I'm looking for ettiquitte here. I had two deals fall through while I
was with her, and she put a good chunk of time in showing me maybe 50
places or so. She did not charge me a retainer.

I ended up buying my roomie's place that I wasn't interested in
originally. This is a private transaction.

What would be good ettiquite to compensate the buyer broker? And, if I
do compensate the broker something, is there a way to price it into the
house as "consulting" costs?

"willydog" writes:
I'm looking for ettiquitte here. I had two deals fall through while I
was with her, and she put a good chunk of time in showing me maybe 50
places or so. She did not charge me a retainer.

I ended up buying my roomie's place that I wasn't interested in
originally. This is a private transaction.

What would be good ettiquite to compensate the buyer broker? And, if I
do compensate the broker something, is there a way to price it into the
house as "consulting" costs?

Kudos to you for thinking in terms of the time you've taken from the
Realtor. And I think it would have been unethical and perhaps illegal
for her to charge you a retainer, well, in my state anyway.

Getting something rolled into your transaction might be tricky. The
mortgage company will wonder what this odd expense is that they're
lending money for yet isn't required by the transaction. You could
ask your real estate attorney about it though, or your financing
person. Hopefully with the private transaction you're using both.

Realtors have this sort of stuff happen quite a bit as part of the way
the business works, but I totally understand you wanting to compensate
the person for so much time. I'm not sure though, whether realtors
can even accept such well meaning sums of money though without running
afoul of ethics? I'm not sure.

You can repay your perceived debt in referrals to her though, gift
card, or things like that. If she's a long horizon thinker, she
won't look at is as "gee I wasted 50 hours last month that paid me
nothing" and more as "this guy will seek me out for his next
transaction, and be likely to tell his friends how well I took care of
him." Though I'm sure any token you can send her way to acknowledge
that you feel bad for taking up so much time that she didn't get
compensated for would be refreshing.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

In article .com,
willydog wrote:

I'm looking for ettiquitte here. I had two deals fall through while I
was with her, and she put a good chunk of time in showing me maybe 50
places or so. She did not charge me a retainer.

I ended up buying my roomie's place that I wasn't interested in
originally. This is a private transaction.

What would be good ettiquite to compensate the buyer broker? And, if I
do compensate the broker something, is there a way to price it into the
house as "consulting" costs?


Proper etiquette is to have her represent you on the transaction and
have the seller pay her fee.


Dimitri

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
Proper etiquette is to have her represent you on the transaction and
have the seller pay her fee.

The seller hasn't listed the property for sale. This was a private
transaction.


I understand what it was. I am answering the guy's question about the
proper thing to do, which is to have the seller compensate his agent.
If the seller hadn't lucked into this guy, then the seller would've
had to pay those fees and then some (for the listing agent as well).
It is not unreasonable for the buyer to ask the seller to pay his agent's
compensation, whether the seller is a friend or not.


Dimitri

(D. Gerasimatos) writes:
In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
Proper etiquette is to have her represent you on the transaction and
have the seller pay her fee.

The seller hasn't listed the property for sale. This was a private
transaction.


I understand what it was. I am answering the guy's question about the
proper thing to do, which is to have the seller compensate his agent.
If the seller hadn't lucked into this guy, then the seller would've
had to pay those fees and then some (for the listing agent as well).
It is not unreasonable for the buyer to ask the seller to pay his agent's
compensation, whether the seller is a friend or not.

It would be unreasonable, however, to expect the same negotiated sales
price AND have the seller pay the commission with the seller when the
price was agreed upon under the auspices of a private realtor-free
transaction.

Either way, ultimately, the buyer really is paying the agent's
commission, and that's what the original poster is trying to do, but
they appear to be asking how, in this instance to get it into the
contract such that he can finance the commission in the mortgage
rather than having to pay straight cash out of pocket, or hw to
otherwise compensate the agent for this unusual circumstance.

And they all remain great questions for the financing guy and/or the
lawyer who is handling the paperwork of the transaction.


