Quote:
Originally Posted by frayedends
The only problem is that you may limit the number of showings you get. If I'm an agent representing a buyer, would I want to show him your property, knowing I wouldn't get paid. Now, what would/should generally happen if you have a listing and I am a buyer's agent (I'm not an agent at all, this is hypothetical) is this. I say to my buyer, "Here is a house listed that you may be interested in. They are not paying a buyer's agent, so if you want me to represent you, you will have to pay me out of pocket $$XX. Otherwise you are welcome to contact the listing agent and see the home on your own without my representation."
The problem here is the listing agent can't be a dual agent. A dual agent means representing the buyer and seller. That is a conflict of interest. So the buyer is being unrepresented. If they are knowledgable that may not be an issue. Will they be saving any money? IDK. In your example, if you are the seller, is your agent taking half their usual commission because they don't have to pay a buyer's agent? If they agree to lower commission, are you accepting a lower price on the house, thereby passing the savings on to the buyer?
|
If we agree on a fair commission, I expect the listing broker to negotiate on my behalf and to get the best, reasonable price regardless of the commission. So no, I would not accept a lower price if the listing agent lowers the commission. The market value and sales price of the house should not be dependent on the commission.
I have no problem if an agent wants to be to a buyers agent and to represent buyers, but don't expect the seller to pay your fee. You can't have your cake and eat it. The commission agreed to in the listing contract is paid by the seller to the listing broker for their representation. I don't agree that the sales price is negatively affected by the seller refusing to pay money to a buyers agent.