Anonymous wrote:Someone needs to point to the law and/or professional ethics document. Anyone have the text?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.
Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.
What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.
That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.
That's not what my one-time agent told me. She had put in a call for me to see a house, and the agent hadn't responded in about 24 hours, and she said, "It's against [whatever it was] for him not to respond. I'll contact him again." So I'm assuming there should be no discrimination up front.
this is different. an agent called another agent. so it is obvious that the called agent was supposed to respond. in this sense I agree with you, there should be no discrimination up front. but in this case it was a random stranger calling the seller's agent and asking the sellers' agent to open the house. I do think that it would be a good policy to respond and show the house, but the reality is that in a very hot market with low inventory, adn i a very busy tiume of the year of agent, I understand why an agent does not return a call. ffor the agent it would be simply give two hours of her time to a stranger who may simply wqalk away and say thank you, while she may have her own clients to take around to see homes
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Forgot to mention: the house is still on the market. It is in a not-so-hot area of Potomac.
I think we'll go the Redfin route.
Scotland?![]()
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.
The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.
I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.
You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.
Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.
If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...
what a lot of people here seem not to understand is that all OP wants is "saving" 1 or 2or more % of the sale price but getting it back as a rebate from the seller's agent. there is no law that says that OP has the right to get that money if OP does not havea an agent. the ^% (or 5% or whatever ois in the contract between seller and the agent) simply goes to the seller's agent, who will split with the buyer's agent if there is one. OP is not an agent, he has not right to the rabate. if OP contacts the seller directly, and the sale goes through, l still have to pay 6% o the sale to the seller's agent, since most agreemetns are exclusive for a period of time, so a seller who is paying an agent will still use the seller's agent even if OP contact the seller directly. this issue here is the market - getting money back was easier on the past,nnow it is a seller's marlket., super hot in some areas, houses sell super fast ion days from listing, with multiple offers, so OP's technique is not going to fly if he is trying to buy n a super hot market. and now many sellers negotiate a lower % commission to the seller's agent (I heard of seller giving 5% or even 4% to agents since the market is so hot and often a house goes under contract even before any open house), so seller's agent may not be inclined to cut their commossion even further when there are plenty of buyers and OP would makde them work more (case in point, if OP had his own agent, the seller's agent would not need to get up and gpo to open the house for him)
THANK YOU!
I haven't been back to this thread in a few days but am the PP who called the OP a piece of work for trying to horn in on this arrangement. The comment after me who said I was wrong because the agent has an obligation to present all offers is correct - if the OP is making an offer. He's not. He's just asking for someone to show the place. I can't even read all these attorney comments back and forth with the misinformation, it's actually so funny. And now I know why people don't know what they're doing in real estate transactions now.
A buyer thinking they can get some of the commission money is just - so odd to me. I wouldn't even think of asking for something like that. And it's not the buyer who "pays" because he leaves money on the table - the commission is reduced from the seller's proceeds. The seller pays.
The misinformation in the thread is proof positive that people need agents. Too funny.
Anonymous wrote:OP here again. Forgot to mention: the house is still on the market. It is in a not-so-hot area of Potomac.
I think we'll go the Redfin route.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.
Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.
What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.
That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.
That's not what my one-time agent told me. She had put in a call for me to see a house, and the agent hadn't responded in about 24 hours, and she said, "It's against [whatever it was] for him not to respond. I'll contact him again." So I'm assuming there should be no discrimination up front.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.
Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.
What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.
That's an OFFER. Totally different than a potential client. You misread what was written. An agent doesn't have to return calls of someone who isn't a client and isn't a party to a transaction. Ask any broker about this and they'll tell you, they don't have to work with anyone they don't want to.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.
Why is that? If an offer comes via an agent they don't get along with, they should still deal with them, right? They represent their client's (sellers's) best interests.
What's next, shopkeepers who refuse to sell to clients they don't like? That's not a very good way to do business.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should say you are an attorney with real estate background, and you are a serious buyer. I think you should hint at the fact that you know your stuff, and you know her stuff and you can cause her trouble if she doesn't follow the rules.
The listing agent should NOT get 5 or 6% if the buyer doesn't have a rep. That's ridiculous, and I don't think that's legal, is it? At any rate, you are representing yourself. The agent is supposed to be representing the best interests of the client, which means if you can save the client some $$ by being your own representative, then the agent SHOULD BE PURSUING THIS.
I'd say throw your legal weight around here. I smell BS, and if there's anything I hate more than BS it's real estate agent BS.
You don't understand what you're talking about. The 6% commission is in the agreement between the listing agent and the seller. Potential buyers, their mothers, uncles and other parties who are not involved in this agreement have no right to interfere with the contractual arrangement to which they are not a party. No one is saving anyone any money as a matter of law. The listing agent's duty is to get the highest price for the house. For all you know, she's doing it. If you think buyers without agents should be saving 3%, you are quite free to offer this, but no one is under obligation to agree with you. Remember, the commission is the agreement between the seller and the agent/broker. Not the buyer.
Correct ... I think the magic words to unlock any b.s. on the agent's part is making it clear in writing that OP is prepared to make an offer upon a satisfactory showing. That's not an offer per se that the agent is bound to present to the homeowner but it's getting there and should put the agent on notice.
If no dice there, there's always the option mentioned earlier of contacting homeowner directly (cc the agent)...
what a lot of people here seem not to understand is that all OP wants is "saving" 1 or 2or more % of the sale price but getting it back as a rebate from the seller's agent. there is no law that says that OP has the right to get that money if OP does not havea an agent. the ^% (or 5% or whatever ois in the contract between seller and the agent) simply goes to the seller's agent, who will split with the buyer's agent if there is one. OP is not an agent, he has not right to the rabate. if OP contacts the seller directly, and the sale goes through, l still have to pay 6% o the sale to the seller's agent, since most agreemetns are exclusive for a period of time, so a seller who is paying an agent will still use the seller's agent even if OP contact the seller directly. this issue here is the market - getting money back was easier on the past,nnow it is a seller's marlket., super hot in some areas, houses sell super fast ion days from listing, with multiple offers, so OP's technique is not going to fly if he is trying to buy n a super hot market. and now many sellers negotiate a lower % commission to the seller's agent (I heard of seller giving 5% or even 4% to agents since the market is so hot and often a house goes under contract even before any open house), so seller's agent may not be inclined to cut their commossion even further when there are plenty of buyers and OP would makde them work more (case in point, if OP had his own agent, the seller's agent would not need to get up and gpo to open the house for him)
Anonymous wrote:This thread is really amusing. The power belongs to the sellers and listing agents in the market, buyers may either play according to their rules or suffer (by not getting the house they want). Sure it's great if you think you can do it yourself and get the buyers agents commission, but in a multiple offer situation do you really think the listing agent is going to accept an unrepresented buyers offer above those with buyers agents? (which 95% will be)...
The same goes for redfin agents, sorry but i dont know a good listing agent who will recommend to a seller that they accept one in this market.
No, it's not fair, but working with a good well connected buyers agent (who the listing agent wants to work with) is really in a buyers favor. Maybe you don't save the commission but perhaps you get the house you want instead.