Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

That's just the thing, however. It's extremely rare for "all else being equal" to be true with competing offers where the only consideration is a tiny differential in price offered. Also, in your example, Buyer B is overpaying for the house.

Are you saying that Buyer B should instead offer $980,001? Sure, if they knew what Buyer A was offering, but they don't. So isn't it the case then that every highest bid offer is "overpaying" if they are more than $1 over the next highest offer?

Also, why wouldn't "everything being equal" be true? Again, the "special sauce" that a buyers agent brings is, what exactly? If it's "waive contingencies", then why wouldn't the seller just go back to Buyer B and say "if you can keep your offer at the same level, but waive contingencies, we will accept? Sending that email is worth an extra $5k if I am the seller.

Say you have two offers like you outline, with a $5K difference. Things that could be different in them:

1) Contingencies, including home sale contingency
2) Settlement dates
3) Rent backs
4) Requests for closing credits (especially help w/ closing costs)
5) Financial strength of the buyer. I'm not taking an offer for 5K more if their financials are materially weaker
6) Requests for things to convey

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

You're acting like money is the only thing that makes offers different. It's not.

None of those have anything to do with whether a buyers agent is present or not. And all of them can be negotiated (with or without an agent), and even included in the seller requirements to all people offering. And the closing credit is EXACTLY the issue that an unrepresented buyer makes stronger, since they don't need that credit to pay their agent.

Anonymous wrote:I think one of the big things that may result out of this is that it will lead to LESS verbal bidding wars.

When you had a buyers agent running interference, they would get on the phone with the sellers agent and talk through bid escalations. This was being done on the phone.

If I'm an unrepresented buyer with an escalation clause getting triggered or getting asked by sellers agent for "best and final" I am going to absolutely demand proof of the other offer. This is not being done with any consistency when there is a buyers agent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:as an agent i just got such a buyer and it was great! buyer grossly overpaid and seller cut me additional commission. Buyer had no clue.

So you represented a buyer … who grossly overpaid? What exactly was their benefit in hiring you? You are bragging about getting inflated pay for not even helping your client.

Do you even realize you’re proving the point of why buyers don’t want to pay an agent.

Wow, reading comprehension is not your strength is it? OP is claiming to be a SELLER who took advantage of an unrepresented buyer.

Anonymous wrote:This is not going to end well. Many, many Buyers need representation but cannot pay up front.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

I'm not a Realtor or an agent, and I think the point is that there's no "leveraging" these new rules. They will inherently put buyers at a disadvantage, no matter how you look at it. Yeah, I get that there are a lot of people who fancy themselves smart and capable of doing a transaction like this without representation, but in my mind it's akin to divorcing someone without your own lawyer.

I'm not sure where, exactly, you got this idea that there's some benefit to be "leveraged."

Potentially the seller benefits by paying reduced commission overall. But I don't see any inherent benefit to buyers. I see only downside risks.

The benefit to be leveraged is that it's now substantially easier to limit the amount of the pie going to agents, which means more for buyers and sellers. Seems reasonable to ask about the mechanics of limiting the agents' take and how to best capture any value lost by agents as a buyer.

It's not, though. There's zero evidence that that's true or likely to happen. If anything, it's made agent compensation even more opaque. At least under the prior arrangement, the numbers were there for all to see on the MLS.

Anonymous wrote:
Closing cost credits take a variety of forms. Usually, they are literally to pay for things like title fees and taxes. Buyers request these things for cash flow reasons more than anything. Sometimes they'll even say "I'll pay you $10,000 more if you'll give me $10,000 in closing cost help." This has NOTHING TO DO WITH PAYING A BUYER AGENT.

Sure, people can negotiate these things themselves. But you're a case in point of people who don't understand these dynamics and how they affect and offer -- you're your worst enemy in negotiations, because you're so sure you know everything ... and you actually don't have a clue. This goes back to your simplistic "all things being equal" comment. There's no such thing. No two offers are going to be exactly alike except for the price.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

That's just the thing, however. It's extremely rare for "all else being equal" to be true with competing offers where the only consideration is a tiny differential in price offered. Also, in your example, Buyer B is overpaying for the house.

Are you saying that Buyer B should instead offer $980,001? Sure, if they knew what Buyer A was offering, but they don't. So isn't it the case then that every highest bid offer is "overpaying" if they are more than $1 over the next highest offer?

Also, why wouldn't "everything being equal" be true? Again, the "special sauce" that a buyers agent brings is, what exactly? If it's "waive contingencies", then why wouldn't the seller just go back to Buyer B and say "if you can keep your offer at the same level, but waive contingencies, we will accept? Sending that email is worth an extra $5k if I am the seller.

Say you have two offers like you outline, with a $5K difference. Things that could be different in them:

1) Contingencies, including home sale contingency
2) Settlement dates
3) Rent backs
4) Requests for closing credits (especially help w/ closing costs)
5) Financial strength of the buyer. I'm not taking an offer for 5K more if their financials are materially weaker
6) Requests for things to convey

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

You're acting like money is the only thing that makes offers different. It's not.

