In article om, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

Because he is not reducing his own commission. Normally,
he would expect to receive 6% of the selling price, of which
he would give half to the buyer's agent. Now, in the absence
of the buyer's agent, he stands to receive more than half
of 6% (to be split with his broker, of course, etc. etc.)
How is this not a win for the agent?

Because you're asking him to take less than the 6% that he's due under the
terms of his contract with the seller.

Please correct if I am wrong, but my understanding
is that if I show up with a random agent I got off the
street, the listing agent *will* take less than the 6%.
In fact, he will give up half of his commission without
any complaint. Is this correct?

If that's what the listing contract stipulates, yes.

I keep hearing that "a buyer's agent costs you nothing,
he is paid by the seller". But from what I understand,
there is nothing about paying the buyer's agent in
the standard contract between a seller and a listing
agent. From the contract forms I've seen (and you'll have
to excuse me if I am wrong), the seller promises 6%
to the listing agent, and then the listing agent expects
to give half of that to the buyer's agent. Is this correct?

That's normally the way it works, yes.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

I still don't understand why listing agents would rather
lose the deal than rebate even a single cent of
the buyer's agent's commission

Because you're not the only person in the world who's willing to buy that
house.

Maybe I am, maybe I am not. Don't know where you are, but
in my neck of the woods houses aren't exactly flying off the lots.

It's the same way here, too, from what I'm told. (Indianapolis)

The real estate bubble passed us by. Prices have been dropping,
now they are back up again, but there is a lot of new development
holding prices down.

Definitely the case here too. So the seller may have some motivation to lower
his asking price. How he goes about doing that is not the buyer's concern.

What, you think you're the only guy who's ever gone househunting without
having a buyer's agent?

No, of course not. That's exactly why I am here, asking questions:
to get some advice from people who have done it before, to
educate myself, to clear my misconceptions. I am sorry if
my attempts to learn rub you the wrong way, but you don't
really have to be so hostile, you know?

I'm not being hostile, just realistic. You're not a party to the
listing contract. You have no power to alter its terms. Yet despite repeated
explanations of that from several others in addition to me, you persist in
thinking that you do. That's *not* realistic.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Doug Miller wrote:

I'm not being hostile, just realistic. You're not a party to the
listing contract. You have no power to alter its terms. Yet despite repeated
explanations of that from several others in addition to me, you persist in
thinking that you do. That's *not* realistic.

Believe it or not, I have a completely open mind about this.
That's why I am asking questions and learning from other people,
yourself included. I do not "persist" in thinking anything, because
I haven't formed any firm opinions yet. That's why I try to qualify
every statement I make with "it seems that..." or "wouldn't it make
sense that..." If I am wrong about something, I am willing to listen
to an explanation and yes, I often ask for clarifications if I don't
understand.

Please don't attribute opinions to me that I don't hold. If my mind
were set, I would not be asking questions here, now, would I?

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Tony Sivori
wrote:

Consult an attorney on how late in the deal you can negotiate the
commission.

Hellooooooo! The *buyer* can't negotiate the listing agent's commission
at any point in the deal. The listing agent's commission is specified by
a contract between the listing agent and the *seller*.

You're wrong. I can negotiate and reduce the commission, provided the
agent is willing to do so.

If possible, I'd get the price of the house set, then "oh, by the way"
on the commission. That way, you have nothing to lose but something to
gain. The home owner will get the sale, and will pocket the same amount.
The listing agent will get his / her 3 or 4%. You'll get the house for 2
or 3% less. Everyone should be happy.

And if I were the seller, I'd tell you to go pound sand. You've already
signed a purchase offer at a specific price, I've accepted it, and
that's the price at which you're going to buy the house. If I negotiate
any reduction in the listing agent's commission, then *I* keep that
money, not you.

You're obviously a big fan real estate agents and their fees. So use 'em,
love 'em, pay them to your hearts content. Just don't get bent when I
don't share your view. Or rather more accurately, go right ahead and get
bent if you want to, but don't expect me to care what you think.

--
Tony Sivori

On 4 Sep 2006 08:16:40 -0700, wrote:

I am not really trying to get into the semantics of who is
technically paying whom. It's too bad this thread has taken
this turn.

The problem is that in the United States, these "semantics" are
exactly what you're battling against, as Doug has been telling you.
You're right that agents can adjust their commissions pretty much at
will, but as he's pointed out to you, 1) they won't unless there's a
financial advantage, and 2) even if there is, they still won't because
the system is so strongly entrenched that their best interests are
supported by the status quo, rightly or wrongly.

