re: Strategies for buying a house USING the listing agent ....

quote:

---

On a different note, it youre ever involved in a serious lawsuit, maybe a few hundred thousand dollars either way (the price of a house lets say) lawyers are way overpaid and you can easily represent yourself in court.



Takes about 7 years to become a lawyer v 6 months to become a real estate agent. Pretty solid comparison.

---

It's doubly stupid in that you don't stand to lose the full value of the house if you don't pay an agent, whereas in the lawyer example, you could go from having to pay $0 to having to pay hundreds of thousands.

All around, it was about as poor of an analogy as could have been proffered.

quote:

---

I just don't understand how they think they have performed a service worthy of $18,000 on a $300,000 home. Just insane. They take pictures, show off the house, schedule meetings, and post on a database... a database that shows how much the agents get. The last house I bought was a FSBO. The sell went just fine. The seller and buyer can split that $18,000 and have a party.

---

I used a 1% listing agent when I sold my place and I sold it in 4 days.

If you are going to use someone more expensive, then at least put some incentives on it. Build a tiered structure that rewards outperformance. I've said this on here a million times. Let's say the house is worth $X. Any dipshit can sell the place for, say, $.85X or lower. So why should someone be paid a commission on a no-brainer? I'd rather pay 1% on the full amount of the sale and and then Y% on any amount above $X.

The bottom line is that the listing agent has very little incentive to get you a higher price under the current system.

thanks for all the info to everyone in this thread...

Is a RE lawyer even necessary ?

quote:

---

he market thinks so - hence the fact that agents exist. If you don't like it, don't use them. Have a great day!

---

Yes, the market is sluggish to realize how ridiculously over-valued the services of agents are. I put a lot of that on the dishonesty of the agents themselves. Fortunately, due to the utter arrogance of the industry - as we have seen on full display in this very thread - the current pricing structure won't be around forever.

I know there's a poster from Zachary on here that seems to know what's up. TMC or something like that. I can't remember. It's 3 letters.

quote:

---

The market thinks so

---

That's because they manipulated the key players the market depends on(advertising and appraisals) and had a strong lobbying group to prevent realtors from being sued for collusion in setting fees.

Jersey -

quote:

---

Right. "Negotiates".

---

Yes, this is right. If you want to sell your house and don't want to pay 6%, you can absolutely shop around and "negotiate" a lower commission structure with another agent/broker if need be.

quote:

---

Quick question: without a buyer bringing money to the table, how much money will the seller receive to then pay out to the listing agent?

---

This is asinine - Agents are sales people. Just like any other field involving sales. A buyer is necessary to bring money to the table in ANY sales transaction. The sales person negotiates his fee/salary/compensation with the seller, not the buyer. If the fee is not reasonable, the seller won't pay it. If the sales fee causes the price of the item to be too high, the buyer won't buy it. Capitalism at its finest.

quote:

---

If the buyer uses a selling agent, the listing agent is "only" going to get 3% anyway.

---

Perhaps, but the listing agent is only earning 3% because the buyer's agent is doing the buyer-side work and earning the other 3%. When a buyer's agent is involved, the listing agent can feel MUCH more comfortable that the buyer is serious and approved for the home purchase price or else the buyer's agent wouldn't be wasting time on that buyer. It may be worth it to the listing agent to give up the other 3% to a buyer's agent who can help to ensure the transaction closes.

quote:

---

I believe the OP's question was about employing dual agency and asking the listing agent to give on the other 3% that he would not have been getting in the first place. My question is why WOULDN'T the listing agent want to wet his beak a little more for a transaction he is already involved in?

---

Again, it depends on the quality of the buyer. It may be worth it to have someone else rep. the buyer to deal with him and ensure he is qualified to get the transaction to closing. If agent is willing to do double the work (by repping buyer and seller) for 75% of the pay, then he can choose to do so.

quote:

---

I love how you paint this as some kind of group decision in which most people are opposed.

---

It's not a group decision, but broker must allow it, and all parties must be made aware of it.

quote:

---

Note to you: the buyer and seller don't want to pay ANY fees.

---

Then Seller shouldn't list with a broker! No one forces a seller to use a broker/agent. It's pretty simple, really, and by choosing the agent, the seller is saying he DOES want to pay the fees.

quote:

---

i.e. You would best be served by shutting your mouth and paying full commissions.

---

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Quit looking for handouts; get your own license if you don't like it; etc. etc

quote:

---

Yes, this is right. If you want to sell your house and don't want to pay 6%, you can absolutely shop around and "negotiate" a lower commission structure with another agent/broker if need be.

---

As has already been pointed out, a powerful lobby and shady tactics have left an idiot population even more idiotic. I'm not excusing their idiocy, but to call it a "negotiation" is a stretch. Almost every single person I've educated on this topic said something like "ohhhh, I didn't know you could even do that".

quote:

---

A buyer is necessary to bring money to the table in ANY sales transaction.

---

Correct. Which means the BUYER is the one paying the fees. This is what I'm referring to when I mention "shady tactics". Without question, selling agents are over-consumed because of the intentionally-advanced fiction of "the seller pays". It's utter bullshite.

quote:

---

Perhaps, but the listing agent is only earning 3% because the buyer's agent is doing the buyer-side work and earning the other 3%.

---

That is highly debatable.

quote:

---

When a buyer's agent is involved, the listing agent can feel MUCH more comfortable that the buyer is serious and approved for the home purchase price or else the buyer's agent wouldn't be wasting time on that buyer. It may be worth it to the listing agent to give up the other 3% to a buyer's agent who can help to ensure the transaction closes.

---

Again, this is totally self-serving bullshite.

quote:

---

If agent is willing to do double the work

---

quote:

---

Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Quit looking for handouts; get your own license if you don't like it; etc. etc

---

Yes, but you discouraged the OP even from simply broaching the topic.

quote:

---

Correct. Which means the BUYER is the one paying the fees. This is what I'm referring to when I mention "shady tactics". Without question, selling agents are over-consumed because of the intentionally-advanced fiction of "the seller pays". It's utter bullshite.

---

Buyer pays for the HOUSE. Buyer doesn't pay the FEES. Seller pays the fees and there is a contract between seller and agent stating as such.

Seller could sell house for same price to same buyer and NOT PAY the fees, but seller chooses to market house with agent and seller pays for that agent's services.

Here's the simple math on it so maybe you'll get it this time:

Scenario 1: NO BROKER/AGENT

House price = $100K with no broker.
Buyer pays $100K
Seller gets $100K

Scenario 2: Broker/Agent Lists House

House price = $100K still (market dictates)
Buyer pays $100K
Seller gets $100K LESS COMMISSION TO BROKER

Doesn't look like buyer pays more than the $100K market price either way to me

quote:

---

No it's collusion.

---

Some bad eggs ruin it for the rest of us.

Commission IS negotiable - I negotiate mine all of the time. Sorry to those who don't know this, but now you do. If you as a seller aren't able to negotiate your commission structure and don't like what the agent is telling you, you should go to another agent.
But if you are already at the Walmarks and still don't like the pricing, then you are always free to sell it FSBO. There is no law that says you have to use an agent. It takes 2 to tango.