Quote:
Originally Posted by GoRedSox!
I’m not sure how this settlement benefits anyone.
In the real estate transactions I have had, the commission was 5%. I paid 5% whether the buyer had an agent or not.
When I was the buyer, I had an agent because it cost me nothing and was a huge convenience. But I am not going to pay a buyer’s agent thousands because I can do it myself and their service is not worth me paying over $10,000 on top of the price of the house.
It will be interesting to see how this shakes out but I don’t see who the winners are here. It doesn’t seem to be realtors for sure, or buyers, and sellers only benefit if the commission significantly drops.
There may be more to this than I can discern from reading the news articles.
|
You say it cost you nothing, but you paid the buyer's agent by paying for the house. The seller included the 5% in the price and their agent paid your agent from those proceeds. So it was all built in to the house price.
Going forward, will selling agents decrease their commission because they aren't paying a buyer's agent? Maybe, and maybe they will tell the sellers to plan on paying a buyers agent if the offer requires that. Maybe the seller agent lowers the commiss. to 3% and the buyer's agent is on their own. The buyer may have to offer less if they can't afford to pay their agent. If they don't have cash they will ask for cash back at closing. Lots of ways this could pan out and I think this result only makes everything more complicated.