[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

I don't see it that way at all. When I sell a house, I am willing to pay a commission to a broker who represents me, and to sign a listing contract for a specific price. I expect any agent who shows the house to be working for me, not the buyer. I am paying for their sales experience and skills. If a buyer wants to be represented by an agent, that is fine, but don't ask me to pay for the buyer's agent. If a buyer's agent cannot provide any value that the buyer is willing to pay for, then they shouldn't be in business.

I understand your point of view. It's a pure financial cost benefit analysis for the transaction. My opinion of executing that approach in the current market is where I see the potential issue. I hope to see how well it works in reality. I will go search #retwit to see if anyone has used this approach and how successful the execution has been.

I think with mortgages now slipping below 5%, there will be more closing activity and there will be more data available to evaluate the currently most successful approach to selling. how long that lasts will also be questionable, as the situation evolves.

If the buyer has an agreement in place, and the seller won't give any commission in the sale, then at closing, the mortgage company / title company will require that the downpayment / or cash required at closing will be the balance for the mortgage/purchase plus the BAC commission. The result will be that all purchases with no concession from seller, will require an additional 2-3% over listing price for buyer. Kind of like the credit card free of 2-4% on credit card transactions at the local restaurant. Sellers are forced into accepting the Buyers agreement / use of a credit card and the resulting cost increase for the transaction. Credit card fees have forced the sellers to list a higher price to account for the fee and still get the required minimum gross margin to stay in business. House inflationary results

[MightyDog]

Originally Posted by MightyDog

So, there is an illustration of why some choose to self-insure. Can you imagine paying $44,000 over 10 years for house #2? I can't.

Added clarification for any readers interested. Spoke with Villages insurance person this morning and she stated that the above scenario is likely a full replacement policy - that's why it's so high.

The rest of the story is, for an older manufactured home (late 80s thru the 90s), an owner can expect to pay in the range $1800 - 1900 p/year for $30,000 in replacement value. Meaning, if the home got wiped out, insurance company would give you 30K.

If it got damaged (let's say a heavy tree limb bashed thru the roof) and it was going to cost $8000 to repair, the insurance company would pay a depreciated amount for that repair...maybe $1000 to $2000.

Truly, I can't imagine why people in those type ownership situations wouldn't just forgo insurance. The numbers and probabilities don't make sense to carry it. If I'm missing something, please advise.

Gave her another address of a stick-built 1992, 2 bed and bath, 1200 sq ft, shingle roof installed 2017 that will probably transact around 245K and the quote was $2800. Almost the same as #1 mentioned in above post.

There's some up-to-date info.

[retiredguy123]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

I understand your point of view. It's a pure financial cost benefit analysis for the transaction. My opinion of executing that approach in the current market is where I see the potential issue. I hope to see how well it works in reality. I will go search #retwit to see if anyone has used this approach and how successful the execution has been.

I think with mortgages now slipping below 5%, there will be more closing activity and there will be more data available to evaluate the currently most successful approach to selling. how long that lasts will also be questionable, as the situation evolves.

If the buyer has an agreement in place, and the seller won't give any commission in the sale, then at closing, the mortgage company / title company will require that the downpayment / or cash required at closing will be the balance for the mortgage/purchase plus the BAC commission. The result will be that all purchases with no concession from seller, will require an additional 2-3% over listing price for buyer. Kind of like the credit card free of 2-4% on credit card transactions at the local restaurant. Sellers are forced into accepting the Buyers agreement / use of a credit card and the resulting cost increase for the transaction. Credit card fees have forced the sellers to list a higher price to account for the fee and still get the required minimum gross margin to stay in business. House inflationary results

As a seller, no one is going to force me to accept a buyer's agreement. I would just reject the offer. I have bought and sold a lot of houses, but I have never paid a buyer's agent commission.

[justjim]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

As a seller, no one is going to force me to accept a buyer's agreement. I would just reject the offer. I have bought and sold a lot of houses, but I have never paid a buyer's agent commission.

The listing agent should pay the buyers agent as in the past. Only in today’s crazy world would that change.

[CoachKandSportsguy]

Originally Posted by retiredguy123

As a seller, no one is going to force me to accept a buyer's agreement. I would just reject the offer. I have bought and sold a lot of houses, but I have never paid a buyer's agent commission.

Remember when credit cards weren't accepted at grocery stores?
Remember when the credit cards didn't have any cash back?

Find that grocery store now and credit card combo now. .

Your position will work until it doesn't, like everything else.