None of those have anything to do with whether a buyers agent is present or not. And all of them can be negotiated (with or without an agent), and even included in the seller requirements to all people offering. And the closing credit is EXACTLY the issue that an unrepresented buyer makes stronger, since they don't need that credit to pay their agent.

There you go again, being awfully sure and very wrong.

Closing cost credits take a variety of forms. Usually, they are literally to pay for things like title fees and taxes. Buyers request these things for cash flow reasons more than anything. Sometimes they'll even say "I'll pay you $10,000 more if you'll give me $10,000 in closing cost help." This has NOTHING TO DO WITH PAYING A BUYER AGENT.

Sure, people can negotiate these things themselves. But you're a case in point of people who don't understand these dynamics and how they affect and offer -- you're your worst enemy in negotiations, because you're so sure you know everything ... and you actually don't have a clue. This goes back to your simplistic "all things being equal" comment. There's no such thing. No two offers are going to be exactly alike except for the price.

Are agents overpaid? Yes, but that's a factor of the higher value of houses. Are buyer agents pointless? I know you think so, but your absurd thinking is so black and white. You are, simply, far too emotional about these things. And the entire reason for agency is to take emotion out of transactions and protect people from themselves.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Okay can someone who isn’t a realtor shill kind of weigh in on the best ways to leverage these new rules? I’m tired of absolute idiots becoming realtors just showing me a house I want to see, then maybe do some limpwristed, but most likely conspiratorial negotiations with a seller agent, and filling out a couple forms and charging a big percent. It’s a joke. I get realtors will continue to try their best to abuse the new rules so they can continue the grift, but how can we get around that? What hard and fast stipulations can a buyer or seller employ to mitigate the fckery these days?

The best way to leverage these new rules is to not use a buyer's agent. Ask the listing agent to show you the home. You should not have to pay extra or sign any agreements to pay compensation for this.

Here's how this will help buyers:

Buyer A uses a buyer's agent and owes them 2% commission. They offer $1M with a seller concession of 2% to go to the buyer's agent. So effectively, Buyer A is offering $980K (actually a little less because the seller has to pay taxes and commission on that extra 2%/$20K).

Buyer B is unrepresented. They offer $985K. No seller concessions.

So all else being equal, Buyer B just won the house while paying $15K less than the other offer. Both the buyer and seller are better off for not having a second greedy realtor trying to get cut in on the deal.

That's just the thing, however. It's extremely rare for "all else being equal" to be true with competing offers where the only consideration is a tiny differential in price offered. Also, in your example, Buyer B is overpaying for the house.

Are you saying that Buyer B should instead offer $980,001? Sure, if they knew what Buyer A was offering, but they don't. So isn't it the case then that every highest bid offer is "overpaying" if they are more than $1 over the next highest offer?

Also, why wouldn't "everything being equal" be true? Again, the "special sauce" that a buyers agent brings is, what exactly? If it's "waive contingencies", then why wouldn't the seller just go back to Buyer B and say "if you can keep your offer at the same level, but waive contingencies, we will accept? Sending that email is worth an extra $5k if I am the seller.

Say you have two offers like you outline, with a $5K difference. Things that could be different in them:

1) Contingencies, including home sale contingency
2) Settlement dates
3) Rent backs
4) Requests for closing credits (especially help w/ closing costs)
5) Financial strength of the buyer. I'm not taking an offer for 5K more if their financials are materially weaker
6) Requests for things to convey

Just to name a few off the top of my head.

You're acting like money is the only thing that makes offers different. It's not.

None of those have anything to do with whether a buyers agent is present or not. And all of them can be negotiated (with or without an agent), and even included in the seller requirements to all people offering. And the closing credit is EXACTLY the issue that an unrepresented buyer makes stronger, since they don't need that credit to pay their agent.

There you go again, being awfully sure and very wrong.

Closing cost credits take a variety of forms. Usually, they are literally to pay for things like title fees and taxes. Buyers request these things for cash flow reasons more than anything. Sometimes they'll even say "I'll pay you $10,000 more if you'll give me $10,000 in closing cost help." This has NOTHING TO DO WITH PAYING A BUYER AGENT.

Sure, people can negotiate these things themselves. But you're a case in point of people who don't understand these dynamics and how they affect and offer -- you're your worst enemy in negotiations, because you're so sure you know everything ... and you actually don't have a clue. This goes back to your simplistic "all things being equal" comment. There's no such thing. No two offers are going to be exactly alike except for the price.

Are agents overpaid? Yes, but that's a factor of the higher value of houses. Are buyer agents pointless? I know you think so, but your absurd thinking is so black and white. You are, simply, far too emotional about these things. And the entire reason for agency is to take emotion out of transactions and protect people from themselves.

[The] three comparator markets [Australia, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom], only about 5–20% of home buyers used buyer-brokers as compared to 87% in the United States. Moreover, those buyers who did employ buyer-brokers in the yardstick markets paid only about 1–2% in commissions versus the 2–3% paid by buyers in the United States"