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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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"

It was a scam which got busted and some of them are still rying to scam buyers/sellers. Some of them needs to be behind bars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

It was a scam which got busted and some of them are still rying to scam buyers/sellers. Some of them needs to be behind bars.

You sound unhinged and like you have a loose relationship with facts and reality. You are also prone to wild hyperbole and making inflammatory statements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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 ….

Perhaps but people are saying those people want price concessions if they do so. That’s where your argument falls apart.

[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?

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

You're greedy.

And greed is such an ugly look.

NP. If anyone here is greedy, it's the agents seeking to reap excessive commissions. And the "ugly look" is those agents lying and scheming to get those commissions. Sellers who took all the financial risk by owning their homes and who now want to get top-tier pricing for their property when they sell, while minimizing transaction costs, are not being greedy -- they're being rational.

[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?

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

You're greedy.

And greed is such an ugly look.

lolololol

oh lololol

oh honey

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ….

Perhaps but people are saying those people want price concessions if they do so. That’s where your argument falls apart.

my argument doesn’t fall apart in the least. now post-settlement everything will be out in the open and the market will decide what the buyer’s agent is worth. hint: NOT 3%.

[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.

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.

NP. If anyone here is greedy, it's the agents seeking to reap excessive commissions. And the "ugly look" is those agents lying and scheming to get those commissions. Sellers who took all the financial risk by owning their homes and who now want to get top-tier pricing for their property when they sell, while minimizing transaction costs, are not being greedy -- they're being rational.

+1 It's impossible to believe that the poster you're responding to is not a realtor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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"

It was a scam which got busted and some of them are still rying to scam buyers/sellers. Some of them needs to be behind bars.

You sound unhinged and like you have a loose relationship with facts and reality. You are also prone to wild hyperbole and making inflammatory statements.

Not pp but I'm so sick of realtors with their latest gaslighting: Buyers and sellers are unhinged! Overly emotional! Irrational! Unrealistic! You must pay TWO realtors commission to collude and rip you off for your own protection!!!

[Anonymous]

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?

The vast majority of sellers are not in a position where they bought for $100,000 and selling for $1 million, and that 50k matters.

There are some who stay in a house for 3-4 decades, but on average in this day and age, people are more mobile - or need to be. Sometimes the unexpected happens and they need to move. Most people are not as rich as DCUM and 50k or 5% of their home’s value is a pretty big hit on their finances. So you can add me to the hissy fit pile as well.

[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?

The vast majority of sellers are not in a position where they bought for $100,000 and selling for $1 million, and that 50k matters.

There are some who stay in a house for 3-4 decades, but on average in this day and age, people are more mobile - or need to be. Sometimes the unexpected happens and they need to move. Most people are not as rich as DCUM and 50k or 5% of their home’s value is a pretty big hit on their finances. So you can add me to the hissy fit pile as well.

I want to know if agents are actually so stupid that they believe 5% is NBD and a rounding error? If so, all the more reason to avoid them.

[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?

The vast majority of sellers are not in a position where they bought for $100,000 and selling for $1 million, and that 50k matters.

There are some who stay in a house for 3-4 decades, but on average in this day and age, people are more mobile - or need to be. Sometimes the unexpected happens and they need to move. Most people are not as rich as DCUM and 50k or 5% of their home’s value is a pretty big hit on their finances. So you can add me to the hissy fit pile as well.

I want to know if agents are actually so stupid that they believe 5% is NBD and a rounding error? If so, all the more reason to avoid them.

OP here again. It was an 800k house I wanted to buy. The “buyer agent” who I was forced to sign up with just to pass my offer to the seller would have pocketed 3% , and the selling agent 2.5%. The buyer agent did absolutely nothing maybe an hour in total emailing me list of comparable properties .

Do you think his services were worth $24,000???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ….

Perhaps but people are saying those people want price concessions if they do so. That’s where your argument falls apart.

my argument doesn’t fall apart in the least. now post-settlement everything will be out in the open and the market will decide what the buyer’s agent is worth. hint: NOT 3%.

The market says differently, although your 3% is a weird straw man since that amount has not been common in about 20 years.

I was at an open house recently where it was advertised the seller would pay 2% to a buyer agent. Price point of house was $850,000 if I remember correctly.

I think many buyer agreements still say 2.5% and that's unlikely to change.

What's strange is this weird mentality/sense of entitlement some people have that if they don't use an agent they should be given more deference or they should have an edge by default. That's just not likely to happen for any number of reasons.

[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?

The vast majority of sellers are not in a position where they bought for $100,000 and selling for $1 million, and that 50k matters.

There are some who stay in a house for 3-4 decades, but on average in this day and age, people are more mobile - or need to be. Sometimes the unexpected happens and they need to move. Most people are not as rich as DCUM and 50k or 5% of their home’s value is a pretty big hit on their finances. So you can add me to the hissy fit pile as well.

I want to know if agents are actually so stupid that they believe 5% is NBD and a rounding error? If so, all the more reason to avoid them.

OP here again. It was an 800k house I wanted to buy. The “buyer agent” who I was forced to sign up with just to pass my offer to the seller would have pocketed 3% , and the selling agent 2.5%. The buyer agent did absolutely nothing maybe an hour in total emailing me list of comparable properties .

Do you think his services were worth $24,000???

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ….

Perhaps but people are saying those people want price concessions if they do so. That’s where your argument falls apart.

my argument doesn’t fall apart in the least. now post-settlement everything will be out in the open and the market will decide what the buyer’s agent is worth. hint: NOT 3%.

The market says differently, although your 3% is a weird straw man since that amount has not been common in about 20 years.

I was at an open house recently where it was advertised the seller would pay 2% to a buyer agent. Price point of house was $850,000 if I remember correctly.

I think many buyer agreements still say 2.5% and that's unlikely to change.

What's strange is this weird mentality/sense of entitlement some people have that if they don't use an agent they should be given more deference or they should have an edge by default. That's just not likely to happen for any number of reasons.

What a stupid argument that only a realtor would make.

Of course the unrepresented buyer should expect a lower sales price than the buyer asking for the seller to pay for the buyer's agent. The seller could still get more money at settlement from the unrepresented buyer than from the represented buyer. But you have "reasons" why we shouldn't rely on basic math.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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 ….

Perhaps but people are saying those people want price concessions if they do so. That’s where your argument falls apart.

my argument doesn’t fall apart in the least. now post-settlement everything will be out in the open and the market will decide what the buyer’s agent is worth. hint: NOT 3%.

The market says differently, although your 3% is a weird straw man since that amount has not been common in about 20 years.

I was at an open house recently where it was advertised the seller would pay 2% to a buyer agent. Price point of house was $850,000 if I remember correctly.

I think many buyer agreements still say 2.5% and that's unlikely to change.

What's strange is this weird mentality/sense of entitlement some people have that if they don't use an agent they should be given more deference or they should have an edge by default. That's just not likely to happen for any number of reasons.

Sellers do you selling agents who are obligated to show property to prospective buyers, communicate all offers to sellers and advise the sellers on the quality of offers received. Sellers pay 2.5% for that already.
If buyers want an agent to draft offers for them or find them a house it’s up to them to hire one.

The clause where the seller offers the buyers agent commission is what’s causing the conflict of interest. Basically, selling agents are brining in their friends, relatives, colleagues to collect additional 2-3% doing nothing.