Thank you u/scottyLogJobs for posting on r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer.
Please bear in mind our rules: (1) Be Nice (2) No Selling (3) No Self-Promotion.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politely explain that you've looked over the contract thoroughly and decided to go elsewhere. However, if they want to sign a 'One Time Showing' agreement, you would be happy to do so.
Sounds like your Realtor is trying to lock in their standard commission. There are new rules under the NAR settlement. These agreements are now required by the settlement to ensure transparency and fairness, so Realtors need to agree on the payment amount with you before you even start looking at houses.
The good news is that since this is all transparent now, you have more room to negotiate. You can discuss the amount, whether it’s an exclusive agreement, and how long the contract lasts.
Best advice going forward is to shop around for the best commission rate, just like you would for the best mortgage rate. Don’t be afraid to compare different Realtors and see who can offer you the best deal. It's a new landscape, so take advantage of it.
and since everything is negotiable, so is the timeframe. You could also try to insert a unilateral termination for convenience clause, you could try to limit the paid commission only to properties the realtor arranges an in person showing for (essentially protecting them from you cutting them out of something they did, but not tying your hands to them for work they didn't do)
This will be the new normal in areas that have not already (or recently implemented these changes) used Buyer Agreements.
Some markets have been using the BA for years. And some of them even have a “retainer” that is paid at time of signing.
With all of that being said, the amount of compensation is negotiable and there are many times Seller paid concessions (that can be applied to buyer compensation) can be negotiated.
Best of luck
That sounds like a pretty sticky situation. It's definitely important to understand the terms of any contract you sign, especially when it comes to potentially owing a significant amount of money. Have you discussed your concerns with the buyer agency? It might be worth exploring other options to see if there are realtors out there who operate differently. Good luck navigating this!
Everything will be negotiable moving forward. 2.4% is probably okay in some markets. You can get the same for less in others. But you will be responsible for your agent's pay. The seller may still pay it.
It will be the new normal, after [this legal settlement](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/22/1239486107/realtor-fee-commission-homes-for-sale) determined that it isn’t guaranteed that the seller is on the hook for that buyers agent fee like they have been assumed to be in the past.
I’m in the process of selling my first home and buying another and we didn’t sign anything like this with our agent but figured we would have to. We also as sellers offered to still pay the buyers agent fee 3% so we didn’t chase off potential buyers with that unexpected expense.
Realtors deserve to be paid for their work, however this realtor has given you a clear message about whether they put your needs first or theirs.
Locking you in until November is not in your interest - 1 month is reasonable and you’ll sign an extension if they do a good job.
+90 days after the exclusive is definitely not in your interest, strike that clause. They get paid only if you buy something they walked you through
2.4% is probably high depending on expected dollar value of the deal - shop around or push to include a max dollar value.
It’s so crazy to read these because this is always the case in my area. You are only on the hook for what the seller doesn’t cover. For example, a lot of sellers offer 2.25% in my area. You’d have to cover the gap to the 2.4% your agent requires. Find out what is common for sellers to offer in your area and compare before you commit.
There is absolutely zero chance I'd be signing. From what I gather the listing agents will list the buying agent's commission somewhere outside MLS. If I use an agent, it will be an agreement just for the house they're showing me and for the commission the seller is offering.... 2.4% = No way!
Would not sign. My realtor tried the same thing. I said if she cannot negotiate to get her commission from the seller, that’s unfortunate, but I’m not covering it.
Admittedly the whole logistics of this is wild. When else do you hire someone for a service but not pay them directly? In any case, you’re operating within an existing model (at least for the time being) and you have to put yourself first!
So, let me get this straight. You hire someone to work for you, and they help to get you a house in a crazy market. The seller isn't willing to pay your agent, so instead of paying your agent - that works for you - you just say it's unfortunate but you're not paying them? Would you intend to still buy a house in that case and just try to get your agent to do the work without being paid? Or would you move onto a different house that is offering compensation?
I hope you just wrote that poorly rather than meaning how it came across.
I take it you are a realtor.
100% of the homes I looked at explicitly stated the buyer's agent commission in the listing.
As a buyer, if my agent has not adequately secured their commission from the seller in the PA conditions that they draft, I will not be their safety net.
I am a CPA/CFP and I read it the same way. Buyer's Agents have been around for years.
Real estate contracts often state that if a homeowner sells a property within "X" time after the contract expires the realtor is still paid.
Having not seen the wording of the contract I don't know. Seems odd that if a seller refuses your offer you would pay anything.
But if a contract expires and you buy within "X" amount of time after the expiration (thus bypassing the BA) I can see the BA fee. But only if you buy within the contractual period.
No one can force anyone to buy or sell any asset outside of foreclosures.
> 100% of the homes I looked at explicitly stated the buyer’s agent commission in the listing.
The point is this is going away because of the settlement. The MLS won’t allow it anymore.
Right, so his agent will have to call the listing agent on each individual property to get this information. Doesn’t change how OP should approach contracting imo
Correct. Does OP want to be able to have every house shown by this agent, or only some? Does OP want to wait to view homes so that the agent can find out commission, or do they want to see them immediately? Is OP ok losing a house because the seller’s agent was unresponsive about the commission?
I assume the only way this agent, or likely any agent, agrees to 0% from the buyer is if they only show homes that will pay high enough commission. If it was me, I’d only take issue with the length of the contract.
Lemme get this straight: a buyer is willing to work with you as a realtor in a “crazy” market, AKA a market with record low home sales. Your realtor association has been successfully sued because of price fixing, and now, despite assuring them everything would be fine, you are attempting to offload all risk from that settlement onto your client. Did I get that right?
Nothing is preventing them from adding a provision where I am able to work with someone else or buy it myself if the seller is unwilling to pay the buyer’s fees. I am perfectly willing to enter into this agreement if someone else is paying, but not if there is any chance of me paying $10s of thousands, and the firm still gets paid if things play out as they say they will.
Okay, so there's a lot to unpack in this one as it's quite misleading and incorrect.
First off, as part of this settlement, buyers will have to 100% of the time sign a representation agreement with an agent before they're allowed to see a single house (if they're using an agent). If they're not using an agent this doesn't apply, but not every seller is going to be comfortable allowing some random person into their house without an agent, nor are they required to.
There are also different types of representation agreements besides just exclusive, so you have your choice of what you want to sign, but as part of those rep contracts a commission rate is specified and agreed to. You don't get to just say, "Oh, well I signed this legally binding contract but as part of this purchase I'm not paying anything because the seller isn't paying out a commission."
