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 can work out better for both the buyer and seller. The buyer gets the house for a little less and the seller nets more by not paying the seller concession for a buyer's agent. It's a win-win for everyone except realtors.

If I am a seller, I am not offering a buyer a discount for not having an agent. Why would I willingly accept less for my property? If anything, I would want a risk premium since an unrepresented buyer is more likely to be difficult to deal with and less likely to make it to the settlement table. Especially if they have this weird, combative attitude about agents in general. That already tells me they’re too emotional and the transaction might not go smoothly.

Anonymous wrote:really???

No, I doubt this really happened. Or if it did, I am sure OP did something to provoke the response.

There are some unhinged people in this forum who are obsessed about agent compensation. Have been for years.

They thought the NAR settlement would disrupt compensation models. Maybe it will, but it hasn’t yet, namely because the settlement merely forbid the advertising of buyer agent compensation in the MLS. It didn’t do anything actually restricting buyer agent compensation.

In other words, nothing has really changed. And that’s OK.

This is what happens when you obsess about one small piece of a financial transaction instead of seeing the forest for the trees.

And let me just cut off your predictable response: No, I am not an agent and I do not work in the real estate industry in any way.

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 can work out better for both the buyer and seller. The buyer gets the house for a little less and the seller nets more by not paying the seller concession for a buyer's agent. It's a win-win for everyone except realtors.

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.

Anonymous wrote:Both sides commissions are too high.

I know, isn't it great! Ca-ching, ca-ching!

An unrepped buyer typically asks the seller to reduce the price of the house by what they would have paid the buyers agent. Its all about the seller's bottom line which can be affected by soo much more than offering compensation to the buyer's agent....

Both sides commissions are too high.

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.

I am a seller. I have bought and sold 7-8 homes in my life. I don't trust an unrepped buyer to close the deal to the end. Also a repped buyer doesn't mean they are paying 3% commission. It is all negotiable now.

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.

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.

Unrepresented buyers are a nightmare. Most sellers would prefer to work with a buyers agent who will get the deal to the closing table.

This post makes zero sense

As a seller I would prefer the buyer be represented.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Agents, pushing for having a buyers agent to unrepresented buyers, are doing a fraud.

Report it to Attorney General of MD.

It’s not fraud. It’s called dual agency (if it’s the same agent). OP said the seller’s agent offered another buyer’s agent to the potential buyer. Buying real estate without representation is a fool’s errand.

It's a fraud and scam to not allow some one to submit an offer unless you as buyer give commision to agent's friuends. It's clear case of scam.

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