[VillagerNut]

Your information is totally incorrect. In the state of Florida the way it stands right now, most broker’s run as a transaction broker with nothing needing to be signed. We are definitely allowed to sell our own listings. We do not have dual agency in Florida. We have transaction broker agency. If we want to represent one party exclusively then we do have to get an agreement signed.

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I know other states are different, but, in Florida, it is illegal to represent both the buyer and the seller as an agent. You can be a transaction agent, but only if you have the written consent of the seller. If you don't have consent, you can only represent one party.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

When you represented both parties, did you try to get the lowest price or the highest price?

Without exception my goal was to find a price and terms that were satisfactory to both parties. I honestly do not ever recall a "bad" experience.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by VillagerNut

Your information is totally incorrect. In the state of Florida the way it stands right now, most broker’s run as a transaction broker with nothing needing to be signed. We are definitely allowed to sell our own listings. We do not have dual agency in Florida. We have transaction broker agency. If we want to represent one party exclusively then we do have to get an agreement signed.

This is from the 2023 Florida Statue 475.278 (note the last sentence):

CONSENT TO TRANSITION TO
TRANSACTION BROKER

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.

Has this law changed?

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by tedquick

Without exception my goal was to find a price and terms that were satisfactory to both parties. I honestly do not ever recall a "bad" experience.

So, if I list my house for $400K with a 6 percent commission, you will represent both the buyer and the seller to get a "satisfactory" price, and then expect me, the seller, to pay you $24,000? There is no way I would ever agree to that. I expect the agent to represent me in negotiations and to get the highest reasonable price. I'm glad that Florida law doesn't allow that. If they did, I would sell my own house.

[jmac1031]

Originally Posted by Rainger99

There was a recent settlement on a class action case involving real estate commissions.

Home buyers to be spared automatic broker commissions under new $418 million settlement – NBC New York - Mostly hype and fake news!

Does anyone know if commissions have changed in the Villages?

As usual the Villages gets both sides of the transaction for themselves!

Homebuyers: Here's What the NAR Settlement Means for You

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by tedquick

Without exception my goal was to find a price and terms that were satisfactory to both parties. I honestly do not ever recall a "bad" experience.

here is the conflict which you don't present:

A transactional broker want to get a commission to pay your bills, so your motivation is a completed transaction, regardless of differences in price. Your position is starting point $0 for no transaction or $XX,xxx for a completed transaction, so the quicker the sale, the quicker you can move on. .

The Seller's motivation is the highest price, so that people can pay higher taxes
The buyer's motivation is the lowest price, so that the mortgage payment is the lowest possible for 20-30 years. .

So the outcome for the seller or buyer is listing price vs 0-3% higher or lower. . depending upon viewpoint, a much smaller difference from their starting point.
From your position, 6% commission on 3% difference is immaterial between $0 and $paid commission.

Using your motivation, you can easily talk both parties to a mid price, so that you can get paid sooner, without much difference in your payment, yet the goals of neither party were satisfied.

There have been several behavioral finance / economic studies showing that a transactional agent's motivation was to get a transaction, not to get the best for both the buyer and seller. I have seen this in action:

independent appraisal of house ahead of time: $150,000
Listing agent appraisal: $175,000
After 30 days, Listing agent is frantic about lowering the price to get a sale, she had to get the sale done after 30 days!
Final Sale price: $149,000

Could the seller have gotten $175,000? doubtful, but 30 days is a very short period of time to assume that even a majority of buyers have been notified and could arrange to have a showing. Daily life gets in the way.

So, never, ever, tell a broker when selling that you have a time frame to sell, never say nor type that you are a motivated seller. . . golden words to a transactional broker who just wants to the get the sale done to get paid with little impact on the final commission.

That's the conflict which underlies the transactional broker versus independent agents.

former but still finance guy

[bshuler]

I found a contract document a while back for "Villages Sales Representative"

This is 2018. Here is the section on VLS commissions