Just a note -- I am 15:07 (and a bunch of previous, related posts) but not 15:24. Hope you feel better soon, flu-ridden agent. We're not going to solve the broken real estate sales process today.

If the agents split the 5% commission in half, they each got $15,000. Their brokerage takes a cut, anywhere from 50% to 15%. At my current agreement with my brokerage, I get 70%. So it's actually $10,500. Then we pay taxes and our expenses (mris subscription, car, gas, computer, phone).

I'm home with the flu or some other delightful ailment or I wouldn't be engaging in this back and forth. I'm not going to change your mind about real estate agents, that's clear. My point in posting was to address the OP's question as to their obligation to their agent. I stand by my opinion that as an agent, I'm entitled to the courtesy of knowing whether you intend to go it on your own after I spend my (valuable to me) time on your home search.

This is why my buyers sign a buyer agency agreement after the first few weeks of us working together. Just my business practice, works for me after 10 years. Not to mention without one, all agents represent the seller.

Anonymous wrote:But the doctor gets paid for their time, no? What people are essentially saying is that the agent's time is not valuable. The buyer I showed 100 homes to was a particularly difficult client, she changed her mind every time we got together. She would be the first to admit that she was a tough client. I've been an agent for over 10 years, I don't think anyone owes me anything but the courtesy of respecting me as a person with other clients and a family. Do you think it's ok to essentially use someone? We don't get retainers or advance fees. So it's okay for me to show you houses, do the research on the neighborhoods, share my expertise of ten years and then you say, oh never mind? I agree with you that there are some awful agents out there, but most of us are honest, hardworking people. As an agent, my first and only duty is to my client and I would hope they would at least be honest with me in return.

If agents want to be paid for their time, that's fine. Propose that fee structure. Do you want to be paid by the hour? How does $100/hour sound? When i purchased by last huse for $600,000, the agents combined took $30,000 - and sure didn't work 300 hours between them. Sound good? Didn't think so.

Agents are paid based on the successful completion of a transaction. Period. That's the compensation structure YOU have demanded, and insisted upon for decades. Doctors aren't paid that way - they get paid by the appointment, whether they successfully treats your illness or not. It is just ridiculous for agents to noisy upon absurdly high commission fees and then insist that they also are entitled to be compensated for their time.

Well, if you are posting in this thread you are probably a more honest agent than most. And I agree that to show 100 homes without drawing an offer must be frustrating.

Yes, an agent's time should be worth something, no doubt. What do you think of the flat fee idea? Yes, you'd have to give up the prospect of a big payday on the sale of an expensive house, but in return you would always receive some pay for the work you put in. An agent who gets rave reviews from past customers would probably be in higher demand, and could charge higher rates. Wouldn't this make more sense, and be fairer to both the agents and the clients? I'm serious about this.

But the doctor gets paid for their time, no? What people are essentially saying is that the agent's time is not valuable. The buyer I showed 100 homes to was a particularly difficult client, she changed her mind every time we got together. She would be the first to admit that she was a tough client. I've been an agent for over 10 years, I don't think anyone owes me anything but the courtesy of respecting me as a person with other clients and a family. Do you think it's ok to essentially use someone? We don't get retainers or advance fees. So it's okay for me to show you houses, do the research on the neighborhoods, share my expertise of ten years and then you say, oh never mind? I agree with you that there are some awful agents out there, but most of us are honest, hardworking people. As an agent, my first and only duty is to my client and I would hope they would at least be honest with me in return.

Oh, and as for the doctor metaphor, it doesn't apply. Doctors are paid for their opinions and the procedures they perform. Agents, as we all know, are paid when the deal closes. I would happily switch to a system in which agents are paid a flat fee for their services, one presumably lower than what most doctors earn. Three or six percent of the sale price in this area is way too high a pay day for what most agents do.

Back to your analogy. According to your logic, if I saw one specialist, then went to a second and decided to follow her advice instead of the first doctor's, then I'd be compelled to let the first doctor know I wasn't going to use him. I suspect that rarely happens.

Sorry also for several punctuation mistakes. (Maybe I need a grammar agent.)

If you are an agent who is showing clients over 100 homes, with no winners in the bunch, then the clients' time is wasted as much as the agent's, if not more. It's not the clients job to buy a house with you as their agent; it's the agent's job to find a house that the clients want to buy. Buyer's don't owe you a living - you have to earn that on your own.

Sorry for (some of) the vitriol. I've just seen too many agents who are clearly working for the deal (i.e. their own interests) rather than for the clients. A client's first duty is to themselves, not to the agent.

The concept most people are talking about was brought up on DCUM about 9 months ago. lawyers-realty.com

Worked for us. Flexible commission structures and legal review.

Anonymous wrote:Hey agent, is it so not right that the agent, on principle, won't agree to sell the OP's house? Didn't think so.

Agent here, no I didn't say that. My issue is when a buyer has an agent show them many houses (I've shown over 100 to a single buyer), then finds a FSBO and essentially goes behind the agency's back and buys it. The buyer has already taken up a good chunk of the agent's time and the agent gets nothing. Selling the buyer's house is great but you're essentially saying be happy with one paycheck for two jobs. Do you go to the doctor and then get a second opinion from another and not pay doctor #1? Didn't think so. You can find fault with agents, the lobby, etc all you want. Don't use an agent, then. But don't use one and then purposefully cut them out. That's just not right.

Redfin gives you a kickback on the agent's fee, so you get about half the fee back. You (through the selling price) are still paying the realtor a lot of money, but at least you are saving something back. Redfin will show you houses, whereas you have to wait for open houses, or get the listing agent to show you the house if you don't have an agent to show them to you. Agents will show them for free, but I don't ask them to do that if I'm not planning to use them for the sale. That's not fair to them. Redfin, on the other hand, uses employees (non-realtors, I think), who are knowledgeable about houses, but there's no pushing or sales pitch at all. It's not a perfect business model, but it's certainly chipping away at the realtor's monopoly, so that's a step in the right direction.