--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
I understand what it was. I am answering the guy's question about the
proper thing to do, which is to have the seller compensate his agent.
If the seller hadn't lucked into this guy, then the seller would've
had to pay those fees and then some (for the listing agent as well).

Only if the seller decided to list their condo with a realtor, as
opposed to selling it in a private transaction.

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
I understand what it was. I am answering the guy's question about the
proper thing to do, which is to have the seller compensate his agent.
If the seller hadn't lucked into this guy, then the seller would've
had to pay those fees and then some (for the listing agent as well).

Only if the seller decided to list their condo with a realtor, as
opposed to selling it in a private transaction.


If that's really what the seller was going to do and he refuses on those
grounds, then I think the buyer should compensate the agent himself,
even if he is not legally obligated to. However, the buyer should ask
the seller first.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
If that's really what the seller was going to do and he refuses on
those grounds, then I think the buyer should compensate the agent
himself, even if he is not legally obligated to. However, the buyer
should ask the seller first.

But...the agent didn't find this property for the buyer, the buyer
located it for themselves.

Legally there isn't any obligation to the agent. If the buyer wants to
thank the agent for the time they put into looking at properties then a
gift certificate for a (good) local restaurant or something equivalent
would be adequate compensation.

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
If that's really what the seller was going to do and he refuses on
those grounds, then I think the buyer should compensate the agent
himself, even if he is not legally obligated to. However, the buyer
should ask the seller first.

But...the agent didn't find this property for the buyer, the buyer
located it for themselves.


Yes, but the agent performed a lot of work for the buyer by the buyer's
own admission.


Legally there isn't any obligation to the agent. If the buyer wants to
thank the agent for the time they put into looking at properties then a
gift certificate for a (good) local restaurant or something equivalent
would be adequate compensation.


The agent messed up. Usually, they make you sign an agency agreement so
that you are obligated to pay even if you find something on your own.
You can take advantage of that fact or you can do the right thing
and compensate the agent for all of the time they spent working for you.
Somehow, a $100 gift certificate isn't going to make the fact that he
screwed his agent over any better. Yes, he screwed over his agent. How?
Because the proper thing to do was to tell the agent about the house so
that her commission could be negotiated with the seller when the offer
was made.


Dimitri

On 25 May 2006 14:39:02 -0700, willydog wrote:
was with her, and she put a good chunk of time in showing me maybe 50

I ended up buying my roomie's place that I wasn't interested in
originally. This is a private transaction.

What would be good ettiquite to compensate the buyer broker? And, if I

Were you under contract with her at the time you purchased the condo?
If so, then you likely legally owe her something, depending on the terms
of the contract.

If no contract, a gift (eg, $50-100 gift card for dinner) and a nice
note with a "sorry it didn't work out" and expressing appreciation plus
a promise of referrals would probably be appreciated. Then keep that
promise!

sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

Thanks for all the replies. Here are some more details. I have been
living at the place I'm buying for the last 6 years. It was out of my
price range until recently, and me and my former roommate struck an
11th hour deal. The place was never marketed through MLS, and she never
had a seller's agent.

So more or less, it's the place I've been living in for 6 years, and
the seller is a good aquantence of mine. There were no marketing/agent
involved in this transaction.

The agent has already wished me ... "good luck" and we have
communicated that there would be no commission on this deal.

Any further thoughts with the new info? ;-)

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
The agent messed up. Usually, they make you sign an agency agreement
so that you are obligated to pay even if you find something on your
own.

In my experience this isn't a "usual" requirement, although I've
certainly had one or two agents suggest it. What buyer would be so
stupid as to sign an exclusive agreement with a real estate agent?

You can take advantage of that fact or you can do the right thing
and compensate the agent for all of the time they spent working for
you.

The agent didn't do anything for the buyer or the seller in this
transaction.