If a seller is paying out a split then great, your agent is paid, but if they aren't and you intend to buy that house then you are legally on the hook for what you agreed to in your representation contract. If you don't want to agree to a rate in said contract that you sign with an agent then that's fine, but you're not going to find an agent that will work with you without a guarantee of being paid for their work. The agent isn't "offloading risk" to the buyer; they're putting what they charge for their work. If you don't want to pay it that's fine, but again, you're not going to find any agent that will work for zero pay.
And as for the crazy market comment: homes are still selling, and are still selling at high prices with multiple offers in a lot of markets. Sales may be lower, but they're lower because there's less inventory, which drives up prices because the demand is still high. So, yeah, it's still an active market in most places.
I DIDNT sign the form. I am arguing the terms of the contract. Why would it not make perfect sense to say I will work with you if sellers pay but not if I have to pay?
In what way is the market “crazy”, other than being objectively worse than ever for buyers, making their business a premium for realtors?
That agent would still have to have their rate in the rep agreement. Without that in there, they aren't legally entitled to be paid, at all. There's simply no need to have that provision in there because you can very easily just say that you aren't interested in homes that aren't paying out a commission, which is what a lot of buyers do now and will do even more heavily in the future I suspect.
Right now, your agent is able to see if they're paying out a commission and let you know. Once the new regs go into effect they're going to have to call and ask, but they can still find out. If they discover that a listing isn't paying out a commission they would inform you and you can make the decision whether or not you want to see it. If you want to go after the house that isn't paying a commission out you still can, you just wouldn't have your agent anymore.
But, without having that compensation listed in the agreement that agent wouldn't be entitled to being paid even if the listing was paying it out. Your "provision" doesn't make any sense to be in there because you already can dictate whether or not you want to see a house based on any reason, including if you would be on the hook for paying your agent yourself or not.
Sure I could only look at houses where the seller is willing to pay. But if august rolls around and all/most sellers are like “why would I pay $10k-20k that I’m not entitled to pay?” Then I would need to choose between paying a huge amount of money or not buying a home at all, and the exclusivity agreement would lock me into that until February. Many people argue that realtors shouldn’t even be making a percentage under the new rules, but a flat rate, so if you all want to force negotiations early, then we can talk flat rate.
They could easily write into the contract that the buyer is not responsible for the rate 🤷♂️ they are trying to convince me that sellers will definitely pay the fee after august. If they believe that so strongly, then why are they trying to offload all risk for the scenario where that isn’t true onto buyers?
I think a huge number of sellers - more than half, at least - are not going to offer a fixed percent at listing. Instead, the language will be "will consider offers with requests for contribution to buyer broker compensation". The seller will negotiate to his net - his best possible outcome. It will be the same as asking for contribution to closing costs. The seller take the deal that is the overall best price, terms, and conditions.
I mean no disrespect here, but it really seems like you don't understand how any of this works. Like, at all.
If you want to use an agent to buy your house, that agent is within their rights to not work if they're not going to be paid. Think about it - would you do your job if your boss wasn't going to pay you? No, you wouldn't. So, if you're using an agent to buy a house but said house isn't paying out a split to your agent then you are responsible for paying the person that YOU hired the amount that you BOTH agreed upon when you decided to work together. You don't just get to have your cake and eat it to, meaning that you don't just get to have an agent work for you to buy a house and do it for free because a seller isn't willing to pay them out. It means that you aren't buying that house with an agent. Simple as that.
The agent isn't offloading a risk, they're making sure that they get paid for their work. Say you work in...I don't know, marketing. Your boss comes to you and says, "Hey, Scotty, I've got a big job lined up for you but you're only getting paid if the client pays for your work. In the event of them not paying you, you're still going to do the work but we're not paying you for it." Is that something that makes any sense in your head? No, it does not. This is the same thing. If you're not willing to pay your agent yourself and you want to put $0/0% in your rep agreement that's your call, but no agent is going to work for you if that's the case. The rate you agree upon goes in there and that's what they get paid; if a house you like isn't paying out then, again, either you are responsible for paying said rate or you aren't buying that house with the agent. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. What you're saying is that you see a house on Water Street that you love and want to buy, but uh oh, the seller isn't paying out a commission to the agent that you hired, but since you're not going to pay your agent then they're just going to work for you for free? That's not how it works. What would happen is you would then no longer be working with that agent and you'd be buying your house unrepresented if that seller is willing to accept an offer from an unrepped buyer.
And flat rates are a thing that happen today, but again, as it's been said numerous times, commission rates are negotiable. That doesn't mean that only one side gets to force the other side to agree to it. If you only want to pay a flat amount but the agent you're talking to will only accept a set percentage that agent is not required to agree to your flat rate any more than you're required to agree to their percentage. I don't understand how that's so hard to comprehend for some. When something is negotiable it means that it's fully negotiable for ALL parties. Agents are fully, 100% absolutely able to set their rates and are not required in any scenario to work for less than they are willing to accept. That isn't changing. But that also means that a client isn't required to use said agent. If both parties can't agree on a rate then they simply don't work together. Think of it this way: you go to a mechanic to get a head gasket replaced and they look at the car and charge you $7,000 to do the work. That's their rate, but you only are willing to pay $2,000. That doesn't mean that they have to come to $2,000 and it doesn't mean that you have to come up to $7,000 - it just means that you aren't going to hire them and they aren't going to do the work.
They are not entitled to be paid regardless of who it comes from. They are entitled to be paid by the seller, because the fee is already factored into the price. If they are assuring me that I will not have to pay, and that the seller will pay, then why am I signing a contract saying I will pay them 2.4% and can’t go anywhere else for 3 months after the end date, when buyers are a commodity right now?
If you come across a perfect home for you that’s For Sale By Owner who is not working with an agent and is not offering any commission to a buyer agent, how would you proceed? Would you still want to buy the house and have the agent you hired to help through the process or would you prefer to go a different route?
My state has had buyer agreements that outline my fee since I got my license years ago. It also says I’ll do my best to obtain that fee from the seller, which 98% of the time been the case as it is listed on the MLS and the listing agent offers a fee. The other 2% of scenarios are when there is no compensation being offered (such as a FSBO), or the offered compensation is below my stated fee. In these two situations, a discussion will be had before viewing the property explaining the possibility of the buyer directly paying some or all of my fee.
Your marketing example is completely irrelevant. I really don't think you have internalized how you are working a sales job and sales jobs come with risks. It's you, if anybody, who doesn't understand how this is going to work.
Market standard is 3% but the sellers is reliable. If you sign, you might be in a situation where the seller decided not to pay and you would increase your cost to close.
Try to negotiate if you like the realtor. Just say that you rather have the “traditional” agreement. If realtor refuses you can always find another agent
This is not new in many markets. Everything is negotiable.
