[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

As a potential buyer, who didn't live in The Villages,

With a buyer's agent, they do all the leg work on my behalf.

Once my agent has done all this legwork, THEN I come down for a visit, and check on those three homes.

For an out-of-town buyer, certainly using a buyer's agent makes sense for the reasons you described. I moved in 2015 from one state to another and there was no way not to use a buyer's agent to help me get a property purchased when I was still in the prior state.

Contrast that with a few years later when I sold that property and bought another in the same city but, I was local now so, I didn't use a buyers agent. Didn't need one and found exactly what I wanted myself. It saved me thousands because there's only one agent to pay...the listing agent. I did the same thing several years prior, acting as my own buyer's agent essentially, and was local then also. That transaction also saved me a few thousand.

There are variety of scenarios for people when transacting property so, there is no 'one size fits all' approach. It's just what people are most comfortable with and whether they currently live in the location they are buying or selling in. If they aren't, they'll need help.

[Randall55]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

As a potential buyer, who didn't live in The Villages, I think it would've been really monumentally stupid to consider the seller's agent, and not a buyer's agent. Why? Because I don't know which home I want to buy yet, and out of three dozen possible homes, there are at least two dozen sellers' agents representing the sellers of those homes. I'd need to deal with at least 24 agents, just to narrow down my options to a couple or three homes. And then, I'd have to maintain two or three different agents representing those two or three homes, to ensure that I'm looking at exactly what I want to look at, and not just some hype from an eager sales agent.

With a buyer's agent, they do all the leg work on my behalf. They check with those two dozen agents representing up to three dozen properties. They rule out any homes that are absolute deal-breakers for me. They then sift through the rest to provide me with the two or three homes they feel I should actually check on. And all this is done, with me making one or two phone calls to a sales person who is helping ME buy, rather than helping Jimbob Homeowner sell.

Once my agent has done all this legwork, THEN I come down for a visit, and check on those three homes. Maybe I don't like any of them. Maybe one is perfect and I put down a deposit. But rather than spending countless hours, days, weeks even, calling dealing with a couple dozen people I've never met but who want the person THEY represent to profit as much as possible with me paying the bill, I'm dealing with one person - who might or might not get any commission at all (if it's a Villages sales agent), or who might only get a piece of whatever commission is conveyed through the sale.

If you are in a rush to buy a home and live in another state, I can understand your reasoning. But for those of us who live in the Villages or nearby, paying a buyer's agent to assist you is a waste of time and money. You can do ALL the legwork yourself. If you are getting a mortgage, the bank will make certain every I is dotted and T is crossed before approving your loan. You pay for each item they requested when you close. Why pay ADDITIONAL money to a buyer's agent? It is double-dipped charges.

If you are paying cash, you would be foolish not to get a real estate attorney and YOUR OWN home inspector. Both are working for YOU. A buyers agent cannot give you legal advice. They also cannot fully inspect a home and give you a detailed report of their findings. A buyer's agent can only supply their opinions. I would rather pay those who can supply FACTS. Fortunately, an attorney and a home inspector is much cheaper than a buyer's agent.

[Robojo]

Originally Posted by APovi

NAR - Much ado about nothing? Realtor's Commissions.
Thanks to the many people who have asked me about the proposed changes in Real Estate commissions this summer.
The answer isn't very complicated.
Regardless of the 'rules', Realtors predominantly charge Home-Owners/Buyers a 6% commission based on the eventual sales price of the home.
Some say it's the Seller who pays because the final 'Net-To-Seller' is reduced by, for example $24,000 on a $400,000 sale.
Others say that it's the buyers who pay, because they are paying $24,000 more than they would for a direct "Seller-To-Buyer" sale.
For home buyers and sellers the proposed changes are a simple reminder that you set the commissions.
In the typical transaction, sellers pay a Realtor $12,000 for the simple process of typing the listing info into the local Multi-List.
(This, by-the-way, is less work than an Appraiser does for $500.00).
The other $12,000 goes to which ever Realtor makes the sale.
Is there a significant, mandated to change?
NO!
The plan is to prohibit the Listing Realtor from typing in the commission split they are offering to the Realtor who makes the sale.
That's it!
The other side of the deal is to force buyers to sign an agreement with their Realtor. But that agreement can simply say that their Realtor is being paid, just as they always have been.
Is there any likely positive outcome?
In my opinion there could be if Owners/Sellers would wake up!
Its the selling Realtor who does the work and gets the sale.
A 'Listing Factory' gets a $12,000 fee for a $500 job.
What to do?
When your listing expires, maybe there is.
Ccall a State Certified Residential Appraiser who is also a Realtor.
Give them $1,000 for a basic appraisal and entry of the data into the Multi-List.
Whomever gets you a buyer gets, the (3%) $12,000 commission.
The Seller saves $11,000.
The buyer saves $12,000
Who's the loser?
Not our Home Buyers and Sellers.
That's who we should be protecting isn't it?