I don't think this situation requires any compensation to the buyers
agent other than a thank you and maybe a tokenof appreciation. My
fiance and I were working with an agent while house hunting. We never
signed anything. We were shown many houses and went to many open
houses on our own. The house we liked and wanted to buy we saw alone
at an open house. I did not think twice about calling our agent so she
could assist us and feel that she helped us a great deal and deserves a
commission . Did we have to? No. But it was right to do so

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
The agent messed up. Usually, they make you sign an agency agreement
so that you are obligated to pay even if you find something on your
own.

In my experience this isn't a "usual" requirement, although I've
certainly had one or two agents suggest it. What buyer would be so
stupid as to sign an exclusive agreement with a real estate agent?


Why wouldn't you, if you had the agent working for you? You sound like
an unethical person. I am surprised any agent would work for you without
an agency agreement. The stupid one here is the agent, for not realizing
how many unethical people are out there. By the way, the agreement need not
be exclusive, if that's what's bothering you. It can allow for other
agents to show you property. It can just stipulate who gets the commission.
(For example, the agent who first shows the property will get the
commission, or agents agree to split commission.) Typically, the buyer
agency agreements have an expiration date. If it makes you uncomfortable,
then make the term very short. However, expect the agent to account for
that when deciding how hard to work for you (i.e. probably not very hard).


You can take advantage of that fact or you can do the right thing
and compensate the agent for all of the time they spent working for
you.

The agent didn't do anything for the buyer or the seller in this
transaction.


I understand, but the agent did do work for which they should be
compensated. Maybe the buyer came to the realization that his buddy's
place was a good deal because of all the other places he had seen with
the agent, for instance. Legally, nothing is owed, of course. I am not
disputing that. I am just talking about what is 'right'. It's like having
a car salesman give you a test drive, explain all the features, and so on
and then going back to the dealer later and buying from another salesman.
A lot of people mention the name of the first salesman to the
dealership, so that he gets (at least some of the) credit for the sale.
This is not required, but it's the proper thing to do if the first guy is
really the guy who made the sale.


Dimitri

In article .com,
willydog wrote:

Thanks for all the replies. Here are some more details. I have been
living at the place I'm buying for the last 6 years. It was out of my
price range until recently, and me and my former roommate struck an
11th hour deal. The place was never marketed through MLS, and she never
had a seller's agent.

So more or less, it's the place I've been living in for 6 years, and
the seller is a good aquantence of mine. There were no marketing/agent
involved in this transaction.

The agent has already wished me ... "good luck" and we have
communicated that there would be no commission on this deal.

Any further thoughts with the new info? ;-)


No. I hope the agent learned something, though.


Dimitri

My agent had a short term contract that has subsequently "rolled over"
for another year after the initial period expired. I could have gotten
off the contract at any time by initialing the paperwork.

The property had to be either actively marketed on MLS, or a FSBO that
the *agent* took the lead on. If the agent found the FSBO (which he
did occasionally too) I would have gladly forked over the commishion,
because he would have earned it.

Let me also say, that I partially feel this agent cost me on the other
deals that fell through(minor things...). One time he didn't give me
all the comps, and I was finding stuff myself on the internet. Another
time I made an offer and took the sq. footage at good faith. I found
out *after* the offer and inspection that it was only half the footage.
An agent should be coaching first time buyers on that and looking out
for it. It's very common I can see. I do acknowledge though that for
the most part the service the agent provided was outstanding.

She's not holding me to anything. It's the right thing to do. I will go
the gift certificate route, and I will use her in the future. Having
previously been self employed, I know there is nothing worse than not
getting a paycheck for services rendered. He does ok though, and that's
part of the business in RE. At least you get .32/mi reimbursement I
hope?? Anyway, you do well in the good days, and try to do well in the
down days. Things are looking up for RE after the next 3-5% pop and the
fed showing any sign of slowing... Thanks to all those who helped!

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
Proper etiquette is to have her represent you on the transaction and
have the seller pay her fee.

The seller hasn't listed the property for sale. This was a private
transaction.


I understand what it was. I am answering the guy's question about the
proper thing to do, which is to have the seller compensate his agent.
If the seller hadn't lucked into this guy, then the seller would've
had to pay those fees and then some (for the listing agent as well).
It is not unreasonable for the buyer to ask the seller to pay his agent's
compensation, whether the seller is a friend or not.


