Quote:
Originally Posted by frayedends
How is the current system "double dipping"? The seller knows that their agent is paying a co-broke commission to the buyer agent.
The changes aren't going to do a darned thing. The seller agents will still recommend the seller pay the buyer agent. Buyer agents are still going to want to get paid and if you are a seller you will want your house to be shown.
I could see circumstance where seller refuses to pay buyer agent, and the buyer agrees to pay their agent. But in the end, what the buyer has to spend will have to include what their agent is paid. This is all smoke and mirrors, just shifting how it's communicated.
|
If the seller refuses to pay the buyer's agent, then the buyer has to cough up the 2-3% or whatever the agreement is. If the buyer can't roll that into the mortgage, a buyer will have to save for a 20% down payment and a 3% agent fee. On the Average $450,000, that's an extra $13,000 + out of pocket. That just might change what a buyer can buy, and may reduce the potential buyers who aren't real estate savvy enough to buy it themselves.
Yes, this agreement is about eliminating dual agent roles, as well as compensation for each role. The problem is not the rules,
it's always about the implementation with legal agreements and state laws.
I read one real estate agent, who was also a lawyer, mention a suit in progress:
One person bid on a house with a buyer's agent. Didn't get the house, but the buyers agent had them sign a 6 month exclusive agreement in the offer letter. Then the buyer's agent wouldn't release the buyer after the failed bid. . off to court! (and don't ask me for details or suggest that everyone would catch that! I have personal examples of lawyers not signing documents during meetings to sign documents)
Again, all in the implementation and execution of agreements. And dealing with hoomans.