Its been my experience that the % the realtor gets is negotiable. I've been able to pay less than 6%.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

I’ve sold 5 homes here in the villages and quite a few in other places some I sold myself but mostly with agents because I didn’t want to bother with a lot of things you have to do . The five I’ve sold in villages were all 5% commissions , I don’t understand why people were paying 6 I never had an agent that I talked to say no .

[Normal]

And manny, manny say, “ What did the realtor do to warrant a 24K payout?” They didn’t do the title company’s job. They were just middle men.

[APovi]

Originally Posted by rustyp

I am not sure how this works today. Assuming a 6% commission is it customary for the listing agent to get 3% and the actual agent that made the sale get 3% ? If the listing agent is the agent that made the sale does that agent get all 6% ? If this is true then your statement about being who is the winner/loser doesn't quite paint the whole picture. Under the new rules if the buyer purchased from the listing agent (let's say an open house walk off the street situation) there would be no buyers agent ? Only 3% would be the total commission. If a significant amount of sales today are made by the listing agent and that agent gets the full commission of 6% now that agent is only entitled to 3%. Is that correct? If so the listing real estate agents are the losers here. Everyone knows ultimately the buyer is paying the commission today - it's baked into the price the seller is willing to accept.

In fact the Owner/Seller (typically) pays the Listing Office a 6% commission.
What that Realtor does with it is up to them.
Usually, within the Listing Brokerage, that 6% is split/allocated/reserved as 3% for the listing process and 3% for the (eventual) sale).
If another office makes that sale, then the #%'selling' commission is paid to the other/Selling Realty.
And as you ask, the Listing Office retains the 3% Listing Commission.

[APovi]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Protec the buyers and sellers? Good! Like a diner. One person takes your order, delivers your plate. Chef/owner does all the work preparing the item. Same effort to order then deliver plain hamburger or steak sand or lobster roll. The kitchen does the critical part along with owner having to invest in all associated costs.
Listing agents do minimal work compared to the buyers agent. Jmho.

Is this opinion based on experience as a Realtor?
In my 30+ years I've learned that Selling means work: Listings mean money!,

[APovi]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I don't understand your math. How can the seller save $11,000 and the buyer save $12,000? That is $23,000, but a 6 percent commission would be $24,000. Where do you get the additional $12,000 to pay a 3 percent commission?

Also, it seems as though your premise is that real estate agents are pretty worthless at selling houses at higher prices, so that they do not earn their commission. If I believed that, I would never hire an agent.

Sorry for not being clear.
The example was a $400k Sale with a 6% commission. Is that $24K?
The point is that a Seller can pay an Appraiser/Realtor $1,000 and not pay a Listing Realtor $12,000.
Whatever the correct math is, I'd sooner pay out $1,000 than $12,000 for the same work.
(If fact, more work because you'd get confirmation (Appraisal) that your previous List Price is realistic/or not).

[APovi]

Originally Posted by margaretmattson

Imo, it all comes down to what a seller is willing to pay an agent. The lawsuit provides for competitive pricing.

Buyers agent? Not all needs one. Anyone can go on MLS and choose the homes you like. You can easily find the price history. Do a drive-by yourself. Why bring a stranger along? Any homes that interest you, call the listing agent(s) to see the interior. Hire your own inspector and use a real estate attorney to close. Both will protect your interests.

I am certain Realtors are going to try and twist the new law to bait those who are unaware. SELLERS will have the final say in how much an agent will get paid. I hope ALL realize this. Enormous pay for showing houses is a thing of the past.

The lawsuit, as discussed, has no direct influence on Real Estate Values.
The only immediate effect is that buyers will no longer be able to buy through the Realtor of their choice without first signing an agreement to pay that Realtor
In fact that could mean that the Listing Realtor could keep the whole 6% commission as contracted with the Owner/Seller.
So buyers would be paying their Realtor IN ADDITION to the seller paying theirs.
There's nothing in the proposed settlement which even discourages it and certainly does not ban it.
As mentioned in the original post, Owner/Sellers need to wake up!
Why not pay commissions at market value?
If you did the LISTING PART yourself (All the functions mentioned by various respondents here) what would those professional cost you?
Anyone here think maybe $12,000 ?
I doubt it.

[rustyp]

Originally Posted by APovi

In fact the Owner/Seller (typically) pays the Listing Office a 6% commission.
What that Realtor does with it is up to them.
Usually, within the Listing Brokerage, that 6% is split/allocated/reserved as 3% for the listing process and 3% for the (eventual) sale).
If another office makes that sale, then the #%'selling' commission is paid to the other/Selling Realty.
And as you ask, the Listing Office retains the 3% Listing Commission.

