Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.
I don't think you understand. First-time homebuyers have to scrape to come up with cash for down payment. Now they'll be expected to pay their buyers agents directly?
If you think this is going to cut buyer agents out of these transactions entirely, I think you're likely mistaken. Otherwise, it'll become like people trying to buy cars at dealerships.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.
I don't think you understand. First-time homebuyers have to scrape to come up with cash for down payment. Now they'll be expected to pay their buyers agents directly?
If you think this is going to cut buyer agents out of these transactions entirely, I think you're likely mistaken. Otherwise, it'll become like people trying to buy cars at dealerships.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?
1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.
- former agent
6% is a lot but an agent living near $1,000,000 homes isn’t surviving on $100,000 a year. I’m not sure where that is a living wage anymore.
This seems to suggest agents will not be able to "survive" living near $1,000,000 homes.
The flaw here is assuming agents are entitled to live near $1,000,000 homes. This of course is false.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?
1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.
- former agent
6% is a lot but an agent living near $1,000,000 homes isn’t surviving on $100,000 a year. I’m not sure where that is a living wage anymore.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.
4% is pretty standard even now.
Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.
OK, so play that out ...
2% is 1% each.
For an agent, that might be equal to 0.44% after a 50/50 split and the 6% haircut the brokers take off the top (agents typically only get 94% of their split).
So you sell your house for $1 million. The agent now pockets $4,400 from that. Out of which they have to pay for any marketing, staging (unless you pay separately for that), and pay taxes and their own license fees etc. So maybe their net is $2,500.
But that's a million dollar house. Now do it on a $500,000 house. Now it's $1,250.
I'll let you tell me if that's a fair amount or not. I guess it depends on how many hours they spend on the sale.
I know that brokers take in a portion of commissions, as you note. What service are they providing in exchange for this revenue? Could this be another place in this process that is ripe for disruption? Maybe it isn't, I don't know -- I'm just curious.
A broker offering to take less might attract the top agents on the sell side. Wasn't Compass offering incentives to try to lure good agents a few years back?
The whole brokerage structure is ridiculous. Maybe this settlement will rattle that too and create a new industry of licensed, independent agents who work for themselves and won’t have to split their earnings with any other entity.
Anonymous wrote:This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:So we are about to list our house and have a listing agreement (not yet signed) giving our agent 5%, split with the buyer's agent. Should I counter now with 4% in light of this NAR ruling? My inclination is to give 4% and tell her to split it however she wants.
4% is pretty standard even now.
Why are you guys so afraid of your agents? Offer 2% to be split between the buyer and seller agent. At current prices, that's a lot of money already.
OK, so play that out ...
2% is 1% each.
For an agent, that might be equal to 0.44% after a 50/50 split and the 6% haircut the brokers take off the top (agents typically only get 94% of their split).
So you sell your house for $1 million. The agent now pockets $4,400 from that. Out of which they have to pay for any marketing, staging (unless you pay separately for that), and pay taxes and their own license fees etc. So maybe their net is $2,500.
But that's a million dollar house. Now do it on a $500,000 house. Now it's $1,250.
I'll let you tell me if that's a fair amount or not. I guess it depends on how many hours they spend on the sale.
I know that brokers take in a portion of commissions, as you note. What service are they providing in exchange for this revenue? Could this be another place in this process that is ripe for disruption? Maybe it isn't, I don't know -- I'm just curious.
A broker offering to take less might attract the top agents on the sell side. Wasn't Compass offering incentives to try to lure good agents a few years back?
Anonymous wrote:Looking to sell my house in Fairfax. It is $1M+ and spoke with a few agents. I have been quoted 3% total commission for buyer and seller agent by 4 different relators. I mean it's great but is this the trend anyone else is seeing as well?
Anonymous wrote:It is not hard but you need to have access to contracts.
Anonymous wrote: Also, agents work to make a deal go through.
Anonymous wrote: Sellers and buyers have too much ego involved.
Anonymous wrote: I’m not an agent. I’m a former seller who had a buyer who didn’t lift a finger and nickel and dimed me despite getting the 3% credited to him. I did a ton of work and when I didn’t give the buyer 6 % they bailed.
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Young people know how to use the internet. Buying a house is not rocket science.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Who would want to be a realtor anymore?
1% of $1,000,000 is still $10,000! After a split with the broker (assume 75%), you do 1-2 a month and you can make $100,000 a year with a job that only requires a high school diploma. Being an agent is about networking and who you know, not what you know.
- former agent
Anonymous wrote:
This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.
Anonymous wrote:This is going to be really bad for first-time homebuyers.