That's what I figured... the buyer's name would have to be written into the contract.
Curious about something....
- Thread starter Steve
- Start date
That's what I figured... the buyer's name would have to be written into the contract.
SwampBillies
New member
That is exactly right Mal. If he is willing to come off the market value number, he will do it before the contract expires. And by not working with the realtor Steve would have no idea that this guy dropped the price of the house by $20,000 this morning and he got a contract on it two hours after it hit the MLS at the new price.
rebeccag
New member
My husband is a Realtor, and even though he works from straight commission, I don't see any problem with waiting out the contract. Now, if you've asked another Realtor to show you the home or signed a buyer's agency, that's another issue altogether...
Also, I personally would recommend making an offer with a different agent than the selling agent. Although they might be willing to cut commission, they are legally obligated to represent the sellers, since they are locked into a listing agreement. There is a such thing as "dual agency", but you have to have someone's best interests at heart, and who knows who that will be - maybe the Realtor.
Also, I personally would recommend making an offer with a different agent than the selling agent. Although they might be willing to cut commission, they are legally obligated to represent the sellers, since they are locked into a listing agreement. There is a such thing as "dual agency", but you have to have someone's best interests at heart, and who knows who that will be - maybe the Realtor.
bikinibound
New member
If the sellers feel that their agent is doing the best job possible, and would re-list the property with him after the current contract expires, then I think it would be underhanded to go in there and wait it out. However, if they are not satisfied with his job performance, then I don't think it's bad, b/c they would've re-listed the house with another agent at that time anyway.
In financial advising, which I know is a different world than being a R/E agent... we were doing something similar. We would do financial planning and investment recommendations for a potential client in hopes that they'd choose to execute with us at the time of decision and we'd be paid by earning commission on the products we invested their monies in.
There were times however, when we did not get the business. We did the work up front, the individual was free to take the plan we prepared for them and execute elsewhere, and we weren't paid for it. And my firm doesn't consist of a bunch of schlups. We've been in business and we are family run for over 50 years. We do excellent work and are one of the larger, private financial advisors out there for a reason.
As a side note, looking back, I never once felt like the potential client was dishonest or underhanded. I understood it was the nature of the business.
My main point though is the 'market' corrected itself with regards to the deficiency in the context of advisors getting paid. Eventually financial advisors didn't like not getting paid for their work enough so that they changed the model. What happened?
Fee for planning started. You started charging a fee for up front planning and then you'd also earn a commission on transactions placed after the planning.
And now the industry or market is taking it a step further and ditching the commission-based mentality and pushing the fee-based platform where the advisor is paid on a percentage of invested assets. This way the advisor gets paid regardless.
I'm not making this point to suggest right or wrong.... I'm simply curious if:
a) Is losing deals to this sort of behavior mentioned in this thread a major problem with being a real estate agent and if so....
b) Do the agents in this thread ever see a push to correct the 'deficiency' similarly to what we see happening in the financial advising arena today. I am completely ignorant about the industry but do you ever see it going in the direction where the agent is paid partially up front using some medium to calculate... either current property value or something more fancy?
There were times however, when we did not get the business. We did the work up front, the individual was free to take the plan we prepared for them and execute elsewhere, and we weren't paid for it. And my firm doesn't consist of a bunch of schlups. We've been in business and we are family run for over 50 years. We do excellent work and are one of the larger, private financial advisors out there for a reason.
As a side note, looking back, I never once felt like the potential client was dishonest or underhanded. I understood it was the nature of the business.
My main point though is the 'market' corrected itself with regards to the deficiency in the context of advisors getting paid. Eventually financial advisors didn't like not getting paid for their work enough so that they changed the model. What happened?
Fee for planning started. You started charging a fee for up front planning and then you'd also earn a commission on transactions placed after the planning.
And now the industry or market is taking it a step further and ditching the commission-based mentality and pushing the fee-based platform where the advisor is paid on a percentage of invested assets. This way the advisor gets paid regardless.
I'm not making this point to suggest right or wrong.... I'm simply curious if:
a) Is losing deals to this sort of behavior mentioned in this thread a major problem with being a real estate agent and if so....
b) Do the agents in this thread ever see a push to correct the 'deficiency' similarly to what we see happening in the financial advising arena today. I am completely ignorant about the industry but do you ever see it going in the direction where the agent is paid partially up front using some medium to calculate... either current property value or something more fancy?
SwampBillies
New member
If there is any kind of change taking place in the real estate market it is cutting into the brokers profits and not adding to them. A realtor never gets paid for showing properties to a buyer. You can spend infinate amounts of time and gas and every Satuday and Sunday afternoon for months lugging these people around, just to find that they either won't or can't buy anything.
As a broker, one of the first things I try to teach a new agent is to try to prequalify a client. Make sure they have the ability to buy. Can they get financed. It is a tight rope. Because you don't want to waste your time, however you don't want to scare off your new client. People tend to bow up when you start asking about their finances.
On the listing side is where realtors traditionally make their money. But as you can see from some of the posts here, people tend to think that realtors make way too much money for doing way too little work. I will keep it short and just say that there is alot more time and work involved in working a listing than most people realize. I would also point out that all expenses that are incurred along with that listing come straight out of the realtors pocketbook. Not the company or the broker but the realtor herself pays for all her signs and advertising and fliers etc. Up front with no guarantee of being reimbursed unless the house sells.
