[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by frayedends

It seems you are referring to an agent that has the listing, the buyer comes in without an agent and the Listing agent does the deal alone. In that case, the listing agent is possibly taking both sides of the commission (unless they pass along the savings). But they have an ethical duty to tell the buyer that they are representing the seller.

That's not how buyer's agent works. Now, I will admit I'm in Massachusetts and don't know what could be different in Florida. But a buyer contacts an agent and wants to see a home. If that agent is not the listing agent then he/she becomes the buyer's agent. They may or may not sign a buyer's agent contract. That agent should be advising the buyer on home value, helping with financing needs and legal needs, etc. They should be bringing the buyer to similar homes, working with inspection. They need to know the rules for FHA loans (you wouldn't believe how many realtors miss that info).

The agent I know works tirelessly, on the phone at all hours, out at appointments all day and night, 7 days/week, working with their buyers (or sellers if they have the listing). She works way more hours than my 9-5 job that's for sure.

It really aggravates me when people say they get paid for nothing. They have no idea how much work is involved.

The flawed logic, is the Buyer's Broker doesn't get paid, unless their client buys a home ... so now who is the Agent really representing? They're representing themselves. Buyers' brokers and dual agencies, are the biggest scam ever foisted upon the home buying public.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Haters always going to hate. Realtors can absolutely be buyer's agents.

Realtors can't work for free. I've seen a buyer's agent take a buyer to over 70 homes over the course of 6 months. People expect that and then not pay them anything when they buy something?

Nobody here is a hater. Just trying to help. Why pay more for something that isn’t hard to do? 70 homes shown over time would equal about 70 hours. What should a salesman make for their 70 hours? 1,000(17 dollars an hour)…2,000 (34 dollars an hour)….maybe 3,000 (51 dollars an hour) Exactly what is the homeowner charged to list? 5%? A 400k home would be a 20, 000 (340 dollars a hour) dollars loss. I challenge the possibility that many homes are even shown that many times before an offer and sale.

It’s very simple to list on Zillow etc. Just take the photos you like…about 30. Upload them and wait and see. A serious homebuyer is usually hitting the site for new listings. The potential buyer will even get emails from the site. It costs virtually nothing to do so why not? We listed our home for nearly an half million and got an offer in less than a week. The title company walked us through the process and we were closing about a month out. They printed the disclosure forms, etc., supplied the notary and even had the wire done for us. We paid around 1,400 dollars for the whole effort.

Wouldn’t you want more than 20,000 dollars for taking pictures, filling out boxes and uploading to a very friendly user website? It’s almost more work to use Facebook than it is to list a house.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

Haters always going to hate. Realtors can absolutely be buyer's agents. The commission structure was that the Seller's agent lists the property in MLS with the commission structure (such as 2.5% to seller agent, 2.5% to buyer agent). The buyer's agent should absolutely be representing the buyer's interest. Of course, they want to get a property under agreement and sold, but if they don't do a good job representing the buyer then word of mouth quickly makes that agent lose sales and not do well.

Now as far as this lawsuit it won't change anything really, except how the commission structure is presented. Currently it all comes out of the seller's proceeds. What could happen going foward is the buyer's agent charges commission to the buyer. The seller has a lower price because maybe they aren't paying 5 or 6%. It all comes out in the wash.

Realtors can't work for free. I've seen a buyer's agent take a buyer to over 70 homes over the course of 6 months. People expect that and then not pay them anything when they buy something?

Your first paragraph is totally false. The listing contract is between the listing broker and the seller. There is no buyer agent mentioned in the contract. The buyer has absolutely no contractual relationship with the broker. When you go to the closing, the entire commission is listed on the seller's side of the settlement statement and paid for by the seller. The buyer pays nothing. The buyer has no legal recourse for breach of the listing contract because the buyer never signed the contract and never agreed to pay any of the commission. That is basic contract law.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

And, this is how a lawsuit was won. A realtor cannot be a buyer's agent. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller at all times. A potential buyer does not need to contract with a realtor.

That isn't correct. It was won because basically a buyer's agent would tell the buyer, "You don't pay me anything." That is technically true, but the buyer's agent is being paid from the total commission in the MLS listing. It's really just semantics but can be seen as the buyer's agent misrepresenting that the buyer is paying their commission because it's basically part of the sale price of the home.

