Easy way of telling RE agents that you are representing yourself when buying a house?

[STEPHAN]

Hey, its my money! Well, our money...

No. It is the sellers agents money, who now gets the full commission and does not see to split. He is for sure covered in this contract.

 

[pditty8811]

I'm sorry, but which part of "No thanks, we do not need your services" is hard to understand?

Subtle but direct. I like it.

 

[pditty8811]

No. It is the sellers agents money, who now gets the full commission and does not see to split. He is for sure covered in this contract.

No, if the contract says the buyer is not represented, and no dual agency agreement exists, and BAC will not be paid out, then the seller will keep the comission. The listing agent only gets their share.

EDIT:

Show me a real estate contract between you and your clients that states otherwise. And, I will counter with the above plus wrapping it in an "Entire Agreement Clause". Which, signed by all parties, overrides anything signed previously by the seller and his/her agent.

 

[pditty8811]

No. It is the sellers agents money, who now gets the full commission and does not see to split. He is for sure covered in this contract.

Agents try to use this BS with people all the time.

A civil court judge would laugh at such a lie.

 

[TigerD]

Agents try to use this BS with people all the time.

A civil court judge would laugh at such a lie.

I see why you are having a hard time buying real estate. Perhaps you should limit your search to for-sale-by-owner properties.

TD

 

[justalayman]

No, if the contract says the buyer is not represented, and no dual agency agreement exists, and BAC will not be paid out, then the seller will keep the comission. The listing agent only gets their share.

EDIT:

Show me a real estate contract between you and your clients that states otherwise. And, I will counter with the above plus wrapping it in an "Entire Agreement Clause". Which, signed by all parties, overrides anything signed previously by the seller and his/her agent.

Dude I used to sell real estate for a living. How about you?

Not only are you wrong but you are wrong in even suggesting anything you write in your offer can affect the contractual relationship already in place.

 

[justalayman]

Agents try to use this BS with people all the time.

A civil court judge would laugh at such a lie.

Stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[justalayman]

That is not true. If a clause in the offer states that no dual agency agreement exists and the BAC will not be paid out, then the seller will not be paying out that 2.5% or 3% to anyone. The seller will keep it.

EDIT;

On NWMLS form 21 there question 15. If the boxes for "Selling Broker" are not checked and "Listing Broker" only the "Seller" box is checked. Then the seller keeps that commission. And I can offer less on house. Easy. Also, a special clause helps to clarify things.

Anything else, or are you shafting people with your real estate nonsense when you talk to clients?

Yes it is true dude. It works like this;

Seller contracts with broker often represented by a sponsored agent to sell their house for $Xxx or x percent. Unless the selling broker has a contractual relationship with somebody else that allows others to sell the house, the listing brokerage gets all of the commission. If there is more than one agent involved how it gets split is an agreement between them or per a contract they have with their sponsoring broker


Due to the inception of the MLS (multiple listing system) owned by the national association of realtors, members of the NAR subscribe to mls and due to contractual obligations wil split the commission agreed upon in the listing agreement with another Realtor that sells the house (it was not usually a buyers agent as explained later). The split is usually 50/50 but I have had contracts weighted towards the selling agent in order to garner more activity by other agents on one of my listings. Just the same I have had contracts weighted towards me as a listing agent because I spent more of my money advertising the property than I did typically. Most contracts were simply 50/50.

So, since the sellers listing agreement is already in place, the listing broker is not going to accept your ****amamie crap about a buyers agent share (because actuslly more often than not there was not a buyers agent. The sellers agent did act in a dual role to an extent but rarely did it go as far as being considered being a buyers agent. That was simply too messy and too many possibilities of problems.) being excluded from the listing agreement.

So, as I said before; you are just wrong.

 

[Silverplum]

Stop making a fool of yourself.

That began with post #1.

 

[pditty8811]

Yes it is true dude. It works like this;

Seller contracts with broker often represented by a sponsored agent to sell their house for $Xxx or x percent. Unless the selling broker has a contractual relationship with somebody else that allows others to sell the house, the listing brokerage gets all of the commission. If there is more than one agent involved how it gets split is an agreement between them or per a contract they have with their sponsoring broker


Due to the inception of the MLS (multiple listing system) owned by the national association of realtors, members of the NAR subscribe to mls and due to contractual obligations wil split the commission agreed upon in the listing agreement with another Realtor that sells the house (it was not usually a buyers agent as explained later). The split is usually 50/50 but I have had contracts weighted towards the selling agent in order to garner more activity by other agents on one of my listings. Just the same I have had contracts weighted towards me as a listing agent because I spent more of my money advertising the property than I did typically. Most contracts were simply 50/50.

So, since the sellers listing agreement is already in place, the listing broker is not going to accept your ****amamie crap about a buyers agent share (because actuslly more often than not there was not a buyers agent. The sellers agent did act in a dual role to an extent but rarely did it go as far as being considered being a buyers agent. That was simply too messy and too many possibilities of problems.) being excluded from the listing agreement.

So, as I said before; you are just wrong.

It doesn't matter what is in previous agreements, if they are overridden with an entire agreement clause and all parties accept it.

Everything is negotiable.

You are wrong.

 

[LdiJ]

It doesn't matter what is in previous agreements, if they are overridden with an entire agreement clause and all parties accept it.

Everything is negotiable.

You are wrong.

