Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Buyer pays an inspector for the inspection, an appraiser for the appraisal, whatever fees the mortgage company charges, ... and pays the seller for the house.
Out of the funds received for the house, the seller pays off the mortgage, satisfies any liens, pays accrued taxes, prorated HOA dues, ... and pays the agreed-up percentage of the selling price to the realtors.
Now the money may have started out the day with the buyer, but that money had been paid it to the seller by the time it was dispersed to the realtors.
Seems fair. After all the, the seller is the one who signed the contract to pay for example, 6% of the selling price to the realtors, of which the buyers' agent would get 3%.
Now, of course, the seller may have been willing to sell the house for a lower price if there were no real estate fee, thus saving money for the buyer. But that's neither here nor there.
I've seen FSBO listings that mentioned the sellers would pay a buyer's agent a 3% commission. But that was a long time ago.
You are confused. Victimized by the lies from NAR, et al.
1. Appraisers comp from like transactions. IOW, if they are appraising an MLS listed transaction, ALL the comparable sales have commissions baked into the contract price, so the appraisal is inclusive of commissions and the price is inflated.
If there are no commission costs in a transaction, comping against commission-inflated pricing is a disservice to lenders and consumers.
2. What "seller funds?" ALL of the funds for a residential real estate transaction are brought by the buyer and it is a shell game to run all of the commissions through the seller side of the CD.
It has to be done that way because lenders will not allow commission as a buyer closing cost, although they certainly inflate buyer costs.
I agree it is a shell game and that home prices are inflated by this commission arrangement. I find this problematic. It seems to me, it is conflating a few things.
1) compensation for the listing agent/broker acting as advocate for the seller.
2) compensation for procurement of the buyer.
3) compensation for the buyer's agent services acting as advocate for the buyer.
How should these costs be allocated setting aside the current practice?
In Colorado we have state approved forms. Our state approved forms says all real estate commissions are negotiable. We also have minimum requirements for services to the public.
Some of the MLS access is through the local board and some are not. So it would be hard to do business in some parts of the state without joining the local/state/national Association of Realtors.
In other parts of the country, licensees must join the local board in order to get the local forms.
Redfin announced that they will no longer join the board in areas that they do not need to.
Some MLS’s have rescinded the mandate for a coop fee paid. In my opinion this will not change the properties that are listed with a coop fee.
Would you care to explain the alleged basis for the lawsuit? As a lawyer, I would guess that these suits consist of a bunch of lawyers making up a flimsy pretext to collect a lot of fees without the "plaintiffs" actually deserving or receiving anything.
It was an anti-trust lawsuit. The basis for the lawsuit is that by requiring agents that belong to the MLS to pay unconditional buyer agent fees they are inflating the costs to sellers and causing them damages. That is the lawsuit in one sentence.
It was an anti-trust lawsuit. The basis for the lawsuit is that by requiring agents that belong to the MLS to pay unconditional buyer agent fees they are inflating the costs to sellers and causing them damages. That is the lawsuit in one sentence.
I don't think the pretext was flimsy, personally.
It's a well-orchestrated cash grab. I think it is about as flimsy as the NAR and REALTOR and Brokerage attempts to cover their mendacity over the years. I.e., just a mess that could have been avoided with some integrity.
Claiming or allowing REALTOR members to claim for decades that buyers agent services are free to buyers was incredibly stupid.
Supports the case for the plaintiffs, IMO.
Then there is the huge support by knuckle-draggers and troglodytes for their "standard commissions," and still lingering references to "discount agents" or "discount firms."
Lending credence to something that could easily have been avoided with some proactivity, rather than feverish knee-jerk circling of the commission wagons.
It's a well-orchestrated cash grab. I think it is about as flimsy as the NAR and REALTOR and Brokerage attempts to cover their mendacity over the years. I.e., just a mess that could have been avoided with some integrity.
Claiming or allowing REALTOR members to claim for decades that buyers agent services are free to buyers was incredibly stupid.
Supports the case for the plaintiffs, IMO.