Thanks - that triggers a few more questions

1 Does the listing agent have to list to MLS
2 How does the listing agent publish MLS
3 Is there a time requirement for the MLS listing to be posted to other MLS agents

Given the listing agent / office gets to keep both sides of the commission if the listing agent sells the same property - would not this be an incentive for the listing agent to "drag their feet" publishing the MLS until feeling out the initial buyers that typically rush to a new listing ?

Many years ago I put a purchase offer on a property which just hit the market. The listing agent called me back and said seller rejected offer. I asked was there a counter. Reply - no. I asked for proof of rejection. The agent said doesn't work that way. The listing agent had a reputation of being on the shady side so I hired a broker. Found out the seller never got the offer. Seller accepted my original offer through the broker I hired and listing agent lost half the commission. To say the original agent wasn't happy would be an understatement. To this day the shady agent won't even make eye contact with me in a very small town.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by APovi

Why not pay commissions at market value?
If you did the LISTING PART yourself (All the functions mentioned by various respondents here) what would those professional cost you?
Anyone here think maybe $12,000 ?
I doubt it.

Thus lies the real problem. It generally does not cost more to sell a 800,000 house than it does to sell a 400,000 dollar house. Yet sellers were hustled out of 48,000 dollars to sell their 800,000 dollar home. Percentages fortunately will be a thing of the past. Flat rates are already overtaking the market.

FSBO is becoming much more popular and has saved sellers and buyers a boatload of money.

[APovi]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

Apparently, the OP thinks that any commision paid to an agent just reduces the amount of money that goes to the seller. If that is true, then a seller would be foolish to pay any commission. Also, regarding a buyer's agent, as a seller, I would never allow a buyer's agent to receive any money from my side of the settlement statement. If a buyer wants to be represented by an agent, the buyer would need to negotiate and pay their own commission or fee.

My understanding is that the relationship between the buyer and their Realtor is not formally disclosed to the seller. So your closing statement would show 3% to your listing office the 3% to the selling office.
The Commission Split is based on an agreement between the Realtors, not the sellers.
In our area (Residential Real Estate) I am not aware of any/many Realtors who retain the 'AGENT) relationship.
Changing to a 'TRANSACTION BROKER' allows them to work with buyers and seller at the same time without the burden of laws of agency.

[Normal]

Perhaps a law needs passed that caps realtor costs? It would eliminate the egregious amounts and or charges on the scale below.

100,000 sale real estate agent gets 6,000 dollars

200,000 sale real estate agent gets 12,000 dollars

300,000 sale real estate agent gets 18,000 dollars

400,000 sale real estate agent gets 24,000 dollars

500,000 sale real estate agent gets 30,000 dollars

Etc.

Instead, sell a home, get a 1,000. Just eliminate the crazy windfall amounts based on percentages that have nothing to do with effort.
The 1 k would reimburse the agent for gas and any hourly charges for effort placed into the sale. In some cases that would be 400 dollars an hour, in others, 50 dollars an hour.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by APovi

My understanding is that the relationship between the buyer and their Realtor is not formally disclosed to the seller. So your closing statement would show 3% to your listing office the 3% to the selling office.
The Commission Split is based on an agreement between the Realtors, not the sellers.
In our area (Residential Real Estate) I am not aware of any/many Realtors who retain the 'AGENT) relationship.
Changing to a 'TRANSACTION BROKER' allows them to work with buyers and seller at the same time without the burden of laws of agency.

In Florida, an agent cannot serve as a transaction broker without the written consent of the seller.

FLORIDA LAW ALLOWS REAL ESTATE LICENSEES WHO REPRESENT A BUYER OR SELLER AS A SINGLE AGENT TO CHANGE FROM A SINGLE AGENT RELATIONSHIP TO A TRANSACTION BROKERAGE RELATIONSHIP IN ORDER FOR THE LICENSEE TO ASSIST BOTH PARTIES IN A REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION BY PROVIDING A LIMITED FORM OF REPRESENTATION TO BOTH THE BUYER AND THE SELLER. THIS CHANGE IN RELATIONSHIP CANNOT OCCUR WITHOUT YOUR PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.

. . . . . . . . . I agree that my agent may assume the role and duties of a transaction broker. (must be initialed or signed) [Florida Stat., sect. 475.278 (3)]

As a seller, I would never provide my written consent to this until there is a signed sales contract with an agreed to price. In fact, as a seller, I do not even want an agent who has a written agreement to represent the buyer to show my house.

[Robnlaura]

You don’t even need a listing agent these days. Plenty of flat fee listing companies out there $99 dollars allows you to list in the mls and that gets sent to Zillow. So there you go problem solved..