Its not sad at all. Why should the buyer's agent take a cut in their commission because the seller's agent can't justify what they charge? Discount listings is fine. But the seller agent is the one who should discount their commission, not the buyer's agent. If not, the seller's agent is doing their client a great injustice, not the other way around.
The injustice is either agent not doing what is best for their client. A buyer's agent not showing a house to their client for a selfish reason is pathetic.
Codell, that's why I added the last line "make sure you know how the commission is split." There are Realtors out there that won't show listings because one house is listed at 2% commission and the house down the street that is similar has 3%.
Selfish reason? Like wanting to earn their deserved salary? Again, as long as the seller agent is one the one taking the cut, then the problem/dilemma is solved.
I agree. I've actually never heard of an agent taking a listing for 5% and expecting the buyer's agent to be the one to take a cut in their pay. If there has been, well, then the listing agent is an absolute moron. I would think that most buyer's agents wouldn't show a house where they would be expected to take a pay cut, simply because the seller agent is both weak and a moron.
Really there are not houses out there that only have 2% to the buyers agent for obvious reasons. My wife is a realtor and anything less then 3% is VERY uncommon.
I didn't get that first sentence. Going through the MLS just now, out of 100 houses I looked at in the 77089 area, 7 of the houses were listed at 2 and 2.5% commission. It is out there and there are Buyer agents out there that skip those houses. It's uncommon but it happens.
Seems to me that the duty of the seller's agent is to protect the seller and the duty of the buyer's agent is to protect the buyer. And that the commissions should not fall all on to one agent or the other. That does not sound like a good setup at all, and here's why: Who protects the buyer? I mean... the the buyer's agent gets paid by the seller, right? so the buyer's agent only makes money if the seller sells his property, right? So the buyer's agent now has a vested interest in making the sale take place. So, if the house has a cracked slab and needs a new roof, the buyer's agent is motivated to hide or ignore such facts in order to make the sale. No, no... If I'm a buyer, I want my agent to be paid by me to protect me. If his paycheck comes from the seller, he's gonna be looking out for the seller, not for me.
It should NEVER happen. Stuff like this is why I want all listings made equally available to the public so that real estate transaction costs will be reduced down to 1-2% total.
The buyer's agent is paid by the seller because it's included in the sell price. Crack slab and new roof, all that can be handled with an inspection from a qualified inspector. When you buy a house, you get a seller's' disclosure notice, which basically is suppose to state all known defects by the seller. If the seller is telling you there is no foundation problem, you take him for his word, but you STILL get an inspection.
Obviously you have never bought or sold a house. What you are missing is the buyer's agent gets paid no matter which house is purchased. So there is no incentive for the agent to lead his client into buying a defective house. They just move on to the next one.
No need to be condescending, dude. I've owned a house for 9 years. Yeah - the buyer's agent gets paid no matter which house is purchased. But if he works for the seller he's only going to be motivated to sell me the seller's house and it works against his interest for me to look into any other houses. If I want the best hamburger in town, and I ask Joe what the best hamburger is, he's always gonna tell me it's McDonalds as long as his paycheck comes from McDonalds, even if their burgers are crappy.
Whoa... hold it.. you're right... you just phrased it in a way that sounded weird. In your very first post, you ended by saying: That's a better way of saying it. This is correct (and this was what happened when we bought our house. The two agents split a 6% commission). At first, it sounded as if you were saying that the buyer's agent was hired by and employed by the seller, which would, of course, suck. My bad. I misinterpreted your post.
Darkhorse- If you are still looking for an agent, send me an e-mail at thefireants@yahoo.com. We bought our house almost a year ago and we were very pleased with our agent. I would be happy to recommend him for you. -John
Yes... we are still looking. This has been a reasonably healthy discussion. The main thing now is just finding someone I feel good about.
I had a buyer's agent when I bought my house in 2001, and it was a house she was the listing agent on as well. I told her exactly what I was looking for and in which neighborhood, and it turned out she was listing a house that matched my requirements perfectly. I think buying agents work well if you have chosen a specific neighborhood to purchase in.
Actually, the standard 6% commission goes to the seller's agent per their listing agreement with the seller. If the seller does both sides of the deal, they keep the 6%. If there is a buyer agent involved, then the 6% is split. That is very standard. The commision falls on both as neither agent works for free, especially the buyer's agent, who will normally always get at least 3%. Thats why there are almost always inspections involved. The inspector is hired by and reports to the buyer, not the buyer's agent (although the inspector will give the agent a copy of their report for negotiation purposes). Thats why they have buyer rep agreements. Agents lose their licenses if they are found to have not represented the buyer 100% by witholding their information. Ultimately, IMO and in my experience, a buyer's agent could care less what house a buyer buys. If one has a cracked slab or is not a good deal, they will find another house. This is not a problem at all in Houston, because the market is oversaturated right now w/ listings.
This will never happen. Not as long as agents have to pay their own E&O insurance, desk fees, advertising fees, NAR fees, TREC fees, HAR fees, Supra fees and license/continuing education fees. It costs alot to be a realtor, alot more than people realize. and btw, all listings ARE already equally available to the public.