Then there is the huge support by knuckle-draggers and troglodytes for their "standard commissions," and still lingering references to "discount agents" or "discount firms."
Lending credence to something that could easily have been avoided with some proactivity, rather than feverish knee-jerk circling of the commission wagons.
Absolutely there should be transparency about costs being borne by the buyer. And, "co-op" fee is a misnomer. This suggest the fee is for being cooperative with the listing agent. There should be a "buyer's agent" fee and a "buyer's agent" contract with a list of services to be provided to include providing comps to assist buyer in negotiations.
I think the time has come to hold agents accountable for the services to be provided -- whether that is fee for service or a percentage of sales price.
Absolutely there should be transparency about costs being borne by the buyer. And, "co-op" fee is a misnomer. This suggest the fee is for being cooperative with the listing agent. There should be a "buyer's agent" fee and a "buyer's agent" contract with a list of services to be provided to include providing comps to assist buyer in negotiations.
I think the time has come to hold agents accountable for the services to be provided -- whether that is fee for service or a percentage of sales price.
In our local MLS, REALTOR-Owned, the BA compensation is listed in all listings, but buyer has to have access to the "Agent Full Report."
I always shared that full report with clients. Some agents will not do so.
This was inevitable with the advent of the internet. No longer is all the information secret and is now readily available on Zillow. You can now drive around, see a property and instantly know the price. FISBOs are much easier now as anyone can see your property. When we were looking for a place here we used Zillow all the time. I found places I liked and emailed my Realtor. He was worth every penny of his commission. He advised us to buy in Ponte Vedra Beach vs Jacksonville and our property has appreciated significantly more than a property we were looking at in Jacksonville. We purchased the house and the next day Mathew trashed the roof. He was able to get the seller to replace the roof vs patching it (there were 2 layers which is difficult to repair) and we were more than happy to chip in a few k to make it happen. He supervised the roof replacement and got us architectural shingles as well. There were other issues which he got repaired as well. Of all the Realtors he was the best, a close second was a delightful English Lady in Ft Lauderdale. When this all shakes out the good realtors will still be there and a lot of the others will not.
This was inevitable with the advent of the internet. No longer is all the information secret and is now readily available on Zillow. You can now drive around, see a property and instantly know the price. FISBOs are much easier now as anyone can see your property. When we were looking for a place here we used Zillow all the time. I found places I liked and emailed my Realtor. He was worth every penny of his commission. He advised us to buy in Ponte Vedra Beach vs Jacksonville and our property has appreciated significantly more than a property we were looking at in Jacksonville. We purchased the house and the next day Mathew trashed the roof. He was able to get the seller to replace the roof vs patching it (there were 2 layers which is difficult to repair) and we were more than happy to chip in a few k to make it happen. He supervised the roof replacement and got us architectural shingles as well. There were other issues which he got repaired as well. Of all the Realtors he was the best, a close second was a delightful English Lady in Ft Lauderdale. When this all shakes out the good realtors will still be there and a lot of the others will not.
So....
You are saying that if you buy a $400,000 house, you will have no issue with popping $6,000--$12,000 +/- cash at closing to take care of your buyer's agent?
I question how many consumers will be so inclined.
It's a well-orchestrated cash grab. I think it is about as flimsy as the NAR and REALTOR and Brokerage attempts to cover their mendacity over the years. I.e., just a mess that could have been avoided with some integrity.
Claiming or allowing REALTOR members to claim for decades that buyers agent services are free to buyers was incredibly stupid.
Supports the case for the plaintiffs, IMO.
Then there is the huge support by knuckle-draggers and troglodytes for their "standard commissions," and still lingering references to "discount agents" or "discount firms."
Lending credence to something that could easily have been avoided with some proactivity, rather than feverish knee-jerk circling of the commission wagons.
RE/Max settled and I had a RE/Max agent questioning me a couple of weeks ago about my compensation offering in the local MLS because it was .25% less than "standard." He wanted to confirm that my offering was correct and not a typo. This is why there is a lawsuit.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