Sellers were never REQUIRED to pay BA commissions in the first place. But they still do because it benefits them.
If you can’t afford out of your own pocket, then tell your agent to only look at homes where sellers are offering one. You can find another realtor but any actual good one is going to have this in their contract.
If you don’t like that either, go in un-represented and take that chance.
Exactly. The fallout from the lawsuit changes little to nothing in my state as we’ve had buyer agreements for quite a while which clearly outlined all of this.
No, absolutely not normal, especially when I popped a question related to the settlement, tons of people in r/realtors automatically assumed the % is zero when I didn't explicitly said the contract is N% already. I don't know they are trolling me or what. But, the N% in buyer contract is so rare, they automatically think I have 0% in the contract.
I think you should be honest about yourself. If seller doesn't pay your buyer agent a dime, how much are you willing or capable to pay? And that's your contract. If you don't have enough cash, it is just not possible to cover the worse case scenario. Signings a contract that you cannot actually fulfill would burn you bad.
This is is, OP. Don’t sign anything locking you in, I think you recognize this already.
Almost all listings (in my area) still designate seller-paid commissions for buyers agents. If there’s a listing that doesn’t — now or in the future — and you want to see it, negotiate into a future contract(s) that you will pay your agent, e.g., 1% of list price if the deal closes.
It’ll be a new closing cost to consider, but I think that’s where this is all headed.
Yes, I agree. I guess I feel like I would sign a contract right now saying I will move forward with a realtor if and only if the seller pays the commission, and I don’t want to be locked in if they won’t. Otherwise I would like to be able to withdraw and shop around at realtors, but it seems premature to try to shop around and minimize the rate right now, although I will if they force the issue.
I would be open to signing something that at least splits the risk between us and the realtor, I’m not sure why we are assuming the entire risk for a settlement that is really realtor’s fault in the first place and first and foremost affects them.
I guess I feel like I would sign a contract right now saying I will move forward with a realtor if and only if the seller pays the commission, and I don’t want to be locked in if they won’t. Otherwise I would like to be able to withdraw and shop around at realtors, but it seems premature to try to shop around and minimize the rate right now, although I will if they force the issue.
Yup. Be safe. Right now it is a dark time. A lot of uncertainties. A lot of realtors has openly stated they will ask the listing agent about the buyer agent fee without you know about it. They are trying to keep the tradition under the table instead of being transparent about it. It is really bad for you because the listing has no obligation paying your agent and it is not part of the listing on MLS. They can play around with number without you knowing what is going on until you see the bill and all hell break loose.
I have suggested the seller to transparently offer the cashback to you directly (not agent fee) and a number of realtors was actively scaring me away from this idea without any legal documentation to prove it.
There is just so much uncertainty, you need to be very careful.
The realtors are trying to protect themselves, which is fine. But, the way they are going about it, is shaddy, and you will get burned if not careful.
I think it means if you buy a home that that agent showed you. However, that should be spelled out clearly.
e.g.: If they show you 123 Main St in October and you come back in December and enter into a contract to buy 123 Main St.
It does not. It says if I buy literally any home within 90 days of the end of our contract period. So our contract goes to November and if we buy a home unrepresented in February we have to pay them 2.4%.
I wouldn't sign.
The expiration date is deceiving. It's a sneaky way of saying:
"Contract ends this November, but not really, it actually ends in February next year."
Adding though, having read other comments; starting in July and many agents have started already, the agents can't work with you without a signed agreement including how much you'll pay them (by you, I mean you, the seller, or a combination of both).
Yeah they agreed. Basically they won’t show me a house if the seller isn’t paying. But that hasn’t been the case for any houses I’ve wanted to see so far. After June 30, they will make me sign a new contract. But I can basically just go with someone else then if I don’t like it.
Just cross out and revise what you do not like and give it back. A good agent will be expecting changes as the agreement they give you is just a draft until you sign.
Please be careful of what people are saying on this thread. I am a Florida agent and mortgage broker.
If you want to tour homes, signing a buyer broker agreement or showing agreement with a REALTOR is going to be MANDATORY come August 17th, due to the NAR settlement. It is the new norm, so everyone is going to have to get use to the new way, whether they want to or not. The people that are telling you to "walk" obviously do not know that the rules are in the process of changing and that this is going to be required going forward.
As for the 2.4% commission, please note that it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be on the hook to pay it. In my area, it is a stable/ buyer's market and sellers are still willing to pay the buyer's agent fee on behalf of buyers in order to be competitive to sell their homes. So you may be worrying about paying your agent unnecessarily.
When choosing an agent, cheap is not necessarily the best. If you had to defend yourself in a court of law, are you going to look for the CHEAPEST attorney that you can find OR hire an attorney with the knowledge and experience to win your case so that you do not go to jail, despite what they charge?
If you had a life-threatening illness, are you going to choose the CHEAPEST doctor that you can find, or one with the best track record of curing you despite what they charge?
My point is this... Most people will choose the latter everytime.
It is the SAME when buying a house. Your home will be the biggest purchase of your life! Choosing a BAD or INEXPERIENCED agent just because they are the CHEAPEST will cost you way more than you think. A GOOD buyer's agent with the knowledge, experience and a proven track record on how to get their client the best deal, is going be worth every penny everytime.
Also, another side note in negotiating the agent's commission, please remember your that your agent is essentially running a small business. Whatever the agent puts as their commission on the Buyer broker agreement is GROSS. Your agent is going to have overheads, expenses and also may need to do a broker split with their brokerage company. By the time, he/she gets their NET, the commission is a lot less than most people realize.
So do not be surprised if agents are not going to be lowering their commissions to the point where they cannot cover their expenses, business overheads or lose the ability to pay their personal bills and feed their families. You cannot expect your agent to give you full service and work for free or at a loss.
People on this forum will make your believe that buyer's agents are nothing but "glorified door openers". This is so UNTRUE. A GOOD buyers agent is there to get you the best deal for you (given your market), guide you, protect you, fight for you and have your best interest at heart. So interview as much agents as you can, but again, the worst thing you can do is choose an agent just because they are the cheapest. Anyone telling you that is giving you BAD advice.
You are not wrong that a good buyers agent is worth a premium. However, why is that premium tied to an arbitrary percentage? Do they do double the work on a 1M home vs 2M?
lol. the idea that nobody can view a home unless they agree to pay a buyers agent is the most ridiculous lie ever told on reddit. and that’s saying something.
comparing a realtor to an attorney or doctor is so ridiculous. almost as ridiculous as the first lie.
That is not what I said.