As I mentioned, this is why it will likely change on how the buyer's agent gets paid. But you are flat out wrong that an agent can't represent a buyer. A good buyer agent will steer a buyer away from bad deals.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by Normal

Nobody here is a hater. Just trying to help. Why pay more for something that isn’t hard to do? 70 homes shown over time would equal about 70 hours. What should a salesman make for their 70 hours?

70 hours huh? LOL. Try doubling that at least. Travel time, mileage, etc. But you are paying for their experience. I guarantee you that a good agent is going to save you more on the purchase than is paid in commission. You wouldn't believe the mistakes people would make.

Now, I once felt like you do. Heck back in my past life I sold 2 homes by owner. Both times I had to pay the buyer's agent. Listing on MLS doesn't get people in the door necessarily. Anyhow, until I saw how much an agent really does, first hand, I would have thought like you do. 70 hours. Still has me laughing. It's 6:33 and my wife just got in the door. She drove 45 minutes to an appointment and the buyer called her 5 minutes before and cancelled. Just part of the deal. She'll be on the phone multiple times tonight also I'm sure. I'm just saying people have no idea how hard that job is to do. You may think that one sale only took 70 hours, but you didn't count the 10 deals that didn't happen that also took 70 hours.

[Babubhat]

They will file for bankruptcy and return in another form.

7 other brokerage services, including publicly traded, have just received the same suit

10 Reasons You Don't Need to Join The National Association of Realtors


There are 1,200 local associations and boards and 54 state/territory associations across the United States. To use the REALTOR designation, you must be a member.

The mission of the NAR is "to empower REALTORS® as they preserve, protect and advance the right to real property for all." Its vision is "to be a trusted ally, guiding our members and those they serve through the ever-evolving real estate landscape."

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

It seems you are referring to an agent that has the listing, the buyer comes in without an agent and the Listing agent does the deal alone. In that case, the listing agent is possibly taking both sides of the commission (unless they pass along the savings). But they have an ethical duty to tell the buyer that they are representing the seller.

That's not how buyer's agent works. Now, I will admit I'm in Massachusetts and don't know what could be different in Florida. But a buyer contacts an agent and wants to see a home. If that agent is not the listing agent then he/she becomes the buyer's agent. They may or may not sign a buyer's agent contract. That agent should be advising the buyer on home value, helping with financing needs and legal needs, etc. They should be bringing the buyer to similar homes, working with inspection. They need to know the rules for FHA loans (you wouldn't believe how many realtors miss that info).

The agent I know works tirelessly, on the phone at all hours, out at appointments all day and night, 7 days/week, working with their buyers (or sellers if they have the listing). She works way more hours than my 9-5 job that's for sure.

It really aggravates me when people say they get paid for nothing. They have no idea how much work is involved.

Note that the term "agent" is a legal term that means someone is representing a client in a legal transaction for a fee. The only way a buyer can have an agent is if they sign a legally binding contract in which the buyer agrees to pay money to the agent. If the buyer just shows up and the real estate agent shows them houses, there is no client/agent relationship established. For most real estate sales in Florida, the buyer does not have an agent representing them. However, real estate agents typically do not adequately convey to the buyer that they are representing the seller, and not the buyer. That is why buyers will often assume that they have an "agent" when they don't.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Your first paragraph is totally false. The listing contract is between the listing broker and the seller. There is no buyer agent mentioned in the contract. The buyer has absolutely no contractual relationship with the broker. When you go to the closing, the entire commission is listed on the seller's side of the settlement statement and paid for by the seller. The buyer pays nothing. The buyer has no legal recourse for breach of the listing contract because the buyer never signed the contract and never agreed to pay any of the commission. That is basic contract law.

I am not wrong. I don't think you understood what I was saying. The listing contract is between the seller and the listing agent, correct. But the listing agent posts the buyer's commision (co-broke) in MLS. The buyer's agent looks up a listing and knows right away what their portion of the commission will be. The buyer's agent portion is in the closing disclosure. Technically I guess you could argue that the seller/listing agent is getting all the commission and paying the buyer's agent. But again, semantics.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Note that the term "agent" is a legal term that means someone is representing a client in a legal transaction for a fee. The only way a buyer can have an agent is if they sign a legally binding contract in which the buyer agrees to pay money to the agent. If the buyer just shows up and the real estate agent shows them houses, there is no client/agent relationship established. For most real estate sales in Florida, the buyer does not have an agent representing them. However, real estate agents typically do not adequately convey to the buyer that they are representing the seller, and not the buyer. That is why buyers will often assume that they have an "agent" when they don't.