Dimitri


You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!

"Travis Jordan" wrote in message
. ..
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
If that's really what the seller was going to do and he refuses on
those grounds, then I think the buyer should compensate the agent
himself, even if he is not legally obligated to. However, the buyer
should ask the seller first.

But...the agent didn't find this property for the buyer, the buyer
located it for themselves.

Legally there isn't any obligation to the agent. If the buyer wants to
thank the agent for the time they put into looking at properties then a
gift certificate for a (good) local restaurant or something equivalent
would be adequate compensation.



I agree. I worked with an agent a few years ago that showed me a TON of
places -- however, each time either the place was not what I asked for
(larger or smaller) or not in my price range, etc. there were one or 2 that
maybe was what I was looking for. One she took me to was a for sale by
owner (which she saw in the paper and thought was perfect for me) it was
perfect but the seller definately did not want to cover the agents fee and I
was in no position to pay over the asking price since it was already priced
at my maximum I could afford.

When I finally found a place (on my own by driving around) and it was a for
sale by owner and was below my max spending point, I put in an offer on my
own, it was accepted and I called my own lawyer to handle the deal. I sent
the agent a nice note thanking her for her time and explaining what occurred
(I found something on my own) and that was the end of it.

Had she actually took me to see some things that actually might have worked,
but fell through - well, maybe then a nice plant or gift certificate would
have been nice to send

Based on this additional information --- nothing more is really needed ---
in fact, even previously nothing was needed (I just looked over my OLD
agreement I found with the agent I was working with and no where in it did
it saw I was required to purcahse through her).

If you have a good relationship with this relator and think you might sell
your current place within the next 5 years -- perhaps a nice plant would be
a thoughful gesture with a note that says "Thanks for your time. Hope to
have the opportunity to work with you in the future"

"willydog" wrote in message
oups.com...
Thanks for all the replies. Here are some more details. I have been
living at the place I'm buying for the last 6 years. It was out of my
price range until recently, and me and my former roommate struck an
11th hour deal. The place was never marketed through MLS, and she never
had a seller's agent.

So more or less, it's the place I've been living in for 6 years, and
the seller is a good aquantence of mine. There were no marketing/agent
involved in this transaction.

The agent has already wished me ... "good luck" and we have
communicated that there would be no commission on this deal.

Any further thoughts with the new info? ;-)

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:
If that's really what the seller was going to do and he refuses on
those grounds, then I think the buyer should compensate the agent
himself, even if he is not legally obligated to. However, the buyer
should ask the seller first.

But...the agent didn't find this property for the buyer, the buyer
located it for themselves.


Yes, but the agent performed a lot of work for the buyer by the buyer's
own admission.


Legally there isn't any obligation to the agent. If the buyer wants to
thank the agent for the time they put into looking at properties then a
gift certificate for a (good) local restaurant or something equivalent
would be adequate compensation.


The agent messed up. Usually, they make you sign an agency agreement so
that you are obligated to pay even if you find something on your own.
You can take advantage of that fact or you can do the right thing
and compensate the agent for all of the time they spent working for you.
Somehow, a $100 gift certificate isn't going to make the fact that he
screwed his agent over any better. Yes, he screwed over his agent. How?
Because the proper thing to do was to tell the agent about the house so
that her commission could be negotiated with the seller when the offer
was made.


Dimitri


Not sure what state you are living in - but I just looked at the agreement I
signed with an agent 2 years ago --- nothing in it says that I could only
use her -- the only thing it says is that a buyer's agent is obligated to
keep your information to themselves and work on your behalf and get you the
best deal -- it does not indicate that I cannot look for something sold
privately or can only use her as my only resource of locating a home. It
does say however that if she locates something she gets a fee

On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:27:41 GMT, Lady wrote:
You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!

Perhaps you would pay if you wanted to sell.

