[Janie123]

Originally Posted by 1009 wilder

go with mls stay away from the villages

Hogwash, we looked at both and ended up buying a VLS home using a VLS realtor that we are friends with today after 3+ years. They were great guiding us thru the process and assisting us on the negotiating with the seller.

[Marathon Man]

Originally Posted by 1009 wilder

go with mls stay away from the villages

An earlier post: "be carefull i was turned in to the villages by nabors and was fined not the happyest home town"

Holding a grudge is not good for your health.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Marine1974

So your house sells faster , the commission for the buyers agent is paid out of the seller’s commissions, doesn’t affect you . You still pay agreed upon commission it’s just split unless the sellers agent brings a buyer which I doubt will happen.
Contracts are important of course .

I view the commission a little differently than some people. As a seller, I agree to pay a commission to the listing broker to represent me and to buy their sales expertise and negotiation skills to sell the house for a good price. I expect them to earn the commission, or I wouldn't be agreeing to pay it. I am not and would not pay a commission to an agent who is representing a buyer because that is a conflict of interest. It also sounds like a violation of Florida law about the "dual agent" prohibition stated in Post No. 30. If a buyer wants someone to represent their interests, they should pay an agent or lawyer for that representation. Why should I pay for it? When signing a listing contract, I would make it very clear to the listing broker, that none of the commission that I pay at the closing can be used to pay an agent who has a contract with the buyer or, in any way, represents the buyer in the negotiations. It almost sounds like the real estate industry is trying to treat the sales commission as an automatic add-on fee to be shared by the licensed agents involved in the transaction.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I view the commission a little differently than some people. As a seller, I agree to pay a commission to the listing broker to represent me and to buy their sales expertise and negotiation skills to sell the house for a good price. I expect them to earn the commission, or I wouldn't be agreeing to pay it. I am not and would not pay a commission to an agent who is representing a buyer because that is a conflict of interest. It also sounds like a violation of Florida law about the "dual agent" prohibition stated in Post No. 30. If a buyer wants someone to represent their interests, they should pay an agent or lawyer for that representation. Why should I pay for it? When signing a listing contract, I would make it very clear to the listing broker, that none of the commission that I pay at the closing can be used to pay an agent who has a contract with the buyer or, in any way, represents the buyer in the negotiations. It almost sounds like the real estate industry is trying to treat the sales commission as an automatic add-on fee to be shared by the licensed agents involved in the transaction.

The only problem is that you may limit the number of showings you get. If I'm an agent representing a buyer, would I want to show him your property, knowing I wouldn't get paid. Now, what would/should generally happen if you have a listing and I am a buyer's agent (I'm not an agent at all, this is hypothetical) is this. I say to my buyer, "Here is a house listed that you may be interested in. They are not paying a buyer's agent, so if you want me to represent you, you will have to pay me out of pocket $$XX. Otherwise you are welcome to contact the listing agent and see the home on your own without my representation."

The problem here is the listing agent can't be a dual agent. A dual agent means representing the buyer and seller. That is a conflict of interest. So the buyer is being unrepresented. If they are knowledgable that may not be an issue. Will they be saving any money? IDK. In your example, if you are the seller, is your agent taking half their usual commission because they don't have to pay a buyer's agent? If they agree to lower commission, are you accepting a lower price on the house, thereby passing the savings on to the buyer?

[Bob04090]

All real estate agents, whether they are MLS or VLS agents are salespeople. They don't make money until the house is sold. It is up to you to do your due diligence and make an offer based on the research you do. Don't expect any agent to be looking to save you money. Also, try to keep the emotions aside. Be willing to walk away. Keep in mind, a VLS contract does not have a clause in their contract to back out of the sale after the inspection. They have a 1.5% repair clause that the seller must pay for any repairs (non cosmetic) found in the inspection. You won't get your earnest money back if you want to cancel the contract.

[Girlcopper]

Originally Posted by heartofthecountry

I know that while working with my regular multiple listing realtor, they will negotiate for me if I am interested in a house. But how does this work with a Villages sales agent? That is, do they only represent the sellers? How does a potential buyer negotiate if they all work for the sellers? Thank you

Easiest solution. Call and ask them.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

The only problem is that you may limit the number of showings you get. If I'm an agent representing a buyer, would I want to show him your property, knowing I wouldn't get paid. Now, what would/should generally happen if you have a listing and I am a buyer's agent (I'm not an agent at all, this is hypothetical) is this. I say to my buyer, "Here is a house listed that you may be interested in. They are not paying a buyer's agent, so if you want me to represent you, you will have to pay me out of pocket $$XX. Otherwise you are welcome to contact the listing agent and see the home on your own without my representation."