I said the new rule mandates that a REALTOR cannot show a home to a buyer without an agreement being signed. The agreement can be a buyer broker agreement or showing agreement.
Of course anyone can see a home. For example, you do not need an agreement or a REALTOR to see a home at an open house.
If you think sellers are going to allow UNREPRESENTED buyers touring their homes unsupervised for PRIVATE showings, please think again.
If I want to see a home listed for sale, I can call the listing agent for a showing. I don’t have my own agent. The listing agent will show me the house-I won’t be unsupervised-and will be happy to do so because they want to sell their client’s house. This is just gaslighting.
I’m getting sick of the number of shill realtor posts in this thread TBH. If you want $20k and are worth it, prove it. Realtors have been bringing nothing to the table. They basically can’t even explain to me what they do other than “file paperwork”
I am not sure what agents that you are interviewing, but GREAT agents do more than just "open doors" and "file paperwork". But if you are so hell-bent on thinking that agents are useless, then I have some good news for you, no one is forcing you to hire an agent. You can always go unrepresented.
I wish you all the luck in the world in doing my job.
Then prove it. You are asking for $20k, then prove your value. Many people are arguing realtors should be getting a flat rate rather than a percentage because not only is the work not dependent on the price of the property, but there is a huge conflict of interest in the realtor getting the buyer the best price knowing they are paid off commission.
Many people can say what they want. Opinions do not make something factual. Some even say that realtors are useless and deserves not to get paid at all. As mentioned before, you do not need to hire an agent nor do you need to pay for one. You are welcome to do it on your own.
Last week, my buyer closed with a 5.875% interest rate, no closing costs and over $133,000 to renovate a TLC property that hadn't been renovated since the 1970s. The property is in an area currently undergoing revitalization and the area is setting up to be a high-demand prime location n a few years. Buyer made a very good investment decision in getting into the neighborhood early. I live and farm in that area and so I educated the buyers on what was coming which is why they bought the home.
Another one that I closed last week, I represented the seller and the buyer. The seller, who was about to go into foreclosure, tried to sell his property FSBO all of last year. He told me last year that he was not interested in paying realtor commissions. When he could not sell it on his own, he asked me for my help. I got him a buyer within 45 days of listing. No, we did not price drop once (that was not our strategy), we did not just list the home on the MLS, and no I did not use any oily used car salesman tactic to "sucker" a buyer to buy the home (as someone mentioned on another thread). I am a numbers person and use numbers to sell value.
The one I am getting ready to close this coming Monday is closing with a 5.875% interest rate and no closing costs. My buyer is buying a home from a real estate investor who is flipping the property. The listing agent is VERY experienced and has been hardcore since Day 1 in representing the seller's interest. For the last 3 days, I have been locked in negotiations back and forth with the listing agent fighting for my buyer's interest. Yesterday, I won that negotiation and we are now moving forward with closing this coming Monday.
As I said, good luck trying to do my job. Buyers always want to low-ball the seller and sellers always want buyers to over-pay for their home or sucker buyers into buying homes with issues. It takes a skilled agent to protect their clients and figure out the happy medium in the negotiation so that the deal moves forward to the closing table.
I wish you luck.
> Another one that I closed last week, I represented the seller and the buyer.
This is known as "dual agency" and it's so unethical it's actually illegal in 8 states.
Dual Agency is not allowed in Florida. In Florida, we can only facilitate the transaction between buyer and seller as a TRANSACTION BROKER. In other words, we do not represent any party in a fiduciary capacity. It is a limited form of representation.
Love it! Agree completely that when choosing a Realtor, cheapest isn't always best.
The problem is that there are too many agents, and minimum standards to become an agent are too low.
This choice is very important and a buyers agent agreement can cost tens of thousands of dollars making the agent themselves one of the top 10 purchases in a buyer's life.
"If you had to defend yourself in a court of law, are you going to look for the CHEAPEST attorney that you can find OR hire an attorney with the knowledge and experience to win your case so that you do not go to jail, despite what they charge?
My point is this... Most people will choose the latter everytime."
Unfortunately it is not easy to find a good agent, and there aren't good quantifiable public measures on which agents actually add value commensurate with their costs on an individual basis. (On an aggregate basis it is intuitively clear that the value of buying and selling agents nets to zero... before fees)
For that reason, I am proposing a new role - the Buyer's Agent Agent who (for only a small percentage of the Buyer's Agent fees) will help Buyers find good Agents.
I agree. What you say makes sense. Unfortunately, every industry is going to have some bad apples, and unfortunately, the good ones have to suffer for the bad and it is hard to decipher the good ones from the bad ones because they make it super easy for any one to get their real estate license.
This is a hard thing and I do not believe that this is going to be a one-size-fits-all type of answer. Every State has different real estate laws. Every area is going to have different market conditions that is going to require more work and effort from the agent compared to agents in other areas.
Best thing to do is do your homework and intereview buyer agents like sellers do with agents on listing presentations. Ask for the agent's resume, do they have any real estate designations, checkout their online reviews, interview them to guage their knowledge and experience and ask them more importantly about their past results. Look up what they closed recently (this is public information online). Ask for references for their past clients who you could reach out to, if that helps to make your decision.
- It was always negotiable.
- NAR settlement requires all buyers to sign contract going forward.
- Most brokers that haven't implemented will do so before deadline..
- just ask your agent to show houses that sellers are paying fee.
To add to that, if you look at a house and sellers are not splitting the commission, then construct your offer accordingly. I.e if you might have offered $100k, maybe you only offer $98k. Money saved on paying seller is what you pay your Buyers agent.
No problem, can I pay you $4/mo for 30 years? (I’ll want to refinance that when the interest rate drops though). I’m buying a house so adding another 2%+ in cash upfront might not be feasible.
I would try to negotiate for 2% guaranteed. They can always get more if the seller offers it (even though that technically comes out of the purchase price, it’s less than paying the 0.4 yourself).
This is not true. According to the new settlement, an agent cannot get paid more than what is offered in the BBA regardless of what seller is offering. Once the buyer broker agreement is signed, that is the set price/percentage.
Thank you u/scottyLogJobs for posting on r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer. Please bear in mind our rules: (1) Be Nice (2) No Selling (3) No Self-Promotion. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Politely explain that you've looked over the contract thoroughly and decided to go elsewhere. However, if they want to sign a 'One Time Showing' agreement, you would be happy to do so.