This may be different than in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts when a buyer works with an agent they sign an agency disclosure that shows they are representing the buyer. The agent may or may not sign a contract with the buyer. If there is no contract the buyer can simply stop working with them. In addition if the are a "Realtor" there is a code of ethics that the agent must be loyal and obedient etc to their client (buyer or seller).

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

I am not wrong. I don't think you understood what I was saying. The listing contract is between the seller and the listing agent, correct. But the listing agent posts the buyer's commision (co-broke) in MLS. The buyer's agent looks up a listing and knows right away what their portion of the commission will be. The buyer's agent portion is in the closing disclosure. Technically I guess you could argue that the seller/listing agent is getting all the commission and paying the buyer's agent. But again, semantics.

See Post No. 22. This is not semantics at all. There is no buyer agent in the legal sense, and the only legally binding contract that exists is between the broker and the seller. The buyer has no legal recourse, and is never responsible to pay a commission.

[margaretmattson]

Originally Posted by frayedends

That isn't correct. It was won because basically a buyer's agent would tell the buyer, "You don't pay me anything." That is technically true, but the buyer's agent is being paid from the total commission in the MLS listing. It's really just semantics but can be seen as the buyer's agent misrepresenting that the buyer is paying their commission because it's basically part of the sale price of the home.

As I mentioned, this is why it will likely change on how the buyer's agent gets paid. But you are flat out wrong that an agent can't represent a buyer. A good buyer agent will steer a buyer away from bad deals.

What you are stating is unethical. I hope you are not a realtor. If you came to me while I was interested in purchasing a home, I would report you. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller(s). Period! If you steer me away from bad deals, I owe you nothing. Tomorrow, another agent can show me a home and I am free to buy from whom I wish. I may even tell the seller of the home that you are steering people away. A realtors job is to sell the home. He or she is not an in between.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

What you are stating is unethical. I hope you are not a realtor. If you came to me while I was interested in purchasing a home, I would report you. The job of a realtor is to represent the seller(s). Period! If you steer me away from bad deals, I owe you nothing. Tomorrow, another agent can show me a home and I am free to buy from whom I wish. I may even tell the seller of the home that you are steering people away. A realtors job is to sell the home. He or she is not an in between.

What are you talking about? What did I say that was unethical? It's literally in the Realtor code of ethics to represent your buyer if you are a buyer agent. If you want to see a home and your buyer's agent says, here's the comps, this house is overpriced by 50K, how it that unethical.

You are saying, if you are a buyer and you come to me and want to see a house, and I tell you the house is way overpriced, you are going to report me? Well good luck with your home buying. LOL.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by frayedends

This may be different than in Massachusetts. In Massachusetts when a buyer works with an agent they sign an agency disclosure that shows they are representing the buyer. The agent may or may not sign a contract with the buyer. If there is no contract the buyer can simply stop working with them. In addition if the are a "Realtor" there is a code of ethics that the agent must be loyal and obedient etc to their client (buyer or seller).

Unless something has changed fairly recently, there's not much difference between Massachusetts and Florida. The biggest difference, is "dual agency" is not allowed in Florida, but something called being a "transaction broker" is allowed. Same horse, different color.

[retiredguy123]

In Florida, a licensed agent cannot represent the buyer and the seller in the sales phase. It is unethical and illegal. In some cases, they can become a transaction agent, but only after a sales contract has been executed.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

See Post No. 22. This is not semantics at all. There is no buyer agent in the legal sense, and the only legally binding contract that exists is between the broker and the seller. The buyer has no legal recourse, and is never responsible to pay a commission.

Again, maybe different in Florida? In Massachusetts there can be a buyer's agent contract that states the agent is representing the buyer and it also discloses the commission being paid.

When I mention semantics, I mean how it's paid. If the house is 500K and the commission is 50K (for easy math) you could pay 50K at closing to the listing agent who then gives the buyer's agent 25K. Or you could pay each agent 25K at closing from the proceeds. Or the seller could give the listing agent 25K, the buyer could give the buyer agent 25K and the house could close at 450K. My point, it all comes out in the wash. That's why I say the lawsuit results change nothing but the semantics...

A buyer's agent should not be telling the buyer that it cost them nothing to be represented. There is a cost, and it can be buried in the commission structure. That is why the lawsuit was won. So in the future it won't necessarily save the buyer money (or make the seller more) because the agents will both want to get paid. They just have to disclose it differently.