My advice to you is to continue the battle you're fighting because
logically you are absolutely correct. However, you also need to be
prepared to lose a lot of deals before you find the one that comes
together the way you want. So, I wish you all the best in your
crusade because I agree with your general principle about agents
taking too much of the profits. Maybe in 5-10 years we'll have a more
equitable real estate buying/selling mechanism.

wrote:

We are in TX and are about to make the jump and buy our first house
in the next 6 months or so. At the moment, we are planning to do it
without a buyer's agent - we've been studying our target neighborhood
for a while and have a pretty good idea of what different types of
houses sell for, don't need help with finding a mortgage broker (we've
been saving for several years, so we'll just buy the house for cash),
have a good inspector lined up (a family friend), etc. We are
fortunate to live in an area where the MLS is online, so we don't need
an agent to look at the listings.

Your situation is more ideal for using a buyer's agent than most
situations. Here's why.

There's a conflict of interest if a buyer's agent has ties with a bank,
because the buyer's agent will steer you toward higher home prices so
the bank sells you a bigger loan.

There's a conflict of interest if a buyer's agent knows the inspector,
because the inspector might pass a house with problems so the deal can
go through and the buyer's agent can get the commission.

It should be obvious to potential home buyers: when you get your loan
preapproved, do NOT pick a buyer's agent based on recommendations from
the loan company, and when you pick a home, do NOT choose an inspector
based on a recommendation from the buyer's agent.

With those two problems gone (as you're paying cash and you know your
inspector), the only remaining conflict of interest is a problem that
will NEVER go away: the buyer's agent will steer you to more expensive
homes because he'll get a larger commission when he splits with the
seller's agent. You mostly have this problem solved because you said
you find the listings yourself. If the buyer's agent tries to steer
you to more expensive homes, you can just tell him/her: "No, I'm
looking to spend no more than $250,000. If it's not worth it to you to
help me buy a home that inexpensive, let me know and I'll replace you
with a good buyer's agent who complies with my target price range, and
I'll give him lots of recommendations that he did a good job and he'll
get more business while you'll be out of the loop..."

The buyer's agent can save you time by checking documents for the home
you want to buy.

Regarding your main question, just give a low offer without specifying
why. If the seller's agent offers to take a smaller commission from
the seller because there's no buyer's agent, great. If they don't
accept, move on. It's a buyer's market. The number of days a home is
on the market is at an alltime high. Home values continue to plunge,
so perhaps they'll like your low offer in a month and accept it after
all.

One advantage of not using a buyer's agent: FSBO homes. Buyer's agents
whine if you show interest in an FSBO. Realtors stick together, so
they try to steer people away from the good people who sell directly
without a parasite or two parasites collecting fat commissions for
doing essentially nothing.

Of course if you buy from an FSBO, you don't have to worry about a
seller's agent getting a double commission. There are so many online
sites these days, it's easier to find FSBO listings than in the past.
MLS doesn't list FSBO, does it? I know realtor.com won't list FSBO.

KLS wrote:

The problem is that in the United States, these "semantics" are
exactly what you're battling against, as Doug has been telling you.

It doesn't help that there is a lot of obfuscation around.
For example, many folks have been telling me: "the buyer's
agent doesn't cost you anything, the seller is paying him".
But this doesn't seem to be quite true. The seller has
a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's agent
(as Doug has certainly driven home). The listing agent
will share his take 50-50 with any buyer's agent, but
would not give a single cent to the buyer himself if
there is no buyer's agent. Okay, I learned something.

You're right that agents can adjust their commissions pretty much at
will, but as he's pointed out to you, 1) they won't unless there's a
financial advantage, and 2) even if there is, they still won't because
the system is so strongly entrenched that their best interests are
supported by the status quo, rightly or wrongly.

It's the second part that I had a hard time understanding -
that someone would sacrifice a financially advantageous
deal to maintain the integrity of the system. But then again,
I am not in this business, so what do I know. It's good
to hear all kinds of opinions here.

My advice to you is to continue the battle you're fighting because
logically you are absolutely correct. However, you also need to be
prepared to lose a lot of deals before you find the one that comes
together the way you want.

Yeah, that's the thing. I am not really prepared to tilt
at the windmills. It seems stupid to pay $15K to a buyer's
agent since we'll be doing all the work anyway, but, on
the other hand, if we have no realistic prospect of
getting a lower price without a buyer's agent, it might
be simpler just to get one. Contrary to Doug's accusations,
I am listening and learning.

"Elle" ) writes:
"Natalie Munro" wrote

You're paranoid.

You're a real estate agent. :-)

It's so neat how you got that to rhyme with 'scum'

Tony of the New York Times would be laughing with us if he had the time,
but he's very busy getting paid to write juicy, inside scoopy articles
that sell more magazines to more people.

wrote in message
ups.com...
Lou wrote:

My understanding is that if we buy a house without a buyer's agent,
the listing agent gets to collect the entire 6% commission (with our
target price, 6% amounts to $30-35K, not exactly pocket change).
We are thinking of trying to negotiate for either a rebate, or
reduction in price based on the fact that the listing agent won't have
to split the commission with the buyer's agent. It seems that the
listing agent would have every incentive to go for this - after all,
we could always turn around, get an agent, and the listing agent
would end up with only 3%. Yet we are not sure how to negotiate
the split, when to bring this up during the offer process, etc.