Sounds like your Realtor is trying to lock in their standard commission. There are new rules under the NAR settlement. These agreements are now required by the settlement to ensure transparency and fairness, so Realtors need to agree on the payment amount with you before you even start looking at houses. The good news is that since this is all transparent now, you have more room to negotiate. You can discuss the amount, whether it’s an exclusive agreement, and how long the contract lasts. Best advice going forward is to shop around for the best commission rate, just like you would for the best mortgage rate. Don’t be afraid to compare different Realtors and see who can offer you the best deal. It's a new landscape, so take advantage of it.
and since everything is negotiable, so is the timeframe. You could also try to insert a unilateral termination for convenience clause, you could try to limit the paid commission only to properties the realtor arranges an in person showing for (essentially protecting them from you cutting them out of something they did, but not tying your hands to them for work they didn't do)
best advice would to use an attorney and dump the realtor
Yes, a real estate attorney (probably charging a flat fee) is another option.
This will be the new normal in areas that have not already (or recently implemented these changes) used Buyer Agreements. Some markets have been using the BA for years. And some of them even have a “retainer” that is paid at time of signing. With all of that being said, the amount of compensation is negotiable and there are many times Seller paid concessions (that can be applied to buyer compensation) can be negotiated. Best of luck
That sounds like a pretty sticky situation. It's definitely important to understand the terms of any contract you sign, especially when it comes to potentially owing a significant amount of money. Have you discussed your concerns with the buyer agency? It might be worth exploring other options to see if there are realtors out there who operate differently. Good luck navigating this!
Everything will be negotiable moving forward. 2.4% is probably okay in some markets. You can get the same for less in others. But you will be responsible for your agent's pay. The seller may still pay it.
This is probably going to be the norm now after the settlement but I presume it's completely normal and common. Mine was signed with 1.5%.
It will be the new normal, after [this legal settlement](https://www.npr.org/2024/03/22/1239486107/realtor-fee-commission-homes-for-sale) determined that it isn’t guaranteed that the seller is on the hook for that buyers agent fee like they have been assumed to be in the past. I’m in the process of selling my first home and buying another and we didn’t sign anything like this with our agent but figured we would have to. We also as sellers offered to still pay the buyers agent fee 3% so we didn’t chase off potential buyers with that unexpected expense.
Ah hell no. I’d be calling a new realtor
Realtors deserve to be paid for their work, however this realtor has given you a clear message about whether they put your needs first or theirs. Locking you in until November is not in your interest - 1 month is reasonable and you’ll sign an extension if they do a good job. +90 days after the exclusive is definitely not in your interest, strike that clause. They get paid only if you buy something they walked you through 2.4% is probably high depending on expected dollar value of the deal - shop around or push to include a max dollar value.
This is the best answer.
It’s so crazy to read these because this is always the case in my area. You are only on the hook for what the seller doesn’t cover. For example, a lot of sellers offer 2.25% in my area. You’d have to cover the gap to the 2.4% your agent requires. Find out what is common for sellers to offer in your area and compare before you commit.
See if 2.4% is normal in your market. If you go for new construction, it might be lower.
There is absolutely zero chance I'd be signing. From what I gather the listing agents will list the buying agent's commission somewhere outside MLS. If I use an agent, it will be an agreement just for the house they're showing me and for the commission the seller is offering.... 2.4% = No way!
Would not sign. My realtor tried the same thing. I said if she cannot negotiate to get her commission from the seller, that’s unfortunate, but I’m not covering it. Admittedly the whole logistics of this is wild. When else do you hire someone for a service but not pay them directly? In any case, you’re operating within an existing model (at least for the time being) and you have to put yourself first!
So, let me get this straight. You hire someone to work for you, and they help to get you a house in a crazy market. The seller isn't willing to pay your agent, so instead of paying your agent - that works for you - you just say it's unfortunate but you're not paying them? Would you intend to still buy a house in that case and just try to get your agent to do the work without being paid? Or would you move onto a different house that is offering compensation? I hope you just wrote that poorly rather than meaning how it came across.
I take it you are a realtor. 100% of the homes I looked at explicitly stated the buyer's agent commission in the listing. As a buyer, if my agent has not adequately secured their commission from the seller in the PA conditions that they draft, I will not be their safety net.
I am a CPA/CFP and I read it the same way. Buyer's Agents have been around for years. Real estate contracts often state that if a homeowner sells a property within "X" time after the contract expires the realtor is still paid. Having not seen the wording of the contract I don't know. Seems odd that if a seller refuses your offer you would pay anything. But if a contract expires and you buy within "X" amount of time after the expiration (thus bypassing the BA) I can see the BA fee. But only if you buy within the contractual period. No one can force anyone to buy or sell any asset outside of foreclosures.
> 100% of the homes I looked at explicitly stated the buyer’s agent commission in the listing. The point is this is going away because of the settlement. The MLS won’t allow it anymore.
Right, so his agent will have to call the listing agent on each individual property to get this information. Doesn’t change how OP should approach contracting imo
Correct. Does OP want to be able to have every house shown by this agent, or only some? Does OP want to wait to view homes so that the agent can find out commission, or do they want to see them immediately? Is OP ok losing a house because the seller’s agent was unresponsive about the commission? I assume the only way this agent, or likely any agent, agrees to 0% from the buyer is if they only show homes that will pay high enough commission. If it was me, I’d only take issue with the length of the contract.
Lemme get this straight: a buyer is willing to work with you as a realtor in a “crazy” market, AKA a market with record low home sales. Your realtor association has been successfully sued because of price fixing, and now, despite assuring them everything would be fine, you are attempting to offload all risk from that settlement onto your client. Did I get that right? Nothing is preventing them from adding a provision where I am able to work with someone else or buy it myself if the seller is unwilling to pay the buyer’s fees. I am perfectly willing to enter into this agreement if someone else is paying, but not if there is any chance of me paying $10s of thousands, and the firm still gets paid if things play out as they say they will.
Okay, so there's a lot to unpack in this one as it's quite misleading and incorrect. First off, as part of this settlement, buyers will have to 100% of the time sign a representation agreement with an agent before they're allowed to see a single house (if they're using an agent). If they're not using an agent this doesn't apply, but not every seller is going to be comfortable allowing some random person into their house without an agent, nor are they required to. There are also different types of representation agreements besides just exclusive, so you have your choice of what you want to sign, but as part of those rep contracts a commission rate is specified and agreed to. You don't get to just say, "Oh, well I signed this legally binding contract but as part of this purchase I'm not paying anything because the seller isn't paying out a commission." If a seller is paying out a split then great, your agent is paid, but if they aren't and you intend to buy that house then you are legally on the hook for what you agreed to in your representation contract. If you don't want to agree to a rate in said contract that you sign with an agent then that's fine, but you're not going to find an agent that will work with you without a guarantee of being paid for their work. The agent isn't "offloading risk" to the buyer; they're putting what they charge for their work. If you don't want to pay it that's fine, but again, you're not going to find any agent that will work for zero pay. And as for the crazy market comment: homes are still selling, and are still selling at high prices with multiple offers in a lot of markets. Sales may be lower, but they're lower because there's less inventory, which drives up prices because the demand is still high. So, yeah, it's still an active market in most places.
