On May 12, 8:47 pm, krw wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On May 4, 6:01 am, WDS wrote:
On May 3, 9:09 pm, Tim Smith wrote:

In article . com,

Dycha wrote:
It does not matter .. I just pointed out holes in your reasoning. The
OP thought outside the box ..and does not want to follow "commonly
accepted" rules, hoping to save some $$$ ...

Why would the buyer save some $$$? It's the seller who would save $$$,
and he has no reason to give any of that to the buyer.

It would go something like this:

Seller and agent list house for $100,000. Agent gets 7% ($7000) if it
sells. Buyer pays $100,000 and seller gets $93,000.

Buyer off the street comes in and says to seller "I will buy for
$95,000 straight up and screw the agent." Buyer pays $95,000 ($5000
less) and seller gets $95,000.($2000 more).

If the buyer does not have a "buyer's agent" the "selling agent" is
only entitled to 3.5% (7%/2) since half of the commission is for the
buyer's agent.

I would assume that this depends on the contract. The commission is
owed to the selling agent. AFAIK, the selling agent pays the buyer's
agent according to separate contract. If there is no buying agent
the selling agent *may* get the whole thing.

Exactly. In most listing contracts the listing agent gets the full
commission, regardless of whether any other agent is involved. The
idea that because you don't have an agent on the buy side involved
means the seller is only paying half the commission is bogus. The
listing agents position is that they then have to do the hand holding
of the buyer during the transaction that would normally be done by
another agent. There is certainly some truth to that, though I agree
it doesn't justify the full commission. But unless the contract says
otherwise, they get the full commission.

Now the way a smart buyer without an agent can approach a sale with
only a listing agent is as follows. Start out and/or end with a
final bid that is about 2% lower than you would have with another
agent involved. In that case, it's not unusual for a listing agent
to agree to cut their commission around 2% to close the deall.
Everyone winds up a winner. The realtor looks like a hero because
they cut their commission from 6 to 4% to get the deal done, the buyer
is happy. And for the realtor, they got a sure 4% commission,
rather than do a lot more, maybe months of work, and take the chance
the lisiting could expire and they get zippo. For the buyer, you got
the house at a good price.

On the other hand, if you go into this with the idea I'm gonna address
the fact that no other agent is involved up front, find out what
commission the agent is getting in a contract you're not party to, and
try to reduce it, your sure to **** everyone off and look like a
lowball buyer who neither the agent nor many sellers are going to want
to do business with, unless they are desperate.





And, this thing that it is the seller who pays the commision is
arguable. If I want $100k for my house and decide to use an agent to
sell it, of course I will include the agents fee in the price, which
will go to $107.5k. Mostly after my previous experiences buying and
selling houses where did not see the agents value in the fee they got.

Everything is negotiable but it may be hard to get an agent to move
from the local customs. If one could get $108K for a $100K house,
why wouldn't a FISBO ask it? The market determines the value of the
house. The buyer doesn't care where the money is going, just how
much is going.

--
Keith- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -