[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by Dusty_Star

You could modify this to contain 'in Florida'. In other states buyers can indeed sign a contract with a buyers agent. Another poster repeatedly kept mentioning Massachusetts & they are not wrong.

Thank you. CAN and COULD is a choice. It does not mean a buyer MUST

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by PjLyness1965

Without an agent you can’t get in the house to see it unless it’s an open house. No seller with a brain will let you in the house without one. It’s a safety issue. The agent earned a commission by “following you around” because he granted you entry into those houses. You’re just too cheap to pay him for his time.

Hmmm...Why does a buyer have to use an outside agent? Simply call the listing agent to open the house for you. It's not rocket science!
Then, negotiate a dealwith him. It is much easier that way since he represents the seller.

I don't have to be cheap and worry about paying an outside agent. A BUYER DOES NOT PAY THE COMMISSION. THE SELLER DOES! I don't sweat about ZERO dollars I owe. How could that bother me in any way?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

That's because the only time the commission is paid, is AFTER the sale has closed. At that point, the buyer ceases to be the buyer and becomes the homeowner. And the commission was built into the price he paid for the home. It's in the contract. The sales price INCLUDES the commission.

Not true. Legally, the seller owes the commission when the broker finds a willing buyer. There have been cases where the broker has sued a seller for the commission because the seller backed out of the sale and the house was not sold. Read the listing contract. The broker earns the commission when he/she locates a willing buyer for the house, not when the closing occurs. The listing contract and the sales contract are two separate contracts.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Hmmm...Why does a buyer have to use an outside agent? Simply call the listing agent to open the house for you. It's not rocket science!
Then, negotiate a contract with him. Much easier that way since he represents the seller.

I don't have to be cheap and worry about paying an outside agent. A BUYER DOES NOT PAY THE COMMISsION. THE SELLER DOES! I don't sweat about ZERO dollars I owe. How could that bother me in any way?

A buyer's agent should be making sure you are paying a fair price. A buyer's agent should be making sure you have financing lined up. A buyer's agent should make sure you sign contracts on time and have the requirements met on time (so you don't lose your deposit). A buyer's agent should be searching listings for houses that meet your needs, setting up appointments, helping get the home inspection done. There are lots they should be doing and if yours did nothing (I think you posted something about that), then you didn't get a good agent.


Now, onto the lawsuit and payments etc. It should be noted the lawsuit really is bogus if you think about it this way... The seller agrees a commission payment to their listing agent. If the seller agent chooses to pay a buyer's agent part of that commission (which the seller agrees to when signing the listing contract), it's no one's business how they chose to spend their commission.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Hmmm...Why does a buyer have to use an outside agent? Simply call the listing agent to open the house for you. It's not rocket science!
Then, negotiate a contract with him. Much easier that way since he represents the seller.

I don't have to be cheap and worry about paying an outside agent. A BUYER DOES NOT PAY THE COMMISsION. THE SELLER DOES! I don't sweat about ZERO dollars I owe. How could that bother me in any way?

You are correct in this post. As I mentioned, just above, the seller's agent might be paying the buyer's agent from that commission. It works out to the same thing if there is a buyer's agent.

You can contact listing agents, you can see the house, make an offer, buy it, all without a buyer's agent. The listing agent will probably still get the full commission and not be giving any to a buyer's agent. But where does that leave the buyer? Paying the same amount and being unrepresented. Seller's agent has no reason to tell you if the house is overpriced, or if your inspector has a bad reputation, or your late on your mortgage commitment, etc.

You can protect yourself a bit with the real estate attorney, of course, but again, the commission isn't less. Maybe, just maybe on a deal in a bad market the seller's agent will reduce their commission if the buyer is unrepresented, but don't count on it.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

You are correct in this post. As I mentioned, just above, the seller's agent might be paying the buyer's agent from that commission. It works out to the same thing if there is a buyer's agent.

You can contact listing agents, you can see the house, make an offer, buy it, all without a buyer's agent. The listing agent will probably still get the full commission and not be giving any to a buyer's agent. But where does that leave the buyer? Paying the same amount and being unrepresented. Seller's agent has no reason to tell you if the house is overpriced, or if your inspector has a bad reputation, or your late on your mortgage commitment, etc.

You can protect yourself a bit with the real estate attorney, of course, but again, the commission isn't less. Maybe, just maybe on a deal in a bad market the seller's agent will reduce their commission if the buyer is unrepresented, but don't count on it.

???? Why would a buyer care if the commission is reduced? He is not paying it! The only negotiation made with the listing agent is a purchase price both parties can agree upon.

Wrong! The listing agent must provide comparables, provide a reputable inspector or allow a buyer to choose an inspector. The listing agent works under a broker or is a broker himself. A broker MUST
make certain the deal was closed legally with no underhanded shenanigans. Any wrongdoing and they can lose their license. An outside agent is not responsible for any of this.

Again, I hope the practice of a buyers agent is banned in every state.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

A buyer's agent should be making sure you are paying a fair price. A buyer's agent should be making sure you have financing lined up. A buyer's agent should make sure you sign contracts on time and have the requirements met on time (so you don't lose your deposit). A buyer's agent should be searching listings for houses that meet your needs, setting up appointments, helping get the home inspection done. There are lots they should be doing and if yours did nothing (I think you posted something about that), then you didn't get a good agent.


