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.

Anonymous wrote:Just listed a house and I am not including buyer’s agent commission. At the end, everything is negotiable, and if I have two offers at the “same” price, but one also wants me to throw in buyer’s agent commission, you know which one I am taking (all else equal).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not offer to pay Buyer's commission...but of course, you would expect that Buyer to submit a higher offer compared to a buyer where you aren't paying the commission.

Certainly, there is value to a Buyer to be able to wrap that commission into a mortgage payment vs. paying cash out-of-pocket via hourly rates or a lump sum at closing.

Yes, wrap that commission into the mortgage! Do the math and that $30k commission becomes $75k by the time you are done paying it off.

Also why would I raise the price of the house and get higher taxable base?

Property taxes aren't based on FMV. That's irrelevant.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not offer to pay Buyer's commission...but of course, you would expect that Buyer to submit a higher offer compared to a buyer where you aren't paying the commission.

Certainly, there is value to a Buyer to be able to wrap that commission into a mortgage payment vs. paying cash out-of-pocket via hourly rates or a lump sum at closing.

Yes, wrap that commission into the mortgage! Do the math and that $30k commission becomes $75k by the time you are done paying it off.

Also why would I raise the price of the house and get higher taxable base?

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

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.

You don't need to and shouldn't agree to pay a certain percentage or any amount to the buyer agent as part of the listing agreement.

You should however expect that offers from represented buyers will ask for commission to be paid from loan proceeds. You should anticipate that buyer agent commission will come out of loan proceeds.

I think sellers should expect to price their houses at market and receive adequate direct buyers, without any buyers agents, as it’s easy for everyone to find properties online nowadays. Also sellers should ensure that selling agent only has limited time to sell property, eg limit their engagement to 2-3 months. If selling agent doesn’t bring any buyers it means they don’t advertise it properly, or not passing valid offers to the seller, plotting with insiders how to double their commissions

This is a good idea. The problem is the greedy realtors lying and colluding to keep the two realtor system with double commissions in place.

Don’t give the authority to sell your property to anyone longer than for 2 months. If the selling agent is not doing their job/not bringing a variety of represented and not represented buyers, they are likely cooking something behind your back

And any seller can go to Zillow yourself and check for how much homes similar to yours sold for prior year, and price it adequately.

I’m a buyer and that’s where I start . Unfortunately many sellers price their homes inadequately (200k+ relative comparable houses sold recently on their own block) . All these overpriced houses tend to sit 30+ days on the market. Has nothing to do with the agents

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why not offer to pay Buyer's commission...but of course, you would expect that Buyer to submit a higher offer compared to a buyer where you aren't paying the commission.

Certainly, there is value to a Buyer to be able to wrap that commission into a mortgage payment vs. paying cash out-of-pocket via hourly rates or a lump sum at closing.

Yes, wrap that commission into the mortgage! Do the math and that $30k commission becomes $75k by the time you are done paying it off.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, that sounds like an agent issue, not a seller issue. Agents are not going to give up their commissions easily. Be realistic here.

You can still submit an offer yourself but expect to be outcompeted if there is a competing offer that does offer buyer’s agent commission.

I am aware of that. Selling agent refused to submit my offer unless I hire a buyer agent that she pointed at

Anonymous wrote:Why not offer to pay Buyer's commission...but of course, you would expect that Buyer to submit a higher offer compared to a buyer where you aren't paying the commission.

Certainly, there is value to a Buyer to be able to wrap that commission into a mortgage payment vs. paying cash out-of-pocket via hourly rates or a lump sum at closing.

Anonymous wrote:Just posted this in a similar thread, but thought I’d post it here too:

I’m in the process of selling, and the new normal is NOT to offer a buyer commission. Instead, it’s all about the bottom line to the seller. Buyers are encouraged to make their strongest offer. In a most competitive market that means an above list price, no commission subsidy, and no contingencies. In a softer market those terms will soften.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+100. I posted my story numerous times about buying without an agent. Better deal for all to cut out that useless middleman b

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

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.

You don't need to and shouldn't agree to pay a certain percentage or any amount to the buyer agent as part of the listing agreement.

You should however expect that offers from represented buyers will ask for commission to be paid from loan proceeds. You should anticipate that buyer agent commission will come out of loan proceeds.

I think sellers should expect to price their houses at market and receive adequate direct buyers, without any buyers agents, as it’s easy for everyone to find properties online nowadays. Also sellers should ensure that selling agent only has limited time to sell property, eg limit their engagement to 2-3 months. If selling agent doesn’t bring any buyers it means they don’t advertise it properly, or not passing valid offers to the seller, plotting with insiders how to double their commissions

This is a good idea. The problem is the greedy realtors lying and colluding to keep the two realtor system with double commissions in place.

Don’t give the authority to sell your property to anyone longer than for 2 months. If the selling agent is not doing their job/not bringing a variety of represented and not represented buyers, they are likely cooking something behind your back

And any seller can go to Zillow yourself and check for how much homes similar to yours sold for prior year, and price it adequately.

I’m a buyer and that’s where I start . Unfortunately many sellers price their homes inadequately (200k+ relative comparable houses sold recently on their own block) . All these overpriced houses tend to sit 30+ days on the market. Has nothing to do with the agents

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

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.

You don't need to and shouldn't agree to pay a certain percentage or any amount to the buyer agent as part of the listing agreement.

You should however expect that offers from represented buyers will ask for commission to be paid from loan proceeds. You should anticipate that buyer agent commission will come out of loan proceeds.

I think sellers should expect to price their houses at market and receive adequate direct buyers, without any buyers agents, as it’s easy for everyone to find properties online nowadays. Also sellers should ensure that selling agent only has limited time to sell property, eg limit their engagement to 2-3 months. If selling agent doesn’t bring any buyers it means they don’t advertise it properly, or not passing valid offers to the seller, plotting with insiders how to double their commissions

This is a good idea. The problem is the greedy realtors lying and colluding to keep the two realtor system with double commissions in place.

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

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.

You don't need to and shouldn't agree to pay a certain percentage or any amount to the buyer agent as part of the listing agreement.

You should however expect that offers from represented buyers will ask for commission to be paid from loan proceeds. You should anticipate that buyer agent commission will come out of loan proceeds.

I think sellers should expect to price their houses at market and receive adequate direct buyers, without any buyers agents, as it’s easy for everyone to find properties online nowadays. Also sellers should ensure that selling agent only has limited time to sell property, eg limit their engagement to 2-3 months. If selling agent doesn’t bring any buyers it means they don’t advertise it properly, or not passing valid offers to the seller, plotting with insiders how to double their commissions