What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.

That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.

[Anonymous]

i am curious - OP did you ever go back and look at the house (either with new agent, on your own, or with listing agent?)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.

What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.

That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.

That's not what my one-time agent told me. She had put in a call for me to see a house, and the agent hadn't responded in about 24 hours, and she said, "It's against [whatever it was] for him not to respond. I'll contact him again." So I'm assuming there should be no discrimination up front.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.

What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.

That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.

That's not what my one-time agent told me. She had put in a call for me to see a house, and the agent hadn't responded in about 24 hours, and she said, "It's against [whatever it was] for him not to respond. I'll contact him again." So I'm assuming there should be no discrimination up front.

this is different. an agent called another agent. so it is obvious that the called agent was supposed to respond. in this sense I agree with you, there should be no discrimination up front. but in this case it was a random stranger calling the seller's agent and asking the sellers' agent to open the house. I do think that it would be a good policy to respond and show the house, but the reality is that in a very hot market with low inventory, adn i a very busy tiume of the year of agent, I understand why an agent does not return a call. ffor the agent it would be simply give two hours of her time to a stranger who may simply wqalk away and say thank you, while she may have her own clients to take around to see homes

[Anonymous]

Someone needs to point to the law and/or professional ethics document. Anyone have the text?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Forgot to mention: the house is still on the market. It is in a not-so-hot area of Potomac.

I think we'll go the Redfin route.

Scotland?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.

The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.

I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.

You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.

Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.

If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...

what a lot of people here seem not to understand is that all OP wants is "saving" 1 or 2or more % of the sale price but getting it back as a rebate from the seller's agent. there is no law that says that OP has the right to get that money if OP does not havea an agent. the ^% (or 5% or whatever ois in the contract between seller and the agent) simply goes to the seller's agent, who will split with the buyer's agent if there is one. OP is not an agent, he has not right to the rabate. if OP contacts the seller directly, and the sale goes through, l still have to pay 6% o the sale to the seller's agent, since most agreemetns are exclusive for a period of time, so a seller who is paying an agent will still use the seller's agent even if OP contact the seller directly. this issue here is the market - getting money back was easier on the past,nnow it is a seller's marlket., super hot in some areas, houses sell super fast ion days from listing, with multiple offers, so OP's technique is not going to fly if he is trying to buy n a super hot market. and now many sellers negotiate a lower % commission to the seller's agent (I heard of seller giving 5% or even 4% to agents since the market is so hot and often a house goes under contract even before any open house), so seller's agent may not be inclined to cut their commossion even further when there are plenty of buyers and OP would makde them work more (case in point, if OP had his own agent, the seller's agent would not need to get up and gpo to open the house for him)

THANK YOU!
I haven't been back to this thread in a few days but am the PP who called the OP a piece of work for trying to horn in on this arrangement. The comment after me who said I was wrong because the agent has an obligation to present all offers is correct - if the OP is making an offer. He's not. He's just asking for someone to show the place. I can't even read all these attorney comments back and forth with the misinformation, it's actually so funny. And now I know why people don't know what they're doing in real estate transactions now.

A buyer thinking they can get some of the commission money is just - so odd to me. I wouldn't even think of asking for something like that. And it's not the buyer who "pays" because he leaves money on the table - the commission is reduced from the seller's proceeds. The seller pays.

The misinformation in the thread is proof positive that people need agents. Too funny.

Directly yes. BUT buyers have to pay more for homes in general because the seller knows how much they have to pay in commission. I am the PP who bought a FSBO - no agents involved at all. It was a WIN WIN and both parties were thrilled. RE agents are right up there with used car salesmen in my book. Except they make a lot more money for a lot less work. But equally slimy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Forgot to mention: the house is still on the market. It is in a not-so-hot area of Potomac.

I think we'll go the Redfin route.

Scotland?

Did you see the house, OP? What did you decide?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.

What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.

That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.