Now, onto the lawsuit and payments etc. It should be noted the lawsuit really is bogus if you think about it this way... The seller agrees a commission payment to their listing agent. If the seller agent chooses to pay a buyer's agent part of that commission (which the seller agrees to when signing the listing contract), it's no one's business how they chose to spend their commission.

Nope! A Buyer is responsible for lining up financing. An agent has nothing to do with it. It is only between the lender and the buyer. Fair price is determined by comparables in the same area. A listing agent has to use them to determine the price. If the price is overinflated, the bank will deny the loan.Buyers are adults. They know how to sign papers on time.A buyer can make his own appointments. And, an inspection can be set up by the listing agent, the broker, or the buyer. Once a home closes an outside agent is not responsible for anything. The listing agent and the broker will be held accountable. Who should you trust? The agent(s) who are legally accountable or an outside agent whose only interest is getting paid?

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.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

???? Why would a buyer care if the commission is reduced? He is not paying it! The only negotiation made with the listing agent is a purchase price both parties can agree upon.

Wrong! The listing agent must provide comparables, provide a reputable inspector or allow a buyer to choose an inspector. The listing agent works under a broker or is a broker himself. A broker MUST
make certain the deal was closed legally with no underhanded shenanigans. Any wrongdoing and they can lose their license. An outside agent is not responsible for any of this.

Again, I hope the practice of a buyers agent is banned in every state.

Regarding commission I meant if they pass that savings along to the buyer. For example say an offer is for 500k but the seller wants 515k. The listing agent may say “I’ll lower the commission if you want to accept this offer”. That happens all the time, especially if the home isn’t selling. I’ve had it happen to me.

Regarding the rest of your post I am not wrong. Yes, it has to be legal. But the listing agent doesn’t have to provide comps or an inspector or anything other than doing what’s in the purchase contract.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Nope! A Buyer is responsible for lining up financing. An agent has nothing to do with it. It is only between the lender and the buyer. Fair price is determined by comparables in the same area. A listing agent has to use them to determine the price. If the price is overinflated, the bank will deny the loan.Buyers are adults. They know how to sign papers on time.A buyer can make his own appointments. And, an inspection can be set up by the listing agent, the broker, or the buyer. Once a home closes an outside agent is not responsible for anything. The listing agent and the broker will be held accountable. Who should you trust? The agent(s) who are legally accountable or an outside agent whose only interest is getting paid?

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.

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.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Regarding commission I meant if they pass that savings along to the buyer. For example say an offer is for 500k but the seller wants 515k. The listing agent may say “I’ll lower the commission if you want to accept this offer”. That happens all the time, especially if the home isn’t selling. I’ve had it happen to me.

Regarding the rest of your post I am not wrong. Yes, it has to be legal. But the listing agent doesn’t have to provide comps or an inspector or anything other than doing what’s in the purchase contract.

If comps, inspection, termite are not provided to the bank, the bank will deny the loan. Therefore, the listing agent will provide them. If it is a cash deal, the buyer may choose to have a so called "buyers agent." But, whose to say the outside agent will protect the buyer? He may be just as inclined to smudge on the details to get a higher commission.

IMHO, it is better for a cash buyer to go to the broker and have him sign off on anything that seems odd. When the deal closes, it is the broker who is legally held accountable. He will make certain the listing agent does everything correctly.

An outside agent uses the title buyers agent. This makes people believe they will be represented fairly. When in fact, once the deal closes, the outside agent is not accountable for a thing.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Regarding commission I meant if they pass that savings along to the buyer.

We all knew what you meant...............we just have a new argumentative poster in town.
Well, old poster, new sign-on.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

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.

[PjLyness1965]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Hmmm...Why does a buyer have to use an outside agent? Simply call the listing agent to open the house for you. It's not rocket science!
Then, negotiate a dealwith him. It is much easier that way since he represents the seller.

I don't have to be cheap and worry about paying an outside agent. A BUYER DOES NOT PAY THE COMMISSION. THE SELLER DOES! I don't sweat about ZERO dollars I owe. How could that bother me in any way?

In the state of Florida, the selling agent cannot do that. They cannot represent both the seller and the buyer. When I sold my house, the commission was paid by the buyer.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

The brokers lost in court. They were found guilty of colluding. I didn't make it up and I have no problem understanding it.

I offered my opinion as to why the ruling was wrong. That’s all. It will be appealed. But again that’s just my opinion.

Regarding all this buyers agent stuff, clearly you experienced a bad buyers agent. I understand as I had an agent do the same to me. Showed me the house, disappeared and did nothing else but show up at the closing for their check. I get you are butthurt about it. But not all buyers agents are like that. I’ve seen way more good agents since my bad experience (that was over 20 years ago).

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

A buyer DOES NOT HAVE A CONTRACT The commission is something the seller agreed to pay from the sales when signing a contract with an agent. It is the seller's expense.

The buyer throughout the entire process has no idea what commission was paid and to whom. They are never a part of that. It is possible there is a clause in the seller's contract that states zero commission paid if home does not sell at agreed upon price.

The. Buyer. Has. A. Contract. With. The. Seller.

The. Seller. Builds. The. Seller's. Agent's. Commission. Into. The. Seller's. Sales. Price.

Whatever the seller wants to get for his house, he ADDS whatever the Agent has to get, to his "best and final" bottom line. It is the number he will not go below, to sell his house. The commission is built into that price. The buyer pays that price, OR the buyer doesn't get the house.