Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Crash Index -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bobby is sleepless in seattle who wrote (77954)	5/21/2007 7:08:09 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

<<(and yes, an agent does have a responsbility to show a fsbo if the agent feels it meets their client's needs even if there is not a commission>> That sounds strange to me. In order to show and sell a house, the agent must be authorized in writing by the seller to do so, under Virginia law. This means a written listing agreement must be on file in some broker's office somewhere, and I don't know any brokers who would take a listing that doesn't specify payment of a commission. By definition in these here parts of the country, when a listing is entered in the MLS, the listing broker is extending an offer of cooperation and compensation to other brokers in the event of a sale. If a sale is made and the listing broker doesn't pay the selling broker as specified in the listing agreement, the selling broker can take legal action against the listing broker for the commission. If a property is in the MLS, I'd show it no matter what. But, again, it wouldn't be in our local MLS if it doesn't specify payment of a commission. Maybe I'm confused about the situation you described or your state rules are far different from ours, but no way do I feel obligated to intrude on a FSBO who doesn't want to pay me. That's presumably why he is a FSBO. On the other hand, if he's in the MLS and is willing to pay a selling broker who brings him a buyer, then I don't consider him a "true FSBO". My purchaser would be on his own in looking at any true FSBO house, and as far as I'm concerned, he is free to deal with that kind of seller all by himself. An exception to that might occur if the buyer agreed to pay my brokerage commission in order to obtain my services in dealing with the FSBO. But then.....most true FSBOs don't want anything to do with agents of any kind no matter who is paying them, because they assume they will be keeping the commission money for themselves, so what would be the point? I'd move on.

To: bobby is sleepless in seattle who wrote (77954)	5/21/2007 7:31:53 PM
From: Tradelite	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 306849

Bobby, one question...do you all routinely enter into buyer-agency agreements specifying that the buyer will pay a certain amount of commission out of his own pocket if the seller has not agreed to pay it, as in the case of the FSBO you mentioned who was only going to pay $1,000? Those agreements are pretty common around here--stricter and more prevalent than even about five years ago. Seems to me the buyer in your scenario would have entered into such an agreement in the first place if he's now mad enough to rant against his agent for not being shown a FSBO house. He shouldn't expect his agent to work virtually for free. That's how I bought my own house from a FSBO. I hired my own broker and paid his fee. This annoyed the seller to no end, because he had to negotiate long and hard with someone who knew what he was doing, but it worked out well, and that was way back in the years when no one had ever heard of buyer agency.

To: bobby is sleepless in seattle who wrote (77954)	5/22/2007 6:20:56 AM
From: Think4Yourself	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 306849

I am seeing a potential shift from realtor offices all over the country to a more central online system. You go to your choice of a regional/national real estate web site and conduct a considerable portion of your business there. The sites share a common national database they maintain, possibly by subsidizing an independant company whose sole purpose is to keep the system current and accurate (no more incompetent agent entries listing a house for thirty five cents). If you want to FSBO you contract directly with the database maintainer. There are several tiers of service offered depending on your experience, from someone simply showing you the house to someone who walks you through every step of the process. Typically user would be assigned a local real estate agent who shows them the home, and maybe some similar homes in the area. The company pays the agent, does most of the paperwork, sends out the appraiser, etc. All the local real estate agencies with their cuts are gone, as is the duplication of agents on both sides. Most of the real estate agents are gone, as they are no longer needed, so the remaining ones are well compensated. There are, of course, many issues. This system is one of many that might evolve. The point is that much of the excessive waste, duplication, and incompetence in the current system is removed. The 6% commissions are history. A flat rate structure might be used. The system becomes more efficient and streamlined. Fewer mistakes are made. Both buyers and sellers find the process easier to understand, and are more confident in the process. Some will say this is all ridiculous and won't happen. The full commission stock brokers thought the same thing 15 years ago. They have also gone the way of the dinosaur. The technology to do it has been available for awhile. The technology to do it easily, both hardware and software, is arriving now. Here is a simple question that will highlight the waste and inefficiency. When you go to buy a used car do you deal with two salesmen and two dealerships? A car is much more complex than a house, and there are easily just as many things that can be wrong with it.