I don't get it - are things that different in Texas?

I don't think there are many differences between Texas
and New Jersey. It's relatively unusual for an attorney
to be involved in TX, and there is a survey done almost
every time, but other than that, it's pretty much the same
from what I can tell.

I live in New Jersey. Around here, house prices generally are set by
the
market. Some people sell their houses themselves, some (most) sellers
use
an agent. Listing agents certainly advise sellers as to what a house is
worth, and of course they (and the seller) want to get as much as they
can,
but if the price is set too high a house just sits there without being
sold,
and eventually the seller ends up reducing the price.

Yep, that's pretty much how it works here. That said, it's
conceivable that when faced with two offers - say, $500K from
someone who has a buyer's agent and $495K from someone
who doesn't - the seller and his agent would go for the latter
because everybody would get paid more, isn't it?
(And no, I am not talking about dropping the offer by $5K
after the contract is signed).

I still don't get it. What if the offers were reversed - the 500k is from a
buyer without an agent, and the 495k is from a buyer with a buyer's agent?
Or what if both offers came from buyers with agents, or both came from
buyers without agents? A "rational" seller will accept the offer that
nets the greatest amount of money after all the fees, commissions, etc. are
paid. Unless it affects the seller's net, why the seller would care if the
buyer had a buyer's agent or not is beyond me.

The seller's real estate agent has a (legal?) duty to present all offers
received to the seller. The agent may offer advice, but it's the seller who
decides which offer to accept, if any.

In any case, the seller pays the commission to the listing agent, and
the
price is pretty much independent of whether the seller uses an agent or
not.
What difference does it make to you what the seller does with the money?

Doesn't make any difference to me. As I said before,
the seller can pay 90% of the price to the listing
agent, it's all the same to me.

Then how you can consider that you should get a rebate doesn't make sense.

"Don K" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in message
ups.com...
wrote:

You have to stop thinking about who gets what and start thinking about
what the right price is for the house.

And that's the only thing I am thinking about, but I suspect
that the final price might be lower if there is only one
middleman involved, thus my questions. What you
are suggesting makes perfect sense, by the way.

The sellers already agreed to give their broker a certain percentage
of the selling price. If you want to cut out the middlemen you have to
find someone selling a house without a broker.

Don

And, I might add, a seller who's willing to drop the price because of that.
Based on my admittedly limited experience, people who decide to go the FSBO
route do so in the expectation of being able to pocket that money - if they
have to drop the price because the buyer thinks they're not paying an agent,
they might just as well have an agent and save themselves the trouble.

Terry Lomax wrote:
wrote:

We are in TX and are about to make the jump and buy our first house
in the next 6 months or so. At the moment, we are planning to do it
without a buyer's agent - we've been studying our target neighborhood
for a while and have a pretty good idea of what different types of
houses sell for, don't need help with finding a mortgage broker (we've
been saving for several years, so we'll just buy the house for cash),
have a good inspector lined up (a family friend), etc. We are
fortunate to live in an area where the MLS is online, so we don't need
an agent to look at the listings.

Your situation is more ideal for using a buyer's agent than most
situations. Here's why.

There's a conflict of interest if a buyer's agent has ties with a bank,
because the buyer's agent will steer you toward higher home prices so
the bank sells you a bigger loan.


This is just nonsense. I've dealt with lots of real estate agents and
never had the feeling that they were trying to get me to buy more
expensive homes so some bank they are in cahoots with can give a
slightly larger loan. The simple fact is, most buyers know the price
range they are looking for and a real estate agent would be pretty
stupid wasting time trying to get them into a more expensive house for
the chance of what? A bigger kickback from a bank? Isn't that illegal
in most states to begin with, particularly if it's not disclosed?

If there is a conflict of interest, it's that it is in any agents
interest to just close a deal without regard to price, so they can
collect a quick commission and move on. On the buy side, that means
they could have you pay $330K for a house that they think is only worth
$300, just to be done and move on. On the sell side, it means they
would rather see it sold for $300K today, rather than sit around for
months and wait and see if they can sell it for $330, because the small
diff in commission aint worth it.



There's a conflict of interest if a buyer's agent knows the inspector,
because the inspector might pass a house with problems so the deal can
go through and the buyer's agent can get the commission.

That's a valid point.



