View Single Post
 
Old 11-02-2023, 08:38 AM
margaretmattson margaretmattson is offline
Veteran member
Join Date: May 2023
Posts: 960
Thanks: 475
Thanked 979 Times in 430 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by frayedends View Post
This is the problem with the internet. If we don't spell out every single thing, then people read into it. Sure the listing agent can do those things. But it helps to have a buyers agent. The price is set by the seller. Period. The listing agent can tell a seller what it should list for, offer advise, etc. But at the end of the day the Seller, not the agent, determines the price to list at.

You are right, it may not appraise. But what if it's a cash deal? Appraisal doesn't mean a darn thing. If a home is overpriced and a buyer is not educated they can easily overpay. Even if there is a mortgage, buyers can cover the appraisal gap with cash.

Regarding the other items I mentioned, I'm just saying that these are things the buyer's agent can help with. That is all. You take everything I say as if I'm reciting laws. I'm not. I'm saying there are things a buyer's agent should be helping with and that they can offer guidance and help on all kinds of things having to do with the transaction. I never said anything about after the home closes.

You said this..."Who should you trust? The agent(s) who are legally accountable or an outside agent whose only interest is getting paid?"

If there is a buyers agent, that agent works for the buyer. They aren't interested in only getting paid. They are interested in having a buyer get a good deal and the house they want to buy, without issues. Do they need that agent, no. But it can be helpful and the buyers agent has an obligation to the buyer, not the seller.

You also said this, "The lawsuit protects sellers from paying outlandish commissions. The seller owes one person when the home closes - the listing agent. Collusion to increase commissions so that a sum can be shared by several agents is the reason for the lawsuit. I agree with the outcome. The seller did not sign a contract with the outside agents. He is not responsible for paying them."

I'm sorry but you really don't get it. This comment is outlandish. There is no collusion if this commission breakdown is in the listing contract. The seller understands up front that the buyers agent will get a portion. They aren't increasing the commission. The sellers agent is going to get their 6% (or whatever they agree on) and they will either pay a buyers agent a portion or keep the entire 6%. The seller does sign a contract with the listing agent that says a buyers agent gets a portion of the commission. Why don't you get that?

You think this is some hidden backdoor thing between the 2 agents and that is flat out wrong. The commission breakdown is in the contract. It's not a secret.
The brokers lost in court. They were found guilty of colluding. I didn't make it up and I have no problem understanding it.