I purchased a house a few years ago, using a buyer's agent, where the
house was listed as FSBO. My initial offer stipulated that the seller
pay my agent's commission (3%). The owners countered to avoid paying
the commission. My agent countered by dropping my offer 5% (since I
would have to pay the commission in cash at closing instead of financing
it as part of the mortgage). The seller asked for the initial offer,
and I gave it to them. Of course, the property had been on the market
for almost one year (the first six months with an agent) and they were
getting ready to move across the country... (And they had reduced their
asking price by $60,000 and I offered another $10,000 less.)

sdb
--
Wanted: Omnibook 800 & accessories, cheap, working or not
sdbuse1 on mailhost bigfoot.com

sylvan butler wrote:
When you are hiring a "buyer's agent" rather than just trusting the
seller's agent. Because the seller's agent is all you get unless you
have a contract saying that said agent is YOUR agent.

Yeah, I've had a couple of agents try to sign me up as an exclusive
"buyer's agent". No thanks - seems like an idea without much upside
(for me).

sylvan butler wrote:
Perhaps you would pay if you wanted to sell.

In the old days, maybe. Today with the internet the classical real
estate agent's role is being diminished by technology.

IMO, if the realtor was really good, the OP could give a gift
certificate for dinner for two, or something along those lines. But,
unless there was a contractual agreement spelling out more, then
nothing more is owed. The realtor was retained to find a property.
The actual property the OP is buying was not found through the
realtor's efforts. This happens all the time. I wouldn't feel sorry
for realtors, who in many cases have been getting 3% commissions when
someone buys a $400K house. That $12k pays for the situations like
the realtor had with the OP, where it didn't pan out. The OP
shouldn't be expected to pay for that too. It's just part of the cost
of doing business. There is nothing unethical about it.

"sylvan butler" wrote in message
rnal...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:27:41 GMT, Lady wrote:
You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!

Perhaps you would pay if you wanted to sell.

I still stand by my initial post -- there is a reason people sell as a For
Sale By Owner -- they do not want to pay commission -- if I put my place on
the market as a for sale by owner and someone brings along their own agent
and the agent wants a fee -- then the person coming along can pay the
fee --- I would NOT pay the fee -- if I wanted to pay a fee I would have put
the place on the market with an agent so I wouldn't be doing all the work
myself -- if I am doing all the work (showing the place, etc) then I am NOT
paying someone else a fee!

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:

Yeah, I've had a couple of agents try to sign me up as an exclusive
"buyer's agent". No thanks - seems like an idea without much upside
(for me).


The upside is that you will actually get an agent who knows what he is
doing and who will work hard for you. Without a contract what you will get
is an inexperienced agent and/or one who is taking you as a client on
a lark.


Dimitri

In article PjEeg.10122$lN5.2976@trnddc04, Lady wrote:
"sylvan butler" wrote in message
ernal...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:27:41 GMT, Lady wrote:
You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!

Perhaps you would pay if you wanted to sell.

I still stand by my initial post -- there is a reason people sell as a For
Sale By Owner -- they do not want to pay commission -- if I put my place on
the market as a for sale by owner and someone brings along their own agent
and the agent wants a fee -- then the person coming along can pay the
fee --- I would NOT pay the fee -- if I wanted to pay a fee I would have put
the place on the market with an agent so I wouldn't be doing all the work
myself -- if I am doing all the work (showing the place, etc) then I am NOT
paying someone else a fee!


This is why FSBOs usually end up selling for a lot less, if they sell at
all. The seller thinks he is going to save the commission. The buyers
think that the seller should share some of that savings. When you are
the listing agent (the owner) you are not doing "all the work". You are
doing about half the work (give or take depending on the strength of the
market). I know that producing a buyer seems like "no work" to you, the
owner, but brokers (you know, people actually in the business) feel that
the cooperating agent (the buyer's agent) is worth 50% or more of their
commission. If they thought they were doing "all the work" they would not
willingly part with such a percentage of their commission. It is more than
reasonable to pay the buyer's agent a fee. You are still saving money
because you don't have to pay a listing agent. To do otherwise is just
greedy and greedy people often get burned.