It should be obvious to potential home buyers: when you get your loan
preapproved, do NOT pick a buyer's agent based on recommendations from
the loan company, and when you pick a home, do NOT choose an inspector
based on a recommendation from the buyer's agent.

With those two problems gone (as you're paying cash and you know your
inspector), the only remaining conflict of interest is a problem that
will NEVER go away: the buyer's agent will steer you to more expensive
homes because he'll get a larger commission when he splits with the
seller's agent. You mostly have this problem solved because you said
you find the listings yourself. If the buyer's agent tries to steer
you to more expensive homes, you can just tell him/her: "No, I'm
looking to spend no more than $250,000. If it's not worth it to you to
help me buy a home that inexpensive, let me know and I'll replace you
with a good buyer's agent who complies with my target price range, and
I'll give him lots of recommendations that he did a good job and he'll
get more business while you'll be out of the loop..."

The buyer's agent can save you time by checking documents for the home
you want to buy.



Let's see. You think the agent is corrupt and working in cahoots with
a bank to force people into bigger homes. You think the agent is out
to screw you by getting you into a bigger house for more commission.
Yet, you want the agent to save you time by reviewing documents? LOL




Regarding your main question, just give a low offer without specifying
why. If the seller's agent offers to take a smaller commission from
the seller because there's no buyer's agent, great. If they don't
accept, move on. It's a buyer's market. The number of days a home is
on the market is at an alltime high. Home values continue to plunge,
so perhaps they'll like your low offer in a month and accept it after
all.

One advantage of not using a buyer's agent: FSBO homes. Buyer's agents
whine if you show interest in an FSBO. Realtors stick together, so
they try to steer people away from the good people who sell directly
without a parasite or two parasites collecting fat commissions for
doing essentially nothing.

Of course if you buy from an FSBO, you don't have to worry about a
seller's agent getting a double commission. There are so many online
sites these days, it's easier to find FSBO listings than in the past.
MLS doesn't list FSBO, does it? I know realtor.com won't list FSBO.

wrote in news:1157352842.880303.310720
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

I still don't understand why listing agents would rather
lose the deal than rebate even a single cent of
the buyer's agent's commission (which they won't
receive anyway with any other buyer),
but there are lots of things I don't understand


In some states ilegal to to share a commision with
anyone who isn't a licensed realtor.

Lou wrote:

A "rational" seller will accept the offer that
nets the greatest amount of money after all the fees, commissions, etc. are
paid. Unless it affects the seller's net, why the seller would care if the
buyer had a buyer's agent or not is beyond me.

Let me explain what I *was* thinking (I don't want
to get attacked again for not getting it; I am getting it, I am
just explanining my original reasoning).
It *seemed* to me - apparently, erroneously - that in
the absence of a buyer's agent, it is possible to arrange the
deal that the seller nets more, the listing agent gets paid
more than his customary 3%, and the buyer pays less.
It *seemed* to me that such a deal would be advantageous
to a rational seller and to a rational agent. Apparently,
I was wrong.

Now, folks have attacked for me for suggesting this,
and explained that I don't understand the system, and
admittedly I don't. Apparently, no listing agent would
agree to such a deal even if everyone gets paid more
than they would with a buyer's agent. Okay, I accept that.
The original idea will not work.

Doesn't make any difference to me. As I said before,
the seller can pay 90% of the price to the listing
agent, it's all the same to me.

Then how you can consider that you should get a rebate doesn't make sense.

I was not saying that I *should* get a rebate. I was
conjecturing that the absence of a fourth party who
usually collects 3% of the selling price might enable
the seller to net more, the listing agent to net more,
and the buyer to pay less. The mathematics of this
works, but in reality this is not likely to happen, or
so people here tell me. Okay, I accept this.

Gordon wrote:
wrote in news:1157352842.880303.310720
@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com:

I still don't understand why listing agents would rather
lose the deal than rebate even a single cent of
the buyer's agent's commission (which they won't
receive anyway with any other buyer),
but there are lots of things I don't understand


In some states ilegal to to share a commision with
anyone who isn't a licensed realtor.


They don't have to share a commission to do what she wants. All they
have to do is agree to accept less than the full commission to close
the deal, which is legal anywhere.

"Lou" wrote:

I still don't get it. What if the offers were reversed - the 500k is from a
buyer without an agent, and the 495k is from a buyer with a buyer's agent?
Or what if both offers came from buyers with agents, or both came from
buyers without agents? A "rational" seller will accept the offer that
nets the greatest amount of money after all the fees, commissions, etc. are
paid. Unless it affects the seller's net, why the seller would care if the
buyer had a buyer's agent or not is beyond me.

There are usually other factors involved besides the offer price. The seller
needs to evaluate the odds that the deal will go through, any contingencies, the
likelyhood that the deal will fall thru for any number of reasons.

The chances of two people making identical offers except for price is unlikely.

