[CoachKandSportsguy]

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.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

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.

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

Here in MA, there are only listing / selling agents.
why?
because the lawyers manage the buyer's agreement. You want to put an offer on a house?
create the offer letter, run it by your RE lawyer, and you are good to go. the buyer's lawyer will guide the buyer for unseen circumstances. For me, my mom's house is owned by my deceased dad and my dementia incapacitated mom's individual trusts. I am the sole trustee of each trust. The Buyer's lawyer will want proof of estate taxes paid or not owed, that my mom is legally incapacitated for both trusts, etc, so that the title can be passed cleanly. . .

IN FL, I am ignorant, but there was a sh!t load more papers to sign stating adult common knowledge is known.

[Jayhawk]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

Does this apply to the non-MLS sales agents of The Villages????

No. They are not governed by NAR rules.

[Robnlaura]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree. This whole issue was caused by real estate agents who pretend to represent a buyer when they really don't. How many times have you heard a buyer refer to the agent who is showing houses to them as "my agent", when the agent legally represents the seller? This was a fraud. If a buyer wants legal representation, they should hire their own agent and pay them a fee. Hopefully, this new arrangement will stop agents from defrauding buyers.

Agents defrauding buyers ?? Really what world do you live in.. what rubbish..

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Robnlaura

Agents defrauding buyers ?? Really what world do you live in.. what rubbish..

So, you don't think that real estate agents try to convince buyers that they a working for them, when, legally, they are representing the seller? That is deceptive. Maybe fraud is too strong a word. But, you must admit that buyers often refer to the agent who sells them a house as "my agent", when they don't have a written contract with the agent.

[Plinker]

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.

Double dipping refers to a situation where the seller’s agent also finds a buyer and therefore does not split the 5-6% commission. In other words, they get both halves of the commission as there is no buyers agent to pay from the commission paid by the seller at closing.

[BrianL99]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

Here in MA, there are only listing / selling agents.
why?
because the lawyers manage the buyer's agreement. You want to put an offer on a house?
create the offer letter, run it by your RE lawyer, and you are good to go. the buyer's lawyer will guide the buyer for unseen circumstances. .

Where do you come up with the contention there are only "Listing Agents" in MA?

MA has operated like most every other state for many years and allows "dual agency", provided it's disclosed and MA certainly has Buyer's Agents.

Just a guess, but having bought and sold 100's of homes in MA and owned a real estate agency in MA, I would be very surprised if more than 20%-25% of Buyers, hire an attorney.

Most everyone *thinks* the "closing attorney" is their lawyer, but the closing attorney is only acting as a Title Attorney and is representing the bank (mortgage holder).

How this new FTC Ruling shakes out, is still up for debate. I don't see it helping consumers as much as the FTC would have you believe it will. On its face, I think it will work against consumers, at least in the beginning.

If I were to take a wild guess, I think it's going to eventually put "Selling Brokers" out of business. The market has been moving towards that, since the advent of the Internet, Zillow, RedFin and now even the MLS allows people to list on their service.

[mkjelenbaas]

Originally Posted by APovi

Home Buyers Beware!
Buying a home?
Your favorite Realtor is now 'handcuffed' by the ongoing NAR Lawsuit Settlement.
You will have to sign, first a "Pre-Showing Agreement", then the 'Showing Agreement" before you can look at any listings.
And also there is a "Compensation Agreement" which dictates how and how much they will be paid. (By You?)
The 'Showing Agreement' allows them to review your credit report, demands that you disclose the fact that you have or will be working with another Realtor and, what scares me most is this "indemnifying and holding the Broker harmless from losses, damages, costs, and expenses of any nature" because of (what they deem to be) your 'negligence, misrepresentation, or default on these agreements'.
Paying a Buyer Broker, though not typical, is nothing new.
These new forms are way too wide-ranging and complicated to spell out here.
If you use a Buyers Broker, you're on the hook for a fee.
They can't collect their fee, which exceeds WHAT YOU PROMISE THEM from anyone else, so it's likely to be a lot of money..
My advice, never sign anything without a prior review by your lawyer.
Also be aware that, while the Listing Realtor acts exclusively for the Owner/Seller, they are not required to use any of these forms, nor should they charge you a fee/commission.
Stay Safe !

Remember the old saying - “Hello I am from the government and I am here to help you!” - REALLY

[vdelaglio]

It's really not that complicated. The buyer was always paying for both seller/buyer commissions. The seller always calculated that into the price to calculate their net. It's actually more transparent for the buyer and they have an agent that is a fiduciary in the transaction.

[donfey]

Originally Posted by frayedends

That isn't unusual now. But as a buyer you are entering a transaction unrepresented and since Florida doesn't allow dual agency the seller agent really has no obligations to help you out with info or anything.

True, but you are free to walk away. It's the best "tool" a buyer has.

[merrymini]

Collecting the entire fee is not double dipping. People always sign an agreement that agents, usually, act as sellers and buyers agents. Although it is relatively rare for the listing agent to also sell the house, it does happen. They have to put in time and effort on both ends. Would you work for nothing?

[NorineBerlinski]

Villages realtors have told me that The villages is not changing their compensation. Presently it cost sellers 5% to list a home with The villages, 3% goes to the selling agent and 2% to the buyers agent. They are not going to change that and they are NOT part of the class action lawsuit. If I was going to sell a home after August 17, I would not list with a Villages Realtor.
Right now, The villages gets slightly more listings than the MLS from people who are selling their home. I think this will change. When sellers figure out they only have to pay their broker 3%, I doubt they’d be willing to list with The villages and pay 5%. I think many more sellers will move Toward the MLS and list their properties through them.

[Topgun 1776]

What I find interesting is EVERY SINGLE ONE of these gloom and doom reports to scare people NEVER turn out to be true! They're someone else's particular take on a subject. Folks....my recommendation....don't pay attention to these negative posts that could complicate your life. If you're actually buying or ready to buy at home, I'm sure you'll find out. Don't worry about someone's negative posts on TOTV. Have a great day!

[oneclickplus]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

LOL. I don't need a lawyer to review the contract. There is no way I would ever sign it. The real estate agent may be handcuffed, but I'm not.

Agreed. Plus I also say "ignore the realtors". Seriously, sellers ... offer for sale by owner. There are websites that easily facilitate this. And, even if you are not tech savvy, there are services that will help you by taking photos and posting your information. Yes, you will pay them but NOT a percentage of the sale price. Both you and the buyer will save money. Standard contracts are available regarding inspections, etc. All you really need is the title company to do the paperwork & closing. Optional warranties can still be offered by the seller. Realtors are way over paid. And, there is no reason that their compensation should ever have been a percentage of the sale price. The work to sell a $300,000 property and a $700,000 property is the same.

Think of it as a dating service. You don't need a third party in order to meet each other. And you certainly don't need to pay a third party when you finally decide to have sex (consummate the deal).