So there are some companies out there that have started some new ways of making it look cheaper to list with them. You have the flat rate companies that charge a much cheaper flat rate up front. This is not a great deal for the homeowner because they pay for services that used to be free. Plus there is no incentive now for the realtor to work the listing. They have already been paid. But they are cheaper so some people use them.
Then you also have companies that are pricing listings ala carte. It will be this much to list it in MLS. This much more if you want us to show it for you. This much more if you want us to write contracts etc. Also not a great deal because the homeowner is left to do alot of the work themselves or even if they buy the whole package they are back to the original percentage and now they are working witn an agent that is not always a full service agent and may not be as experienced in some areas.
So in my opinion, as much as the general public would love to not have to pay a realtor to sell their home, much of the time it is the best and often times the least expensive route to take. In some sellers markets as we have had recently it is possible to find buyers on your own, but there are alot of legal ramifications and liabilities to be considered with that approach.
There are good ones and bad ones of every group of people. The sale and purchase of real estate are some of the most important decisions you will make. Don't just pick one out of a crowd and hope for the best. Make sure you feel comfortable. Ask for references from people you trust. Most good realtors don't advertise much, they make a living off of referrals from past customers and associates.
Wow, I am sorry this got so long, I guess it is the sales person in me.
As a broker, one of the first things I try to teach a new agent is to try to prequalify a client. Make sure they have the ability to buy. Can they get financed. It is a tight rope. Because you don't want to waste your time, however you don't want to scare off your new client. People tend to bow up when you start asking about their finances.
On the listing side is where realtors traditionally make their money. But as you can see from some of the posts here, people tend to think that realtors make way too much money for doing way too little work. I will keep it short and just say that there is alot more time and work involved in working a listing than most people realize. I would also point out that all expenses that are incurred along with that listing come straight out of the realtors pocketbook. Not the company or the broker but the realtor herself pays for all her signs and advertising and fliers etc. Up front with no guarantee of being reimbursed unless the house sells.
So there are some companies out there that have started some new ways of making it look cheaper to list with them. You have the flat rate companies that charge a much cheaper flat rate up front. This is not a great deal for the homeowner because they pay for services that used to be free. Plus there is no incentive now for the realtor to work the listing. They have already been paid. But they are cheaper so some people use them.
Then you also have companies that are pricing listings ala carte. It will be this much to list it in MLS. This much more if you want us to show it for you. This much more if you want us to write contracts etc. Also not a great deal because the homeowner is left to do alot of the work themselves or even if they buy the whole package they are back to the original percentage and now they are working witn an agent that is not always a full service agent and may not be as experienced in some areas.
So in my opinion, as much as the general public would love to not have to pay a realtor to sell their home, much of the time it is the best and often times the least expensive route to take. In some sellers markets as we have had recently it is possible to find buyers on your own, but there are alot of legal ramifications and liabilities to be considered with that approach.
There are good ones and bad ones of every group of people. The sale and purchase of real estate are some of the most important decisions you will make. Don't just pick one out of a crowd and hope for the best. Make sure you feel comfortable. Ask for references from people you trust. Most good realtors don't advertise much, they make a living off of referrals from past customers and associates.
Wow, I am sorry this got so long, I guess it is the sales person in me.
Awesome post!
And you certainly don't have to sell me on the idea that finding a competent agent to negotiate my deal is the best thing for me.
I was more interested in what direction you agents see your industry heading if this "dishonesty" is something that commonly happens in your business. Or is it part of the business and it's accepted as such. Build the best business model you can in hopes that this will be enough to minimize the "dishonest" tactics used by some clients.
From the sounds of it, there is some push but it's not really in the right direction.
And you certainly don't have to sell me on the idea that finding a competent agent to negotiate my deal is the best thing for me.
I was more interested in what direction you agents see your industry heading if this "dishonesty" is something that commonly happens in your business. Or is it part of the business and it's accepted as such. Build the best business model you can in hopes that this will be enough to minimize the "dishonest" tactics used by some clients.
From the sounds of it, there is some push but it's not really in the right direction.
JDhd
New member
The problem with waiting for the contract to expire is that they may close a deal with the agent, given that an agent has many more marketing opportunities available to him or her.
The only thing I can think of that would help, would be if you could convert a portion of the home to a rental property and get a mortgage assisting tenant in there. That could be the best thing for you or it could turn out to be a nightmare. It's always a gamble being a landlord.
Again, this wasn't about the risk of waiting for the contract to expire or not.
This thread was solely to hear your opinions on whether you think the buyer has a moral obligation to the seller's agent to not wait for the contract to expire.
Assume there are no negative consequences of the contract expiring.
This thread was solely to hear your opinions on whether you think the buyer has a moral obligation to the seller's agent to not wait for the contract to expire.
Assume there are no negative consequences of the contract expiring.
JDhd
New member
In that case, not your agent, not your problem.
LandonsBaby
New member
I don't think its dishonest or immoral. You have nothing to do with that agent. You did not hire them, you did not sign contracts with them. Its not your problem.