Dimitri

D. Gerasimatos wrote:
The upside is that you will actually get an agent who knows what he is
doing and who will work hard for you. Without a contract what you
will get is an inexperienced agent and/or one who is taking you as a
client on a lark.

Maybe where you live. Where I live that isn't true (and I have family
members who are real estate agents).

In article ,
Travis Jordan wrote:
D. Gerasimatos wrote:

The upside is that you will actually get an agent who knows what he is
doing and who will work hard for you. Without a contract what you
will get is an inexperienced agent and/or one who is taking you as a
client on a lark.

Maybe where you live. Where I live that isn't true (and I have family
members who are real estate agents).


I'm going to guess that you live in The South, where people do things
like buy houses with a handshake. Just because it's done, doesn't mean
it's the best way to do it. The best way to do it is to establish an agency.
Without that, the agent isn't technically working for you. You should
be able to see the downside in that from the perspective of both parties.


Dimitri

In article jV1eg.3012$lN5.699@trnddc04, Lady wrote:

Not sure what state you are living in - but I just looked at the agreement I
signed with an agent 2 years ago --- nothing in it says that I could only
use her -- the only thing it says is that a buyer's agent is obligated to
keep your information to themselves and work on your behalf and get you the
best deal -- it does not indicate that I cannot look for something sold
privately or can only use her as my only resource of locating a home. It
does say however that if she locates something she gets a fee


What your agreement was is not really relevant. The point I am trying to
make is that there should be *an* agreement. The agent made a huge
mistake in not having one - possibly even to the point of breaking the
law (depending on the state). The advice being given (which is that
you owe the agent nothing) is correct possibly only because the terms of the
contract are unknown. (In fact, no contract existed as far as we know.)
I also think that doing business without such an agency disclosure is
very bad business and possibly illegal in some states.


There is no law which says that agents have to be exclusive or non-exclusive.
However, whichever the agent chooses (and whatever other terms the buyer and
agent agree upon) should be in writing so that it's very clear what the terms
are. You can use standard forms, of course, or you can draw up your own
contract with an attorney if you wish.


If you are doing business without an established agency (and you were not,
but Travis apparently does) then it's no holds barred. "Your" agent might
actually be a subagent of the seller's agent. "Your" agent might be
working against you. Whether your intent is to have your agent work
exclusively for you or not, this should be communicated in writing. It
will prevent mishaps such as the one that started this thread. Definitely,
agents need to insist on the paperwork, but so, too, do buyers and
sellers.


Dimitri

In article NK1eg.3009$lN5.14@trnddc04, Lady wrote:

You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!


A bird in the hand...


Whether your decision would be wise or not depends on your local real
estate market and to some extent luck.


Did you know that some of the best sources of listings for agents are
FSBOs? They're also some of the best sources to look for bargains for buyers.


Dimitri

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article PjEeg.10122$lN5.2976@trnddc04, Lady
wrote:
"sylvan butler" wrote in
message
ternal...
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:27:41 GMT, Lady wrote:
You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted
to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!

Perhaps you would pay if you wanted to sell.

I still stand by my initial post -- there is a reason people sell as a For
Sale By Owner -- they do not want to pay commission -- if I put my place
on
the market as a for sale by owner and someone brings along their own agent
and the agent wants a fee -- then the person coming along can pay the
fee --- I would NOT pay the fee -- if I wanted to pay a fee I would have
put
the place on the market with an agent so I wouldn't be doing all the work
myself -- if I am doing all the work (showing the place, etc) then I am
NOT
paying someone else a fee!


This is why FSBOs usually end up selling for a lot less, if they sell at
all. The seller thinks he is going to save the commission. The buyers
think that the seller should share some of that savings. When you are
the listing agent (the owner) you are not doing "all the work". You are
doing about half the work (give or take depending on the strength of the
market). I know that producing a buyer seems like "no work" to you, the
owner, but brokers (you know, people actually in the business) feel that
the cooperating agent (the buyer's agent) is worth 50% or more of their
commission. If they thought they were doing "all the work" they would not
willingly part with such a percentage of their commission. It is more than
reasonable to pay the buyer's agent a fee. You are still saving money
because you don't have to pay a listing agent. To do otherwise is just
greedy and greedy people often get burned.


