Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

The jury and evidence I referenced disagrees with your take on this.

Anonymous wrote:I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

That nothing has changed is partially the basis for the additional lawsuits. Because commission can be communicated elsewhere means the buyers agents who were found to be steering can continue to steer. Steering has been major factor in antitrust lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

I never mentioned Freakonomics. Is someone attacking you?

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

You should offer your legal representation to NAR.

Maybe you could run your thoughts up to the Supreme Court and get these settlements overturned.

You sound unhinged.

it shouldnt cost more than 1500 on both sides to sell a house (not including attorney, title tax etc)

You all have heard of finders fees, right? Or know that political fundraisers are paid a percent of whatever donations they bring in? Or know that M&A brokers get a cut of the deal if they bring together the 2 parties? Or “strategic political advisers” get paid by Qatar for securing a big meeting for their client? Or media buy brokers get a cut of every buy?

Each of these people can make millions on a single introduction / race / ad / etc.

Compensation isn’t always a 1-1 to effort or time and anyone in business understands this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.

Sellers NEVER HAD to pay commission for buyers. It was always an incentive to attract buyers.

DP

Sellers had to offer commission in an environment where buyers agents were commission steering their clients (see Burnett v. NAR, fact finding). If buyers agents were acting in the best financial interests of their clients (their fiduciary duty) sellers would be in more of a position to negotiate.

No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

+1

Anonymous wrote:No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

The jury and evidence I referenced disagrees with your take on this.

Anonymous wrote:I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

That nothing has changed is partially the basis for the additional lawsuits. Because commission can be communicated elsewhere means the buyers agents who were found to be steering can continue to steer. Steering has been major factor in antitrust lawsuits.

Anonymous wrote:And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

I never mentioned Freakonomics. Is someone attacking you?

Anonymous wrote:It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

You should offer your legal representation to NAR.

Maybe you could run your thoughts up to the Supreme Court and get these settlements overturned.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.

Sellers NEVER HAD to pay commission for buyers. It was always an incentive to attract buyers.

DP

Sellers had to offer commission in an environment where buyers agents were commission steering their clients (see Burnett v. NAR, fact finding). If buyers agents were acting in the best financial interests of their clients (their fiduciary duty) sellers would be in more of a position to negotiate.

No, they never HAD to pay it. They might have been too dumb to realize this, but they never HAD to do it.

I realize people love to claim the suit was some big victory. But in reality, nothing has effectively changed. Unless you get the rare buyer willing to pay their own agent, most sellers are going to have to effectively offer to pay both ends to get the deal done. And that's going to total around 5%, give or take.

And before you attack me -- because I can tell you're a simpleton who loves to use words like "steering" and refer to Freakonomics as if it holds some great insight -- I'm not connected in any way to the real estate industry.

It's so bizarre that people fixate on commissions. It's such a small proportion of the costs of buying and selling a home overall.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.

Sellers NEVER HAD to pay commission for buyers. It was always an incentive to attract buyers.

DP

Sellers had to offer commission in an environment where buyers agents were commission steering their clients (see Burnett v. NAR, fact finding). If buyers agents were acting in the best financial interests of their clients (their fiduciary duty) sellers would be in more of a position to negotiate.

Getting back to the OP’s question, there is no official “going” rate and there is certainly no standard 5% split commission to go to both buyers and sellers agents.

Real estate commissions are entirely negotiable as stated by the National Association of Realtors and as stated on any real estate contract.

When selling, you negotiate the commission rate you pay them directly with the sellers agent. You can check a box on your listing contract that you are open to paying the buyers agent commission but don’t need to specify the amount in advance. The buyer will include it as part of their offer. It will become another factor to look at if the buyer asks you to pay it, like offer price, contingencies, etc. (On the listing contract you can also offer to pay a fixed amount to the buyers agent in advance, I don’t see why anyone would do this in advance, keep your options open).

On the listing contract, there is also a spot for how much the selling agent will be compensated if the buyer is unrepresented. This is huge, don’t ignore this. It may say 1%, 2%, etc. Ask for a fixed fee, based on the number of hours of extra work such a situation creates for your sellers agent (ask them). There is no standard commission they are entitled to, again as specified in the standard real estate contract and by the NAR.

Unfortunately, the whole real estate industry is aligning (seemingly successfully) to keep commissions high and at previous levels, sometimes with a lot of obfuscation and much hidden into the contracts. I think this is where a lot of the distrust with real estate agents comes into play.

Good luck and be smart, do your homework.

Anonymous wrote:Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.

Sellers NEVER HAD to pay commission for buyers. It was always an incentive to attract buyers.

Anonymous wrote:Last post is Freakonomics radio: 618. Are Realtors Having an Existential Crisis?

Freakonomics is so dumb. Anyone who found that book enlightening is kind of dim.

Last post is Freakonomics radio: 618. Are Realtors Having an Existential Crisis?

Anonymous wrote:.75% commission on a 1.5 million house is $11,000.

That isn’t chump change. You are damn right that I will get what I pay for when someone is getting that much dough out of my pocket.

Talk about focusing on the wrong thing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't offer anything to the buyers' agent upfront. Just evaluate offers on purchase price minus whatever concessions they are asking for, and choose the highest number with the greatest certainty of closing.

For a seller's agent, 1% is easily obtainable if you look around. If you want to use some particular agent, they will probably be willing to go down to 2% or lower unless they're super busy.

What agents are working for 1 percent? That is less than Redfin.

And you get what you pay for

What may that be? RE agents don't offer anything for the money they pocket.

Seller don't have to pay commission for buyers any longer due to the NAR lawsuit. Sellers are offering commission and concessions as an incentive to get their house sold however.