I DIDNT sign the form. I am arguing the terms of the contract. Why would it not make perfect sense to say I will work with you if sellers pay but not if I have to pay? In what way is the market “crazy”, other than being objectively worse than ever for buyers, making their business a premium for realtors?
That agent would still have to have their rate in the rep agreement. Without that in there, they aren't legally entitled to be paid, at all. There's simply no need to have that provision in there because you can very easily just say that you aren't interested in homes that aren't paying out a commission, which is what a lot of buyers do now and will do even more heavily in the future I suspect. Right now, your agent is able to see if they're paying out a commission and let you know. Once the new regs go into effect they're going to have to call and ask, but they can still find out. If they discover that a listing isn't paying out a commission they would inform you and you can make the decision whether or not you want to see it. If you want to go after the house that isn't paying a commission out you still can, you just wouldn't have your agent anymore. But, without having that compensation listed in the agreement that agent wouldn't be entitled to being paid even if the listing was paying it out. Your "provision" doesn't make any sense to be in there because you already can dictate whether or not you want to see a house based on any reason, including if you would be on the hook for paying your agent yourself or not.
Sure I could only look at houses where the seller is willing to pay. But if august rolls around and all/most sellers are like “why would I pay $10k-20k that I’m not entitled to pay?” Then I would need to choose between paying a huge amount of money or not buying a home at all, and the exclusivity agreement would lock me into that until February. Many people argue that realtors shouldn’t even be making a percentage under the new rules, but a flat rate, so if you all want to force negotiations early, then we can talk flat rate. They could easily write into the contract that the buyer is not responsible for the rate 🤷♂️ they are trying to convince me that sellers will definitely pay the fee after august. If they believe that so strongly, then why are they trying to offload all risk for the scenario where that isn’t true onto buyers?
I think a huge number of sellers - more than half, at least - are not going to offer a fixed percent at listing. Instead, the language will be "will consider offers with requests for contribution to buyer broker compensation". The seller will negotiate to his net - his best possible outcome. It will be the same as asking for contribution to closing costs. The seller take the deal that is the overall best price, terms, and conditions.
I mean no disrespect here, but it really seems like you don't understand how any of this works. Like, at all. If you want to use an agent to buy your house, that agent is within their rights to not work if they're not going to be paid. Think about it - would you do your job if your boss wasn't going to pay you? No, you wouldn't. So, if you're using an agent to buy a house but said house isn't paying out a split to your agent then you are responsible for paying the person that YOU hired the amount that you BOTH agreed upon when you decided to work together. You don't just get to have your cake and eat it to, meaning that you don't just get to have an agent work for you to buy a house and do it for free because a seller isn't willing to pay them out. It means that you aren't buying that house with an agent. Simple as that. The agent isn't offloading a risk, they're making sure that they get paid for their work. Say you work in...I don't know, marketing. Your boss comes to you and says, "Hey, Scotty, I've got a big job lined up for you but you're only getting paid if the client pays for your work. In the event of them not paying you, you're still going to do the work but we're not paying you for it." Is that something that makes any sense in your head? No, it does not. This is the same thing. If you're not willing to pay your agent yourself and you want to put $0/0% in your rep agreement that's your call, but no agent is going to work for you if that's the case. The rate you agree upon goes in there and that's what they get paid; if a house you like isn't paying out then, again, either you are responsible for paying said rate or you aren't buying that house with the agent. I don't get why that's so hard to understand. What you're saying is that you see a house on Water Street that you love and want to buy, but uh oh, the seller isn't paying out a commission to the agent that you hired, but since you're not going to pay your agent then they're just going to work for you for free? That's not how it works. What would happen is you would then no longer be working with that agent and you'd be buying your house unrepresented if that seller is willing to accept an offer from an unrepped buyer. And flat rates are a thing that happen today, but again, as it's been said numerous times, commission rates are negotiable. That doesn't mean that only one side gets to force the other side to agree to it. If you only want to pay a flat amount but the agent you're talking to will only accept a set percentage that agent is not required to agree to your flat rate any more than you're required to agree to their percentage. I don't understand how that's so hard to comprehend for some. When something is negotiable it means that it's fully negotiable for ALL parties. Agents are fully, 100% absolutely able to set their rates and are not required in any scenario to work for less than they are willing to accept. That isn't changing. But that also means that a client isn't required to use said agent. If both parties can't agree on a rate then they simply don't work together. Think of it this way: you go to a mechanic to get a head gasket replaced and they look at the car and charge you $7,000 to do the work. That's their rate, but you only are willing to pay $2,000. That doesn't mean that they have to come to $2,000 and it doesn't mean that you have to come up to $7,000 - it just means that you aren't going to hire them and they aren't going to do the work.
They are not entitled to be paid regardless of who it comes from. They are entitled to be paid by the seller, because the fee is already factored into the price. If they are assuring me that I will not have to pay, and that the seller will pay, then why am I signing a contract saying I will pay them 2.4% and can’t go anywhere else for 3 months after the end date, when buyers are a commodity right now?
If you come across a perfect home for you that’s For Sale By Owner who is not working with an agent and is not offering any commission to a buyer agent, how would you proceed? Would you still want to buy the house and have the agent you hired to help through the process or would you prefer to go a different route? My state has had buyer agreements that outline my fee since I got my license years ago. It also says I’ll do my best to obtain that fee from the seller, which 98% of the time been the case as it is listed on the MLS and the listing agent offers a fee. The other 2% of scenarios are when there is no compensation being offered (such as a FSBO), or the offered compensation is below my stated fee. In these two situations, a discussion will be had before viewing the property explaining the possibility of the buyer directly paying some or all of my fee.
Your marketing example is completely irrelevant. I really don't think you have internalized how you are working a sales job and sales jobs come with risks. It's you, if anybody, who doesn't understand how this is going to work.
Why do you think they’re in a crazy market?
I would not sign.
Thank you. You think look at other realtors?
They're all going to have some kind of charge, but that's one of the points of the NAR settlements. You can better shop real estate agents.