Dimitri


Maybe and Maybe not -- I think it all depends on the area where you are
selling and whether or not you are being greedy and have done your homework.
In my situation, I knew where I wanted to be and I knew what the asking
prices were (and what they had sold for) I actually saw 2 places the same
day (one listed with an agent and one a FSBO) both were in the same complex
and for the same $$. So, basically if both sold for the listed price the
FSBO "may" have walked away with more - but then again they may have walked
away with less -- depending what the balance (if any) on their mortgage was,
etc.

I think it all really depends on the personal situation. Personally, if I
were to sell now I think I would first try it on my own and see what
happens -- let's face it -- if you are selling a place for $300,000 place
and say the commission is even 5% which would be $15,000 for some people,
that $15,000 is a lot of extra money for a downpayment.

Is it worth the hassel of a FSBO? Maybe, maybe not -- I think it all
depends alot on the actual market in the area where the home is being sold.

"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article NK1eg.3009$lN5.14@trnddc04, Lady wrote:

You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!


A bird in the hand...


Whether your decision would be wise or not depends on your local real
estate market and to some extent luck.


Did you know that some of the best sources of listings for agents are
FSBOs? They're also some of the best sources to look for bargains for
buyers.


Dimitri


Agreed -- and if you plan on doing a FSBO you need to do your homework first
and know the area you are selling in

Lady wrote:
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article NK1eg.3009$lN5.14@trnddc04, Lady wrote:

You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!


A bird in the hand...


Whether your decision would be wise or not depends on your local real
estate market and to some extent luck.


Did you know that some of the best sources of listings for agents are
FSBOs? They're also some of the best sources to look for bargains for
buyers.


Dimitri


Agreed -- and if you plan on doing a FSBO you need to do your homework first
and know the area you are selling in


I did a FSBO with my condo 10 years ago in a tough market, that had
just started to rebound. Took me 3 months and I got close to the
asking price, which was the highest a unit had sold for in the prior
several years. I think I did have one advantage. In a condo, if
people are familiar with it, or happen to have looked at another unit,
then if they see my ad or sign, they know they can look at another
identical one, and perhaps save some money without commission.

I did have brokers call that had clients and I was willing to work with
them, ie give them 3%. But I found the buyer on my own.

A lot of this has to do with how good you are at marketing the
property. If you are totally clueless, then a realtor can be a big
help.

wrote in message
oups.com...

Lady wrote:
"D. Gerasimatos" wrote in message
...
In article NK1eg.3009$lN5.14@trnddc04, Lady
wrote:

You can ask anything you want - doesn't mean it will happen -- if I was
selling a condo without an agent and someone came in and made and offer
and
expected me to pay the fee I would not accept the offer -- if I wanted
to
pay a agent I would not have listed it as a for sale by owner!


A bird in the hand...


Whether your decision would be wise or not depends on your local real
estate market and to some extent luck.


Did you know that some of the best sources of listings for agents are
FSBOs? They're also some of the best sources to look for bargains for
buyers.


Dimitri


Agreed -- and if you plan on doing a FSBO you need to do your homework
first
and know the area you are selling in


I did a FSBO with my condo 10 years ago in a tough market, that had
just started to rebound. Took me 3 months and I got close to the
asking price, which was the highest a unit had sold for in the prior
several years. I think I did have one advantage. In a condo, if
people are familiar with it, or happen to have looked at another unit,
then if they see my ad or sign, they know they can look at another
identical one, and perhaps save some money without commission.

I did have brokers call that had clients and I was willing to work with
them, ie give them 3%. But I found the buyer on my own.

A lot of this has to do with how good you are at marketing the
property. If you are totally clueless, then a realtor can be a big
help.


I think you put my exact thoughts into words -- that is the point I was
tryng to make - it is possible to sell as a FSBO but you need to know what
you are doing.