Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”
I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.
One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.
Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them
So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.
I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.
Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.
So what you’re saying is that we’re being taxed at a higher rate just for a realtor commission? 60k on a 1m home is a lot.
I’d argue that we should move to a system where realtor fees aren’t included in home prices at all. Why should we pay taxes on it? And why is it allowed to be included in your mortgage? No one includes title insurance, moving company fees or the homeowners insurance you have to pay as part of a mortgage.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”
I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.
One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.
Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them
So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.
I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.
Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.
Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”
I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.
One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.
Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:The costs of housing relative to cost of living has drastically increased over the last 10 years. Commissions should decrease.
It makes more sense to pay the sellers agent a smaller percentage or a flat fee to sell. Then the agent shows the home to prospective buyers. If buyers want intensive hand holding, then they can work that out with an agent and pay out of pocket.
Home values would likely stay lower because many sellers are looking at the net at closing. The realtor costs would decrease for sellers. If buyers want a nanny-realtor to hold their hand, then they pay an extra fee to a realtor to provide this service. The overall costs for buyers wouldn't increase because sellers were baking that fee into the sales price.
OP here. Yes, if you need to clear a certain amount and have to give 6 percent!!! to the two agents, you are pricing as high as you can.
Anonymous wrote:Good. The internet should have done to realtors what it did to travel agents. Long overdue.
Anonymous wrote:Good. The internet should have done to realtors what it did to travel agents. Long overdue.
Anonymous wrote:The costs of housing relative to cost of living has drastically increased over the last 10 years. Commissions should decrease.
It makes more sense to pay the sellers agent a smaller percentage or a flat fee to sell. Then the agent shows the home to prospective buyers. If buyers want intensive hand holding, then they can work that out with an agent and pay out of pocket.
Home values would likely stay lower because many sellers are looking at the net at closing. The realtor costs would decrease for sellers. If buyers want a nanny-realtor to hold their hand, then they pay an extra fee to a realtor to provide this service. The overall costs for buyers wouldn't increase because sellers were baking that fee into the sales price.
if the plaintiffs succeed, they could rewrite the rules of how agents get paid. The seller might no longer pay out both agents' commissions after the sale closes. Instead, a buyer would pay their agent directly. Proponents say these changes would increase competition among agents, dramatically lower commissions, and potentially save consumers as much as $20 billion to $30 billion a year. The defendants, led by the NAR, argue that the current setup actually favors consumers by providing broad access to an efficient real-estate market.