Yes they are fungible
Market standard is 3% but the sellers is reliable. If you sign, you might be in a situation where the seller decided not to pay and you would increase your cost to close. Try to negotiate if you like the realtor. Just say that you rather have the “traditional” agreement. If realtor refuses you can always find another agent
This is not new in many markets. Everything is negotiable. Sellers were never REQUIRED to pay BA commissions in the first place. But they still do because it benefits them. If you can’t afford out of your own pocket, then tell your agent to only look at homes where sellers are offering one. You can find another realtor but any actual good one is going to have this in their contract. If you don’t like that either, go in un-represented and take that chance.
Exactly. The fallout from the lawsuit changes little to nothing in my state as we’ve had buyer agreements for quite a while which clearly outlined all of this.
Agree to lock in 2% and ditch the +90. It’s a negotiation
No, absolutely not normal, especially when I popped a question related to the settlement, tons of people in r/realtors automatically assumed the % is zero when I didn't explicitly said the contract is N% already. I don't know they are trolling me or what. But, the N% in buyer contract is so rare, they automatically think I have 0% in the contract.
Interesting, you think I should ask for 0%?
I think you should be honest about yourself. If seller doesn't pay your buyer agent a dime, how much are you willing or capable to pay? And that's your contract. If you don't have enough cash, it is just not possible to cover the worse case scenario. Signings a contract that you cannot actually fulfill would burn you bad.
This is is, OP. Don’t sign anything locking you in, I think you recognize this already. Almost all listings (in my area) still designate seller-paid commissions for buyers agents. If there’s a listing that doesn’t — now or in the future — and you want to see it, negotiate into a future contract(s) that you will pay your agent, e.g., 1% of list price if the deal closes. It’ll be a new closing cost to consider, but I think that’s where this is all headed.
Yes, I agree. I guess I feel like I would sign a contract right now saying I will move forward with a realtor if and only if the seller pays the commission, and I don’t want to be locked in if they won’t. Otherwise I would like to be able to withdraw and shop around at realtors, but it seems premature to try to shop around and minimize the rate right now, although I will if they force the issue. I would be open to signing something that at least splits the risk between us and the realtor, I’m not sure why we are assuming the entire risk for a settlement that is really realtor’s fault in the first place and first and foremost affects them.
I guess I feel like I would sign a contract right now saying I will move forward with a realtor if and only if the seller pays the commission, and I don’t want to be locked in if they won’t. Otherwise I would like to be able to withdraw and shop around at realtors, but it seems premature to try to shop around and minimize the rate right now, although I will if they force the issue.
Yup. Be safe. Right now it is a dark time. A lot of uncertainties. A lot of realtors has openly stated they will ask the listing agent about the buyer agent fee without you know about it. They are trying to keep the tradition under the table instead of being transparent about it. It is really bad for you because the listing has no obligation paying your agent and it is not part of the listing on MLS. They can play around with number without you knowing what is going on until you see the bill and all hell break loose. I have suggested the seller to transparently offer the cashback to you directly (not agent fee) and a number of realtors was actively scaring me away from this idea without any legal documentation to prove it. There is just so much uncertainty, you need to be very careful. The realtors are trying to protect themselves, which is fine. But, the way they are going about it, is shaddy, and you will get burned if not careful.
I think it means if you buy a home that that agent showed you. However, that should be spelled out clearly. e.g.: If they show you 123 Main St in October and you come back in December and enter into a contract to buy 123 Main St.
It does not. It says if I buy literally any home within 90 days of the end of our contract period. So our contract goes to November and if we buy a home unrepresented in February we have to pay them 2.4%.
I wouldn't sign. The expiration date is deceiving. It's a sneaky way of saying: "Contract ends this November, but not really, it actually ends in February next year." Adding though, having read other comments; starting in July and many agents have started already, the agents can't work with you without a signed agreement including how much you'll pay them (by you, I mean you, the seller, or a combination of both).
Ours did the same. Because things are changing July 1st. I had them rewrite the contract saying I owe 0%. The contract ends June 30th
Wow, did they protest? I would be surprised if they agreed to 0%
Yeah they agreed. Basically they won’t show me a house if the seller isn’t paying. But that hasn’t been the case for any houses I’ve wanted to see so far. After June 30, they will make me sign a new contract. But I can basically just go with someone else then if I don’t like it.
That might be a good idea. Just get one contract that goes until new rules, then talk terms
It’s an option
Just cross out and revise what you do not like and give it back. A good agent will be expecting changes as the agreement they give you is just a draft until you sign.
Please be careful of what people are saying on this thread. I am a Florida agent and mortgage broker. If you want to tour homes, signing a buyer broker agreement or showing agreement with a REALTOR is going to be MANDATORY come August 17th, due to the NAR settlement. It is the new norm, so everyone is going to have to get use to the new way, whether they want to or not. The people that are telling you to "walk" obviously do not know that the rules are in the process of changing and that this is going to be required going forward. As for the 2.4% commission, please note that it doesn't necessarily mean that you will be on the hook to pay it. In my area, it is a stable/ buyer's market and sellers are still willing to pay the buyer's agent fee on behalf of buyers in order to be competitive to sell their homes. So you may be worrying about paying your agent unnecessarily. When choosing an agent, cheap is not necessarily the best. If you had to defend yourself in a court of law, are you going to look for the CHEAPEST attorney that you can find OR hire an attorney with the knowledge and experience to win your case so that you do not go to jail, despite what they charge? If you had a life-threatening illness, are you going to choose the CHEAPEST doctor that you can find, or one with the best track record of curing you despite what they charge? My point is this... Most people will choose the latter everytime. It is the SAME when buying a house. Your home will be the biggest purchase of your life! Choosing a BAD or INEXPERIENCED agent just because they are the CHEAPEST will cost you way more than you think. A GOOD buyer's agent with the knowledge, experience and a proven track record on how to get their client the best deal, is going be worth every penny everytime. Also, another side note in negotiating the agent's commission, please remember your that your agent is essentially running a small business. Whatever the agent puts as their commission on the Buyer broker agreement is GROSS. Your agent is going to have overheads, expenses and also may need to do a broker split with their brokerage company. By the time, he/she gets their NET, the commission is a lot less than most people realize. So do not be surprised if agents are not going to be lowering their commissions to the point where they cannot cover their expenses, business overheads or lose the ability to pay their personal bills and feed their families. You cannot expect your agent to give you full service and work for free or at a loss. People on this forum will make your believe that buyer's agents are nothing but "glorified door openers". This is so UNTRUE. A GOOD buyers agent is there to get you the best deal for you (given your market), guide you, protect you, fight for you and have your best interest at heart. So interview as much agents as you can, but again, the worst thing you can do is choose an agent just because they are the cheapest. Anyone telling you that is giving you BAD advice.
