Should I engage buyer's RE agent or just deal directly with the listing agent? (Eastchester: sale, real estate)
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.
I am trying to buy a condo or coop in Bronxville or Scarsdale or Eastchester.
Should I use a buyer's agent or just deal and negotiate with the listing agent? Seems that this way I can potentially get a better price because the listing agent won't have to share the fee with another agent.
I purchased one property without a buyers agent and another with. Working with the buyers agent was far better in my opinion- my agent had my best interests in mind and not the sellers.
I sold my fathers house to buyers who had no agent- it was pretty obvious the realtor had our interests in mind more than the buyers.
I also don't think you will be able to necessarily negotiate a better price merely because there is no split- its the norm these days to split commissions and I doubt the realtor is going to give you an amazing deal just because they don't have to give someone else a 2-3% commission.
The seller certainly isn't going to care, and they have the final say- and will be paying the full commission regardless if anyone splits it or not.
I am trying to buy a condo or coop in Bronxville or Scarsdale or Eastchester.
Should I use a buyer's agent or just deal and negotiate with the listing agent? Seems that this way I can potentially get a better price because the listing agent won't have to share the fee with another agent.
I think a buyer's agent is the way to go. The seller's agent would not give you a deal. Just get someone who can help you. Best to you.
I also don't think you will be able to necessarily negotiate a better price merely because there is no split- its the norm these days to split commissions and I doubt the realtor is going to give you an amazing deal just because they don't have to give someone else a 2-3% commission.
Really? I've personally seen sellers accept lower offers than the top bid (supposedly cause that bid was "safer" or "more likely to close" but who knows). Suppose you and I both bid on a house and your bid is a bit higher than mine but you have a buyer's agent so the seller agent would have to split the commission. Clearly the seller agent would rather take my bid than yours. (And maybe the seller agent would give a 1% rebate to the seller, so the agent keeps 5% and the seller gets 1%, and the buyer gets a lower price and everyone comes out better than if they'd accepted the other offer). You don't think the seller agent would be tempted to prefer offers that don't have a buyer broker?
Really? I've personally seen sellers accept lower offers than the top bid (supposedly cause that bid was "safer" or "more likely to close" but who knows). Suppose you and I both bid on a house and your bid is a bit higher than mine but you have a buyer's agent so the seller agent would have to split the commission. Clearly the seller agent would rather take my bid than yours. (And maybe the seller agent would give a 1% rebate to the seller, so the agent keeps 5% and the seller gets 1%, and the buyer gets a lower price and everyone comes out better than if they'd accepted the other offer). You don't think the seller agent would be tempted to prefer offers that don't have a buyer broker?
I do not. The seller agent will do whatever the client tells them to do and tell their client how each offer breaks out in your example. But a buyer's agent can tell you if the seller is wrong in their expectations of price and can make sure you are not taken advantage of by an agent with a duty to get as much from you as possible. But you do you.
Why would a buyer's agent care about your interests more than the seller's agent would? You as the buyer are not paying either of them, so why are their incentives aligned with yours? Both the buyer and seller agents are paid a percentage of the sale, so aren't they both incentivized to get as high a price as possible?
It's cool if your buyer's agent will ignore their financial incentives and negotiate a lower price **even though a lower price will reduce their commission, or maybe even cause you to get outbid and then the buyer agent gets nothing***. But their financial incentives are exactly the same as the seller's (get as high a price as possible), so will they really do that?
Why would a buyer's agent care about your interests more than the seller's agent would? You as the buyer are not paying either of them, so why are their incentives aligned with yours? Both the buyer and seller agents are paid a percentage of the sale, so aren't they both incentivized to get as high a price as possible?
It's cool if your buyer's agent will ignore their financial incentives and negotiate a lower price **even though a lower price will reduce their commission, or maybe even cause you to get outbid and then the buyer agent gets nothing***. But their financial incentives are exactly the same as the seller's (get as high a price as possible), so will they really do that?
I agree with this. My agent just wanted to make a sale and that was it. She did not have my best interest in mind.
Why would a buyer's agent care about your interests more than the seller's agent would? You as the buyer are not paying either of them, so why are their incentives aligned with yours? Both the buyer and seller agents are paid a percentage of the sale, so aren't they both incentivized to get as high a price as possible?
It's cool if your buyer's agent will ignore their financial incentives and negotiate a lower price **even though a lower price will reduce their commission, or maybe even cause you to get outbid and then the buyer agent gets nothing***. But their financial incentives are exactly the same as the seller's (get as high a price as possible), so will they really do that?
Why? A true buyer's agent is not just any real estate agent, they exclusively represent buyers. They do not ever list properties or help sellers. Their incentive is that they only get business when people share how good the experience is working with them.
Also, the buyer is paying everyone. What you are talking about is the old comment that since it all comes out of the proceeds, its all the seller's money. but legally, that is not accurate in NY. All the money comes out of the buyer's payment. The buyer's agent is paid from a portion of that. The seller is paid from a portion of the sale receipt. There are different ways agents are paid too, its not always a percentage. But the real reason a buyer's agent's incentives are aligned with the buyer is the law. Its the lone exception to the rule that all agents work for he seller. But no, the buyer's agent is incentivized to get the buyer as good a deal as possible as it is the only way they get more work. Unless the sale is enough for them to never have to work again, there is no incentive to screw over a client and lose their license.
As as for the resulting to get outbid, um, what world are yo living in. You think its still 2021? Good luck with that. Their financial incentives are NOT the same as the seller's agent, and their license is on the line for doing something against the rules of professional responsibility. This is really pretty common knowledge in the field. We all know buyer's agents who are incredible advocates for their clients, and we know ones who are honestly soft and easy to manipulate. Yes, the good ones really do that.
Really? I've personally seen sellers accept lower offers than the top bid (supposedly cause that bid was "safer" or "more likely to close" but who knows). Suppose you and I both bid on a house and your bid is a bit higher than mine but you have a buyer's agent so the seller agent would have to split the commission. Clearly the seller agent would rather take my bid than yours. (And maybe the seller agent would give a 1% rebate to the seller, so the agent keeps 5% and the seller gets 1%, and the buyer gets a lower price and everyone comes out better than if they'd accepted the other offer). You don't think the seller agent would be tempted to prefer offers that don't have a buyer broker?
I agree with you.
These days, the listings usually list the buyer's agent commission which most seem to be 2.5%.
To keep it simple if a house is listed at $1mm and there is a 2.5% seller agent commission and a 2.5% buyer agent commission, that means $50k in fees are being paid out by the seller. If you are the only interested buyer, maybe the seller would be willing to go down to $975k. In that case, the commission would be $24,375 for the seller's agent. Maybe the seller's agent collects a flat $25k to get that sale done which is the same net effect as $25k to each of the seller & buyer's agents at a $1mm sale price.
Please note that the listing agent really only cares about the seller. In a dual agent relationship, the buyer is secondary.
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.