"Lou" wrote:

Based on my admittedly limited experience, people who decide to go the FSBO
route do so in the expectation of being able to pocket that money - if they
have to drop the price because the buyer thinks they're not paying an agent,
they might just as well have an agent and save themselves the trouble.

Exactly. The house has a value. The presence or absence of an agent doesn't
change that value. And in any case, the lack of an agent on the sales side does
not mean that the seller is pocketing a lot of extra money. There are still
listing fees, advertising, lawyers, etc.

Gordon wrote:

In some states ilegal to to share a commision with
anyone who isn't a licensed realtor.

Yeah... Saw that in the NYT article. Amazing isn't it?

wrote:


They don't have to share a commission to do what she wants. All they
have to do is agree to accept less than the full commission to close
the deal, which is legal anywhere.

For the seller's agent, true. But if the deal is structured such that the
seller's agent pays the buyers agent, there's no way to have any buyers agent
money go directly to the buyer in those states.

In article , Tony Sivori wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Tony Sivori
wrote:

Consult an attorney on how late in the deal you can negotiate the
commission.

Hellooooooo! The *buyer* can't negotiate the listing agent's commission
at any point in the deal. The listing agent's commission is specified by
a contract between the listing agent and the *seller*.

You're wrong. I can negotiate and reduce the commission, provided the
agent is willing to do so.

No, you can't. The agent doesn't have an agreement with you. His agreement is
with the seller. All the buyer can do is to ask the seller and agent to
renegotiate.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:01:37 -0700, wrote:

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:27:03 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Vic Smith
wrote:

They should have a relationship of trust with you, and work for your
interests..
]


They work for their commission and it's in their interest for their buyer to buy
it for the highest price possible. I don't think anyone actually works for the
buyer.

I covered that:
"The asking price of 180k was ok to me (my county has all home sales
prices available on-line,) but I let the agent run the show.
Our agent said to offer 170k. How did she know this? Why did
she advise to cut some hundreds from her commission?
I'd say she was a good agent."

That contradicts what you say. Nobody here has discussed ethics.
Nor the importance of referrals to RE agents' future business.
Nor the part relationships play in conducting business.
BTW, this agent also recommended a loan broker. She may have gotten
a referral fee from him. I don't know, or care. What I do know is
that before I called him I shopped around for loans.
He served me better, and did so for two subsequent refi's.
One problem many people have in conducting transactions is that they
assume everybody is dishonest. Why they believe that isn't
too hard to figure out. My motto is "trust unless that doesn't work."

--Vic

"Natalie Munro" wrote
"Elle" ) writes:
"Natalie Munro" wrote

You're paranoid.

You're a real estate agent. :-)

It's so neat how you got that to rhyme with 'scum'

I wasn't rhyming it with anything. Furthermore, my previous
posts do not indict all real estate agents. You chose
instead to personalize it and attack in an unprofessional
matter, much to your discredit AFAIC.

You don't see a conflict of interests, do you? That says it
all.

I continue to advocate caution around any salesperson,
including real estate "agents." The OP is very astute to
have realized this from the get-go.

"Rick Blaine" wrote
Gordon wrote:

In some states ilegal to to share a commision with
anyone who isn't a licensed realtor.

Yeah... Saw that in the NYT article. Amazing isn't it?

.... And blame the people elected to state office for it.
Evidently most of their constituents are realtors.

texflyer wrote:
Fair enough. The contract between the seller and his agent is indeed
none of my affair. So, how do you recommend obtaining a lower price
there is no second agent involved in the deal?

Despite what others may tell you, it can be and is done, at least in my
location.

I became aware of the possibility through my mortgage loan officer.

In the course of getting pre-approved he asked if I had a buyer's agent
yet. I told him I didn't plan on getting one, which resulted in a recital
of all the reasons for having one, including him finishing up with
offering me the business card of one that he knew.

I told him I would consider it, but that I had already heard all the
reasons he gave and I was unlikely to change my mind.

At which point he allowed that there was one possible advantage of not
having a buyers agent. He told me that in some cases you can get the
selling agent to agree to a fee reduction. He also that, in the cases
where the agent is willing to negotiate a fee of less than 6%, how the 3%
gets split up is often a sticking point.

--
Tony Sivori

wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

You seem to think that not having
a buyer's agent will not result in a lower price.

I didn't say that. I said that you are not able to alter the terms of that
contract. You don't have a contract with the listing agent. The only power you
have in the negotiation is the power of the purse: you can meet, or not meet,
the seller's asking price. If you offer less than the seller is asking, then
it's up to the seller to figure out a way to meet your offer (if he wants to).
How he gets there is none of your affair.

Fair enough. The contract between the seller and his agent is indeed
none of my affair. So, how do you recommend obtaining a lower price
there is no second agent involved in the deal?