The problem here is the listing agent can't be a dual agent. A dual agent means representing the buyer and seller. That is a conflict of interest. So the buyer is being unrepresented. If they are knowledgable that may not be an issue. Will they be saving any money? IDK. In your example, if you are the seller, is your agent taking half their usual commission because they don't have to pay a buyer's agent? If they agree to lower commission, are you accepting a lower price on the house, thereby passing the savings on to the buyer?

If we agree on a fair commission, I expect the listing broker to negotiate on my behalf and to get the best, reasonable price regardless of the commission. So no, I would not accept a lower price if the listing agent lowers the commission. The market value and sales price of the house should not be dependent on the commission.

I have no problem if an agent wants to be to a buyers agent and to represent buyers, but don't expect the seller to pay your fee. You can't have your cake and eat it. The commission agreed to in the listing contract is paid by the seller to the listing broker for their representation. I don't agree that the sales price is negatively affected by the seller refusing to pay money to a buyers agent.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

If we agree on a fair commission, I expect the listing broker to negotiate on my behalf and to get the best, reasonable price regardless of the commission. So no, I would not accept a lower price if the listing agent lowers the commission. The market value and sales price of the house should not be dependent on the commission.

I have no problem if an agent wants to be to a buyers agent and to represent buyers, but don't expect the seller to pay your fee. You can't have your cake and eat it. The commission agreed to in the listing contract is paid by the seller to the listing broker for their representation. I don't agree that the sales price is negatively affected by the seller refusing to pay money to a buyers agent.

I'd still argue this is all semantics. The budget is the budget and the value/sale price will take into consideration everyone that needs to get paid. If you agree to say a 5% commission to your seller agent, what do you care if she gives half of that to a buyer's agent? She does that to get you well qualified buyers. You get the same money no matter how the agents get paid. Plus you may get a better offer with more buyers competing.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by Marine1974

So your house sells faster .

If you reduced the price of your home 25k ie. a 400k house for 375k, wouldn’t it sell faster? That would be what you would pay a realtor at a low 5%. It is certainly worth a try with no contracts to money grubbing realtors. It’s simple to do on Zillow etc.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Normal

If you reduced the price of your home 25k ie. a 400k house for 375k, wouldn’t it sell faster? That would be what you would pay a realtor at a low 5%. It is certainly worth a try with no contracts to money grubbing realtors. It’s simple to do on Zillow etc.

I agree if you think the commission is a waste of money. Call me crazy, but I happen to think that an experienced agent can get a better price with marketing and negotiating skills. If I didn't believe it, I would list the house as a FSBO on Zillow. I don't need to pay an agent to process the transaction.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by frayedends

I'd still argue this is all semantics. The budget is the budget and the value/sale price will take into consideration everyone that needs to get paid. If you agree to say a 5% commission to your seller agent, what do you care if she gives half of that to a buyer's agent? She does that to get you well qualified buyers. You get the same money no matter how the agents get paid. Plus you may get a better offer with more buyers competing.

If I thought it was just semantics, I would bypass the agent and list the house as a FSBO. I only pay a commission if I think that the agent representing me can get a better price through experienced marketing and negotiating skills.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I agree if you think the commission is a waste of money. Call me crazy, but I happen to think that an experienced agent can get a better price with marketing and negotiating skills. If I didn't believe it, I would list the house as a FSBO on Zillow. I don't need to pay an agent to process the transaction.

That should be true in certain markets, but most houses aren’t selling above asking right now. The same house would need to sell at the asking of 400k before closing costs from the title company. If the realtor contracted for 6%, it would cost an additional 4k.

In January 2024 only 5 sold above asking. 58 sold below asking.

[frayedends]

Originally Posted by Normal

money grubbing realtors.

Pretty insulting. My wife is a realtor. She works 7 days a week, from 7 AM to 10 PM most of the time. The amount of work that goes into it with a good realtor is incredible. I don't fault you guys though. Before I met her I felt the same about realtors. But seeing the **** she goes through to make these deals, it isn't an easy job and the good realtors work really damn hard for the money.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by Normal

That should be true in certain markets, but most houses aren’t selling above asking right now. The same house would need to sell at the asking of 400k before closing costs from the title company. If the realtor contracted for 6%, it would cost an additional 4k.

In January 2024 only 5 sold above asking. 58 sold below asking.

I agree that the market conditions determine the value of an agent. I once sold a condo as a FSBO because I didn't think an agent could do any better than me. Unlike most people, I won't sign a boilerplate listing contract. I negotiate with the broker as to their commission, their pricing plan, and their marketing plan. I have a lot of skills, but salesmanship is not one of them. A lot of people who think they can sell their house as a FSBO are proven wrong.

[Muzik]

Exactly!