31–40 of 282 posts
Commission based on home value is a joke. Realtors should earn a flat-rate.
In a seller's market, seems like a buyer's agent should be compensated more because it's more difficult to win bids now.
Commission based on home value is a joke. Realtors should earn a flat-rate.
Don’t use realtors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So negotiate that with your agent if that's what you prefer.
So why downvote me? We've got this already in our buyer's agency agreements - if you as a buyer want to negotiate compensation with your agent, you have the ability to do that. Similarly, in both states where I work, you as a seller have had the ability to choose what, if any, compensation you want to offer to a buyer's broker. None of this is actually that different from how you negotiate (or not) with any other pro…
Here's the brief response I offered earlier today when asked what this actual does: I don’t really expect significant changes. We are in a more balanced market today than when these lawsuits were first filed. Many sellers will find it advantageous to offer buyer agent compensation. If/when we return to a seller-advantaged market, some buyers may need to pay their agents directly, which could involve rolling those cos…
What the jury said was that the national association of realtors colludes to keep agent fees high in a way that violates anti-trust rules.
(edited for grammar)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree - especially for the last few years, when in order to sell a house all you had to do was put in on the market - and then get 10-15-20 offers at or above listing price - no agent deserves a 6% commission for simply getting something listed on zillow or MLS where in recent years, the houses just sold themselves.
> no agent deserves a 6% commission for simply getting something listed on zillow or MLS Typically 3% is seller agent commission and 3% is buyer agent commission - although in the paperwork it's most likely 6% to the seller's agent and the seller's agent offers 3% to the buyer's agent. Although 5% total / 2.5% to each realtor is becoming a bit more popular as of recent, based on the listing I browse.
There's not much to the article. > KANSAS CITY, Mo.—A federal jury on Tuesday found the National Association of Realtors and large residential brokerages liable for about $1.8 billion in damages after determining they conspired to keep commissions for home sales artificially high. > The verdict comes in the first of two major antitrust lawsuits that target decades-old industry practices and seek to drive down commiss…
Just sell it / or buy it yourself. It isn't hard by any stretch. You can use a $200 listing broker on a MLS site. That is the big secret. Then it gets on zillow,redfin, etc automatically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This could change the process to this: 1) Seller gives a portion of their home price to their Agent as a commission (let's say 3%). The seller only paid 3% in commissions. 2) The Buyer negotiated a commission with their Agent (let's say $10,000). Which the buyer pays out-of-pocket, or has paid out of their financing for the home. This allows the Seller's Agent to maintain their duty to maximizing the value of their c…
> maximizing the value of their client's home by reducing the commission the seller pays. Selling a house quickly (convincing the seller to take a qualified and likely-to-close offer) still dominates as a strategy over eeking out a few extra points of contract price. As an agent, taking 1.25% or 1.5% of a $950K sale quickly is way better than holding out for a $1M offer. The difference in commission at 1.5% on a $50K…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> maximizing the value of their client's home by reducing the commission the seller pays. Selling a house quickly (convincing the seller to take a qualified and likely-to-close offer) still dominates as a strategy over eeking out a few extra points of contract price. As an agent, taking 1.25% or 1.5% of a $950K sale quickly is way better than holding out for a $1M offer. The difference in commission at 1.5% on a $50K…
The main issue with that possibility is many brokerages (at least ones in my area) do not allow a Seller's Agent to reduce their commission without prior Broker authorization. Regardless of what the Seller themselves wants. So while that deal may be advantageous for the Seller (sell quickly) and the Agent (get the deal over with and move on to the next), the Broker is the one getting paid a lower sum and will not all…
Here's the brief response I offered earlier today when asked what this actual does: I don’t really expect significant changes. We are in a more balanced market today than when these lawsuits were first filed. Many sellers will find it advantageous to offer buyer agent compensation. If/when we return to a seller-advantaged market, some buyers may need to pay their agents directly, which could involve rolling those cos…
Does anyone know what this actually means for real estate brokerage fees? There are few markets which have supported 3-5% brokerage fees (even i-banking is <100bps at scale now) so I'm curious where the fees will settle.
This could change the process to this: 1) Seller gives a portion of their home price to their Agent as a commission (let's say 3%). The seller only paid 3% in commissions. 2) The Buyer negotiated a commission with their Agent (let's say $10,000). Which the buyer pays out-of-pocket, or has paid out of their financing for the home. This allows the Seller's Agent to maintain their duty to maximizing the value of their c…
I'm rather suspicious of the US system that creates a place for two agents getting 3% each for little gain (and a lot of scope for collusion against the buyer and/or seller!)
The New Zealand system has its flaws. The major problem is that vendor real estate agents are financially incentivised to turn over sales as quickly as possible and so smart agents do not represent their vendors properly. I've seen lots of house sales where an offer is made and the agent recommends the seller take it. An early sale costs the agent much less time and they make way more money per year. New Zealanders are generally too trusting, so we get screwed over by people that take advantage of that.