Er -- try offering a lower price, and see if the seller accepts?

When we sold our first house, the buyers didn't use an agent because
they felt that they would obtain a lower price....we're still
scratching our heads on that one, because contractually, we'd already
kissed 6% goodbye once we listed our house with the agent. The outcome
was, well, we sold our first house to obtain the amount of money we
needed/wanted, our agent scooped up the whole 6%, the buyers didn't do
standard 'buyer' things (like walk-thru prior to closing, or be able to
access the house without us present -- it was actually rather nice, in
retrospect, 3 home sales later -- given that they didn't have an agent,
our agent wanted to accomodate us all the time, and there was no other
agent harping for access...) In subsequent deals with the same agent
we had more reasonable wiggle room, as the agent was assisting us in
both the sale and purchase of separate homes, so we'd negotiated her
commission down on both sale and purchase...

But heck, having bought several homes, I can conclude that if you want
to 'obtain a lower price,' you offer a lower price (or actually, offer
the price that you're willing to pay which seems fair to you.)

Disclaimer: I know very little about TX real estate, except that a
house in the mid-200's there has a tax bill equivalent to a house in
the mid 700's here (Massachusetts).

Caledonia

texflyer wrote:

It doesn't help that there is a lot of obfuscation around. For example,
many folks have been telling me: "the buyer's agent doesn't cost you
anything, the seller is paying him". But this doesn't seem to be quite
true. The seller has a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's
agent (as Doug has certainly driven home).

Being ruder or hitting the send button more often doesn't make Doug, or
anyone else, right.

The listing agent will share his take 50-50 with any buyer's agent, but
would not give a single cent to the buyer himself if there is no buyer's
agent. Okay, I learned something.

What you have learned is misinformation.

--
Tony Sivori

Rick Blaine wrote:
"Lou" wrote:

Based on my admittedly limited experience, people who decide to go
the FSBO route do so in the expectation of being able to pocket that
money - if they have to drop the price because the buyer thinks
they're not paying an agent, they might just as well have an agent
and save themselves the trouble.

Exactly. The house has a value. The presence or
absence of an agent doesn't change that value.

It can change what price ends up being paid tho.

And in any case, the lack of an agent on the sales side does
not mean that the seller is pocketing a lot of extra money.

It usually does tho, because there is no agent to get his whack.

There are still listing fees, advertising, lawyers, etc.

And you still save the agent's usually substantial fee.

Tony Sivori wrote:

The seller has a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's
agent (as Doug has certainly driven home).

Being ruder or hitting the send button more often doesn't make Doug, or
anyone else, right.

Well, he is certainly rude, but he does seem to be right about
the technical point of the law. The seller's contract is indeed
with the listing agent. He also suggests that a buyer has
no leverage in this situation (presumably, a buyer can
always walk from the deal, leaving both the seller and
the agent with bupkus). Why do I feel
that I'll be attacked again simply for saying this?

The listing agent will share his take 50-50 with any buyer's agent, but
would not give a single cent to the buyer himself if there is no buyer's
agent. Okay, I learned something.

What you have learned is misinformation.

Oh well. Some folks seem to think that there is no realistic
chance of the listing agent collecting anything less than 6%.
Others feel that everything is negotiable in the right
circumstances. I certainly have a lot to think about.

Unfortunately, with folks being rude and attributing gawd
knows what to me (that I attend "get rich quick" real estate
seminars or that they know what I think when I tell them the
exact opposite), I won't be sticking around this thread
for very much longer. I got as much information out
of it as I could hope to, so thanks to all y'all.

In article , Tony Sivori wrote:
texflyer wrote:

It doesn't help that there is a lot of obfuscation around. For example,
many folks have been telling me: "the buyer's agent doesn't cost you
anything, the seller is paying him". But this doesn't seem to be quite
true. The seller has a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's
agent (as Doug has certainly driven home).

Being ruder or hitting the send button more often doesn't make Doug, or
anyone else, right.

Perhaps you should find a dictionary and learn the difference between "rude"
and "blunt". You don't seem aware of the distinction.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article om, wrote:
Tony Sivori wrote:

The seller has a contract with the listing agent, not the buyer's
agent (as Doug has certainly driven home).

Being ruder or hitting the send button more often doesn't make Doug, or
anyone else, right.

Well, he is certainly rude,

You, too, should find a dictionary and learn the difference between "rude" and
"blunt".


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"Elle" ) writes:
I wasn't rhyming it with anything. Furthermore, my previous
posts do not indict all real estate agents. You chose
instead to personalize it and attack in an unprofessional
matter, much to your discredit AFAIC.

My response was not in any way intended as an attack, and I apologize if
you've viewed it as such. I will try to be more careful in the future.

