Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
I don't see it that way at all. When I sell a house, I am willing to pay a commission to a broker who represents me, and to sign a listing contract for a specific price. I expect any agent who shows the house to be working for me, not the buyer. I am paying for their sales experience and skills. If a buyer wants to be represented by an agent, that is fine, but don't ask me to pay for the buyer's agent. If a buyer's agent cannot provide any value that the buyer is willing to pay for, then they shouldn't be in business.
|
I understand your point of view. It's a pure financial cost benefit analysis for the transaction. My opinion of executing that approach in the current market is where I see the potential issue. I hope to see how well it works in reality. I will go search #retwit to see if anyone has used this approach and how successful the execution has been.
I think with mortgages now slipping below 5%, there will be more closing activity and there will be more data available to evaluate the currently most successful approach to selling. how long that lasts will also be questionable, as the situation evolves.
If the buyer has an agreement in place, and the seller won't give any commission in the sale, then at closing, the mortgage company / title company will require that the downpayment / or cash required at closing will be the balance for the mortgage/purchase plus the BAC commission. The result will be that all purchases with no concession from seller, will require an additional 2-3% over listing price for buyer. Kind of like the credit card free of 2-4% on credit card transactions at the local restaurant. Sellers are forced into accepting the Buyers agreement / use of a credit card and the resulting cost increase for the transaction. Credit card fees have forced the sellers to list a higher price to account for the fee and still get the required minimum gross margin to stay in business. House inflationary results