That's not what my one-time agent told me. She had put in a call for me to see a house, and the agent hadn't responded in about 24 hours, and she said, "It's against [whatever it was] for him not to respond. I'll contact him again." So I'm assuming there should be no discrimination up front.

this is different. an agent called another agent. so it is obvious that the called agent was supposed to respond. in this sense I agree with you, there should be no discrimination up front. but in this case it was a random stranger calling the seller's agent and asking the sellers' agent to open the house. I do think that it would be a good policy to respond and show the house, but the reality is that in a very hot market with low inventory, adn i a very busy tiume of the year of agent, I understand why an agent does not return a call. ffor the agent it would be simply give two hours of her time to a stranger who may simply wqalk away and say thank you, while she may have her own clients to take around to see homes

Totally agree with the last response. It's different if it's agent to agent. In that case, if an agent didn't respond to me (I'm an agent) I would report them thru the MLS function and question if the house is even listed as they are not returning calls. But a customer calling an agent - the agent doesn't have to return that call. It's stupid not to, but if they start to hear that you want to be unrepresented, and that god forbid you are a lawyer, you'll be too much trouble for their clients - the sellers. So see, that agent sized you up and deemed you a time-waste for their clients. So you're looking at it backward from how we do - the agent did do their job. They also offered to have another agent in their firm help you, right?

I don't deny there are a lot of really bad craptastic agents out there. But we're not all bad. Man, I go to bat for my clients and I have no problems reaching in my own pocket to make a deal go if I need to. In the case of OP though, he's not understanding that he won't really get any savings, that money goes to the Listing Agent. I've seen it happen tons of times, totally frustrating but true. If money goes back to the buyers, someone has to pay that money - if it came from the agent then there's a whole other implication there. The have to pay taxes anyway on what they give you. If they cite it as a business expense, they have to give you a 1099. Bah. It's all a big mess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to point to the law and/or professional ethics document. Anyone have the text?

it's called a "fiduciary duty" and there's not specific document that captures it, it's basic clear-as-can-be law that the fiduciary owes a duty to the client ahead of their own interests, etc.

there may be a real estate code of ethics saying the same thing but this is not a complicated nuance of the law...

for example:

"As the agent for your client, you must be loyal and keep their best interests ahead of those of any other party, including yourself. How much commission you might make, particularly in competing offer situations, should not be a consideration and would be disloyal to your client." http://realestate.about.com/od/realestatebasics/p/fiduciary_duty.htm

[Anonymous]

Another agent here...the OP didn't want to see the house via a colleague of the listing agent, and so wrote off the whole thing? Many agents work with teams and will send a colleague/team member to show something in their place. If the OP then declined the showing because that arrangement didn't suit her, how is the listing agent at fault? If the listing agent refused her calls, didn't reply to emails, didn't show up for a scheduled meeting, those are big problems. But if OP declined the showing because he/she didn't care for the choice of agent, I fail to see the issue.
Regarding the commission, I would absolutely discount it if the buyer came without an agent. I wouldn't credit the buyer, I'd charge less to the seller under the listing agreement. 5-6% for a standard deal with a buyer's agent, 4% if the buyer has no agent. That's what I've done for the past 10 years but as I work primarily in DC, most buyers seem to have agents. FWIW, if an agent simply shows you a house, you are under zero obligation to them. In fact, all agents legally represent the seller unless they have an agency agreement with a buyer. (There is presumed buyer agency in MD but that's a bit much to get into here.).
Looking forward to hearing back from OP on this one.

[Anonymous]

The buyside agent / no agent is somewhat of a recurring theme on DCUM - lots of posts. Typically seems to boil down to the fact that buyside agenting is NOT rocket science, and anyone that spends the time looking at listings, being diligent, and getting a real estate attorney on board can do without one, and have a chance of rebating the buyside fee. Obviously the agents don't want people to do this and don't want it to become the norm as it reduces the size of the fees for the market. Hence all these inaccurate / scaremongering posts about the market being competitive and risking overpaying.

There are some very good agents out there which add some value, but there are also some absolutely terrible agents who don't have a clue - we had our arms twisted into hiring one last year (same company as the agents that put the house onto the market) - and we would have done a much better job ourselves. If you really need to use a buyside agent, worthwhile interviewing and really diligencing them.

[Anonymous]

Completely agree with PP - don't be scared into using a buyside agent - they often don't do enough to earn a whole 3% of the home value. Find a good real estate attorney (perhaps with a realtor licence which isnt uncommon) that can structure the agreement such that YOU get rebated the buyside fee.

The amusing argument that I always see is "it's just 3% and its paid by the seller". I find this ridiculous. The typical downpayment on a house is 10% - so 3% is 30% of the downpayment! And there are so many precedents of this being rebated to the buyer.

Good luck!