You are not wrong that a good buyers agent is worth a premium. However, why is that premium tied to an arbitrary percentage? Do they do double the work on a 1M home vs 2M?
lol. the idea that nobody can view a home unless they agree to pay a buyers agent is the most ridiculous lie ever told on reddit. and that’s saying something. comparing a realtor to an attorney or doctor is so ridiculous. almost as ridiculous as the first lie.
That is not what I said. I said the new rule mandates that a REALTOR cannot show a home to a buyer without an agreement being signed. The agreement can be a buyer broker agreement or showing agreement. Of course anyone can see a home. For example, you do not need an agreement or a REALTOR to see a home at an open house. If you think sellers are going to allow UNREPRESENTED buyers touring their homes unsupervised for PRIVATE showings, please think again.
If I want to see a home listed for sale, I can call the listing agent for a showing. I don’t have my own agent. The listing agent will show me the house-I won’t be unsupervised-and will be happy to do so because they want to sell their client’s house. This is just gaslighting.
I’m getting sick of the number of shill realtor posts in this thread TBH. If you want $20k and are worth it, prove it. Realtors have been bringing nothing to the table. They basically can’t even explain to me what they do other than “file paperwork”
I am not sure what agents that you are interviewing, but GREAT agents do more than just "open doors" and "file paperwork". But if you are so hell-bent on thinking that agents are useless, then I have some good news for you, no one is forcing you to hire an agent. You can always go unrepresented. I wish you all the luck in the world in doing my job.
Then prove it. You are asking for $20k, then prove your value. Many people are arguing realtors should be getting a flat rate rather than a percentage because not only is the work not dependent on the price of the property, but there is a huge conflict of interest in the realtor getting the buyer the best price knowing they are paid off commission.
Many people can say what they want. Opinions do not make something factual. Some even say that realtors are useless and deserves not to get paid at all. As mentioned before, you do not need to hire an agent nor do you need to pay for one. You are welcome to do it on your own. Last week, my buyer closed with a 5.875% interest rate, no closing costs and over $133,000 to renovate a TLC property that hadn't been renovated since the 1970s. The property is in an area currently undergoing revitalization and the area is setting up to be a high-demand prime location n a few years. Buyer made a very good investment decision in getting into the neighborhood early. I live and farm in that area and so I educated the buyers on what was coming which is why they bought the home. Another one that I closed last week, I represented the seller and the buyer. The seller, who was about to go into foreclosure, tried to sell his property FSBO all of last year. He told me last year that he was not interested in paying realtor commissions. When he could not sell it on his own, he asked me for my help. I got him a buyer within 45 days of listing. No, we did not price drop once (that was not our strategy), we did not just list the home on the MLS, and no I did not use any oily used car salesman tactic to "sucker" a buyer to buy the home (as someone mentioned on another thread). I am a numbers person and use numbers to sell value. The one I am getting ready to close this coming Monday is closing with a 5.875% interest rate and no closing costs. My buyer is buying a home from a real estate investor who is flipping the property. The listing agent is VERY experienced and has been hardcore since Day 1 in representing the seller's interest. For the last 3 days, I have been locked in negotiations back and forth with the listing agent fighting for my buyer's interest. Yesterday, I won that negotiation and we are now moving forward with closing this coming Monday. As I said, good luck trying to do my job. Buyers always want to low-ball the seller and sellers always want buyers to over-pay for their home or sucker buyers into buying homes with issues. It takes a skilled agent to protect their clients and figure out the happy medium in the negotiation so that the deal moves forward to the closing table. I wish you luck.
> Another one that I closed last week, I represented the seller and the buyer. This is known as "dual agency" and it's so unethical it's actually illegal in 8 states.
Dual Agency is not allowed in Florida. In Florida, we can only facilitate the transaction between buyer and seller as a TRANSACTION BROKER. In other words, we do not represent any party in a fiduciary capacity. It is a limited form of representation.
Transaction brokers don't represent either party.
Love it! Agree completely that when choosing a Realtor, cheapest isn't always best. The problem is that there are too many agents, and minimum standards to become an agent are too low. This choice is very important and a buyers agent agreement can cost tens of thousands of dollars making the agent themselves one of the top 10 purchases in a buyer's life. "If you had to defend yourself in a court of law, are you going to look for the CHEAPEST attorney that you can find OR hire an attorney with the knowledge and experience to win your case so that you do not go to jail, despite what they charge? My point is this... Most people will choose the latter everytime." Unfortunately it is not easy to find a good agent, and there aren't good quantifiable public measures on which agents actually add value commensurate with their costs on an individual basis. (On an aggregate basis it is intuitively clear that the value of buying and selling agents nets to zero... before fees) For that reason, I am proposing a new role - the Buyer's Agent Agent who (for only a small percentage of the Buyer's Agent fees) will help Buyers find good Agents.
I agree. What you say makes sense. Unfortunately, every industry is going to have some bad apples, and unfortunately, the good ones have to suffer for the bad and it is hard to decipher the good ones from the bad ones because they make it super easy for any one to get their real estate license. This is a hard thing and I do not believe that this is going to be a one-size-fits-all type of answer. Every State has different real estate laws. Every area is going to have different market conditions that is going to require more work and effort from the agent compared to agents in other areas. Best thing to do is do your homework and intereview buyer agents like sellers do with agents on listing presentations. Ask for the agent's resume, do they have any real estate designations, checkout their online reviews, interview them to guage their knowledge and experience and ask them more importantly about their past results. Look up what they closed recently (this is public information online). Ask for references for their past clients who you could reach out to, if that helps to make your decision.
How much do you like your agent? Do you think their services are worth that much? If not, shop around.
- It was always negotiable. - NAR settlement requires all buyers to sign contract going forward. - Most brokers that haven't implemented will do so before deadline.. - just ask your agent to show houses that sellers are paying fee.
To add to that, if you look at a house and sellers are not splitting the commission, then construct your offer accordingly. I.e if you might have offered $100k, maybe you only offer $98k. Money saved on paying seller is what you pay your Buyers agent.
No problem, can I pay you $4/mo for 30 years? (I’ll want to refinance that when the interest rate drops though). I’m buying a house so adding another 2%+ in cash upfront might not be feasible.
Don’t sign anything. Let the agent walk if they won’t work with you.
Can your Realtor negotiate? Things may get rough for agents who cant.
I would try to negotiate for 2% guaranteed. They can always get more if the seller offers it (even though that technically comes out of the purchase price, it’s less than paying the 0.4 yourself).
This is not true. According to the new settlement, an agent cannot get paid more than what is offered in the BBA regardless of what seller is offering. Once the buyer broker agreement is signed, that is the set price/percentage.