You don't see a conflict of interests, do you? That says it
all.

On the contrary, I see conflict of interest and in motivation all over the
place, in every industry. Everyone tries to make a living, but I firmly
believe that vast majority of people are good people, including
salespeople. It's sad that bad people sway so much of the attention away
from all the good people.

I continue to advocate caution around any salesperson,
including real estate "agents." The OP is very astute to
have realized this from the get-go.

My impression was that the motivation of the OP was to see if he could
swing a discount and if so how to go about it. I didn't get the
impression that his motivation was that he was leary of realtors in
general. Perhaps I missed that part.

wrote in message
oups.com...

My understanding is that if we buy a house without a buyer's agent,
the listing agent gets to collect the entire 6% commission (with our
target price, 6% amounts to $30-35K, not exactly pocket change).
We are thinking of trying to negotiate for either a rebate, or
reduction in price based on the fact that the listing agent won't have
to split the commission with the buyer's agent.

Don't. The agent (or agents, if more than one are involved) are paid by the
seller, not by you, and you're not party to the agreement between the seller
and the seller's agent. That makes the agent's commission none of your
affair.

What you're proposing to do is to try to convince the seller's agent to give
you money to which the agent is contractually entitled in exchange for
nothing. Why would the agent ever agree to that?

Doug Miller wrote:

You, too, should find a dictionary and learn the difference between "rude" and
"blunt".

When I told you five times already that I have an open mind,
willing to listen to all suggestions and to be disabused of
my misconceptions, and you keep repeating that you know
what I think, that's rude, not blunt.

Andrew Koenig wrote:

My understanding is that if we buy a house without a buyer's agent,
the listing agent gets to collect the entire 6% commission (with our
target price, 6% amounts to $30-35K, not exactly pocket change).
We are thinking of trying to negotiate for either a rebate, or
reduction in price based on the fact that the listing agent won't have
to split the commission with the buyer's agent.

What you're proposing to do is to try to convince the seller's agent to give
you money to which the agent is contractually entitled in exchange for
nothing. Why would the agent ever agree to that?

My *original* thinking (since then other people have been
explaining why it's unrealistic) is that even though I am not
a party to the contract between the seller and the listing
agent, I have complete control over the listing agent's
compensation. With one phone call, I can cut it from
6% to 3% by bringing another agent into the deal.
It *seemed* to me (apparently, erroneously) that this
should give one some negotiating leverage; that the
listing agent only expects to receive 3%, not 6%,
so it's not in exchange for nothing - it's in exchange
for part of the usual buyer's agent's share, of which the
listing agent would normally not see a single cent.
Again, this was my original reasoning, and folks have
been explaining why this won't work.

Are you by any chance Andrew Koenig of C++ fame?
Couldn't imagine I'd be getting house buying advice
from you

wrote:
Andrew Koenig wrote:

My understanding is that if we buy a house without a buyer's agent,
the listing agent gets to collect the entire 6% commission (with our
target price, 6% amounts to $30-35K, not exactly pocket change).
We are thinking of trying to negotiate for either a rebate, or
reduction in price based on the fact that the listing agent won't have
to split the commission with the buyer's agent.

What you're proposing to do is to try to convince the seller's agent to give
you money to which the agent is contractually entitled in exchange for
nothing. Why would the agent ever agree to that?

My *original* thinking (since then other people have been
explaining why it's unrealistic) is that even though I am not
a party to the contract between the seller and the listing
agent, I have complete control over the listing agent's
compensation. With one phone call, I can cut it from
6% to 3% by bringing another agent into the deal.
It *seemed* to me (apparently, erroneously) that this
should give one some negotiating leverage; that the
listing agent only expects to receive 3%, not 6%,
so it's not in exchange for nothing - it's in exchange
for part of the usual buyer's agent's share, of which the
listing agent would normally not see a single cent.
Again, this was my original reasoning, and folks have
been explaining why this won't work.


And I've spelled it out twice in detail here exactly how it can work
and how you can get the commission cut, if you do it the right way.
Isn;t that what you wanted? But apparently you prefer to ignore a
logical, resonable and obvious approach and are now siding with those
that say it can't be done, but still continue to argue with them at the
same time. Go figure.





Are you by any chance Andrew Koenig of C++ fame?
Couldn't imagine I'd be getting house buying advice
from you

wrote:

My *original* thinking (since then other people have been
explaining why it's unrealistic) is that even though I am not
a party to the contract between the seller and the listing
agent, I have complete control over the listing agent's
compensation. With one phone call, I can cut it from
6% to 3% by bringing another agent into the deal.
It *seemed* to me (apparently, erroneously) that this
should give one some negotiating leverage; that the
listing agent only expects to receive 3%, not 6%,
so it's not in exchange for nothing - it's in exchange
for part of the usual buyer's agent's share, of which the
listing agent would normally not see a single cent.
Again, this was my original reasoning, and folks have
been explaining why this won't work.