I wouldn't want to accept an offer from you if I were the seller. Too much room for problems and drama. I think that you are going to find that your plan to save a few bucks is going to end up making your spend more in the end, to actually buy. Desirable properties with multiple offers won't end up going to you.

 

[FlyingRon]

You are not paying the commission. The seller is and it is his contract with his agent that determines how much is collected and the selling agent in most cases determienes what is offered to the buyers brokers. You're not going to be able to negotiate away half the commission. It's already a done deal. Lower your offer by 3% if you want.

 

[tranquility]

It doesn't matter what is in previous agreements, if they are overridden with an entire agreement clause and all parties accept it.

Everything is negotiable.

You are wrong.

Come on people, the OP is correct. While the current listing agreement and law is that the seller pays a certain amount as specified in the contract and the listing broker and the agent who brings the buyer split that amount, it can clearly be modified if the seller and broker agree and no agent fulfills the requirement to get the split. (We assume the buyer agrees.) While the listing broker has the least reason to agree, the reality is he is probably going to only get 1/2 of the commission when the house sells later as the vast majority of the buyers will have an agent involved enough with them to get their 1/2. If the house is cold or the broker otherwise feels the amount will result in a fair price and commission, he might just agree to lessen the commission as a part of the deal to make it happen. He might not and has no obligation to do so, but he might.

The thing is, while the listing broker's agent usually must present all offers, I don't know if his involvement in the deal is really an offer that needs to be presented ethically. I mean, is it really an "offer" if it requires the modification of a contract that the buyer is not a party to? I'm not so sure and would have to do a search to even come up with the proper argument. However, I certainly know of deals where the listing broker gives something up to make it happen. As my friend's mom used to say when I was young, "If you don't ask, you don't get."

I don't think it fair to waste another's time under false pretenses and would advise telling the truth if asked.

"I am knowledgeable in real estate activities, I do not want representation. My goal is to get the listing broker's commission reduced by the amount that would normally go to my agent." Then, when they tell you that can't or won't happen or otherwise tell you how you will be better off with representation, perhaps with them, ask them, "How do you think the Mariners (Or, whatever team you can pretend to follow.) will do this year?" They talk about agency some more and you start to tell a boring story about how the new phenom they hired will really make a difference--don't you think? While saying this continue on with what you were doing. Repeat as needed. "Yup, I hear he can run the 40 in 4.2 seconds." At some point, they will get the message, tell you to leave or try to make the sale while knowing negotiations are going to be a PITA.

 

[justalayman]

It doesn't matter what is in previous agreements, if they are overridden with an entire agreement clause and all parties accept it.

Everything is negotiable.

You are wrong.

No broker is going to agree to your crap. There is no reason to. You just think you have some brilliant idea in trying to save a buck but in the end you have no means of implementing it. Too bad.


But also realize you were trying to spew some crap about the existing contracts being altered due to the form you listed and it having a place to indicate there being a buyers agent.

 

[justalayman]

Come on people, the OP is correct. While the current listing agreement and law is that the seller pays a certain amount as specified in the contract and the listing broker and the agent who brings the buyer split that amount, it can clearly be modified if the seller and broker agree and no agent fulfills the requirement to get the split. (We assume the buyer agrees.) While the listing broker has the least reason to agree, the reality is he is probably going to only get 1/2 of the commission when the house sells later as the vast majority of the buyers will have an agent involved enough with them to get their 1/2. If the house is cold or the broker otherwise feels the amount will result in a fair price and commission, he might just agree to lessen the commission as a part of the deal to make it happen. He might not and has no obligation to do so, but he might.

The thing is, while the listing broker's agent usually must present all offers, I don't know if his involvement in the deal is really an offer that needs to be presented ethically. I mean, is it really an "offer" if it requires the modification of a contract that the buyer is not a party to? I'm not so sure and would have to do a search to even come up with the proper argument. However, I certainly know of deals where the listing broker gives something up to make it happen. As my friend's mom used to say when I was young, "If you don't ask, you don't get."

I don't think it fair to waste another's time under false pretenses and would advise telling the truth if asked.

"I am knowledgeable in real estate activities, I do not want representation. My goal is to get the listing broker's commission reduced by the amount that would normally go to my agent." Then, when they tell you that can't or won't happen or otherwise tell you how you will be better off with representation, perhaps with them, ask them, "How do you think the Mariners (Or, whatever team you can pretend to follow.) will do this year?" They talk about agency some more and you start to tell a boring story about how the new phenom they hired will really make a difference--don't you think? While saying this continue on with what you were doing. Repeat as needed. "Yup, I hear he can run the 40 in 4.2 seconds." At some point, they will get the message, tell you to leave or try to make the sale while knowing negotiations are going to be a PITA.

I've agreed to reduce the total commission but if I have a person interested in the property it means my evaluation of the property is likely fair and if this guy doesn't buy it there will be others where I'm not going to cut my own throat to sell it. On top of that before I would ever consider reducing my commission I would let the buyer make his offer and if the seller was wanting to dump it the seller can drop the acceptable price.


In the real work op's bs will get him nowhere. It is too info difficult to mess with.


Also realize that if you amend the listing contract it is "open" for all purposes. The last thing I would want is to open that contract.


As to presenting all offers;

Unless my principal says otherwise I am bound be law, ethics, and fiduciary duty to present all offers.

Re the difficult negotiations: realize that that showing agent has already established procuring cause. No other smart agent will show the property because the first showing agent has already laid claim to the commission. Good luck to the op if he actuslly wants that property. He will have to deal with that agent for it.