And I've spelled it out twice in detail here exactly how it can work
and how you can get the commission cut, if you do it the right way.
Isn;t that what you wanted?

Yes, that's what I wanted, and your advice was probably
the best specific advice I received in this thread. It was
concrete, it answered exactly the question I asked, and
it was very helpful. Thanks.

But apparently you prefer to ignore a
logical, resonable and obvious approach and are now siding with those
that say it can't be done, but still continue to argue with them at the
same time.

I am not ignoring anything, not siding with anyone, and
I am certainly not arguing. I have questions, not opinions.
I put in these verbal disclaimers - "apparently", "folks
have been telling me" - because I don't want to
be attacked by people like you and Doug Miller.
Both of you lay into me for ignoring the obvious, yet you
are saying things are, ahem, incompatible (which one of
you is right depends on the circumstances, I guess).
I am listening to all opinions that are offered to me.

What do you want me to do? Shut up and not
interact with people who are offering me advice
which is different from yours?

In article .com, wrote:

I am not ignoring anything, not siding with anyone, and
I am certainly not arguing. I have questions, not opinions.
I put in these verbal disclaimers - "apparently", "folks
have been telling me" - because I don't want to
be attacked by people like you and Doug Miller.

Neither he nor I has "attacked" you. Yet. But I'm about to. You need to grow a
thicker skin, or quit whining. If you can't differentiate between being told
that you're wrong, and an attack on you personally, then you need to grow up.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

In article .com, wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:

You, too, should find a dictionary and learn the difference between "rude"
and
"blunt".

When I told you five times already that I have an open mind,
willing to listen to all suggestions and to be disabused of
my misconceptions, and you keep repeating that you know
what I think, that's rude, not blunt.

I never claimed to know what you think. I did, however, point out that certain
of your statements were at variance with each other and with your actions. You
may find that unwelcome, but it wasn't rude.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

Both of you lay into me for ignoring the obvious, yet you
are saying things are, ahem, incompatible (which one of
you is right depends on the circumstances, I guess).
I am listening to all opinions that are offered to me.


I can;t speak for Doug, but I don;t see anything in what both of us
have told you that is incompatible.
We both told you to focus on the price you are willing to pay for the
house and not the realtors commission. We both told you the issue of
the commission is really between the seller and the listing agent. I
told you it would be unethical to follow Tony's advice and agree on the
price, then say "BTW, I think you, the listing agent, should cut your
commission and pass it on to me. I'm sure Doug would agree with that.
I told you it would be foolish to start negotiations by discussing the
realtors commission. I think Doug would agree with that too.

I laid out a scenario,.where you could very well get a cut in the
commission, which is what you wanted. And that's where you are for
real, ready to close, pre-qualified for a mortgage or cash buyer, no
house to sell, etc and you are close on price. You're at $290K,. the
seller wants $300K. To close the deal, the agent could lower their
commission to 4.5%, the seller comes down about $2750, you come up by
$2750. In many cases, the agent/seller will propose this, unless they
think they have a better deal at hand. If they don't, at that point,
you could suggest it and it wouldn't offend anyone. I don't think
any of that is incompatible with what Doug has been telling you.

In article ,
Tony Sivori wrote:

I'd ask the listing agent to consider a 3% commission, with a 3% reduction
in the price of the house. (Actually, to get exactly the same commission,
you'd have to give the agent an extra .09% on top of the 3% since the
house would be selling for 3% less)

After all, that is what they would normally get when the buyer uses a
buyer's agent. If they don't agree, try 4%. If he (or she) refuses, let
them know that unless they accept 4%, they will get only 3% because you
will get a buyer's agent just so they won't get the full 6%.


This sounds reasonable, but in actuality I think you will find that
many brokers would prefer to get 3% and pass the other 3% to someone
else in the industry than to the buyer. In this guy's case, why not
just get a buyer's agent? He's paying for one anyway...


Dimitri

In article .com,
wrote:

Yeah, this seems to be the consensus Oh well.
Kinda sucks to pay someone $15K for doing nothing,
but I guess that's how the system is set up.

I still don't understand why listing agents would rather
lose the deal than rebate even a single cent of
the buyer's agent's commission (which they won't
receive anyway with any other buyer),
but there are lots of things I don't understand


The buyer's agent's commission is not negotiable. It's guaranteed in
the MLS. Therefore, the agent would be rebating his own commission.
Why would he do that to help you when that other 3% could be going to
another agent with no more cost to the seller? The seller agreed on
the 6% anyway. This is a very roundabout way of asking for a break
on the price of the house. Why not just offer what you are willing to
pay and stop playing games?


Dimitri