This article from the Charlotte Observer may just take front and center in my “What the Hell?” file. A big giant hat tip to Jim Duncan of the fabulous blog RealCentralVA for pointing it out on his Posterous blog.
N.C. Realtors protesting part of rule on disclosure
Fair warning, this is likely to be long and some will call it a rant. But often the real estate industry pisses me off to no end, and I have to get it off my chest. Writing here is the best therapy I’ve found for keeping my blood pressure down and eliminating (or at least reducing) the desire literally slap someone silly.
Let’s look at this lunacy step by step. . .
A group of leading N.C. Realtors hopes to change part of a rule that protects homebuyers from having their search guided by their real estate agent’s financial interests.
The presidents of the state’s three largest metro Realtor associations are protesting part of a 2008 rule that requires buyer’s agents to provide a written disclosure of compensation they might receive from sellers when a home is sold.
Change a rule that protects homebuyers? Are you freaking kidding me? First of all, it’s rather pathetic that we have to have RULES in place that protect homebuyers. Check me if I’m wrong, but isn’t a significant portion of our job ensuring that homebuyers are fully informed and making decisions that are in their best interest? Don’t we, uhm, REPRESENT THEM??
Sadly though, rules are needed because there are too many out there who will do anything for the almighty buck, ethics or what is in your clients best interest be damned. Yet here are the presidents of North Carolina’s three largest Realtor associations protesting a rule that helps homebuyers understand what is going on.
Changing such disclosure, said North Carolina Real Estate Commission director of legal services Tom Miller, could once again leave some homebuyers unaware that agents have extra financial motivation – such as a hidden bonus – in showing them a home.
But Tony Jarrett, regional vice president for the Triad for Allen Tate Realtors, said the rule requires burdensome disclosures for potential "in-house" transactions, in which one company employs both the buyer’s agent and the agent listing a property for the seller. In those cases, the homebuyer must be told not only what the buyer’s agent would receive if the property is sold, but the total compensation being paid to the real estate company.
"We don’t believe in-house compensation is a disclosure issue," said Jarrett, who will make a presentation to the commission at its monthly meeting today in Raleigh.
“Burdensome disclosures”?? Really?
Dear Homebuyer –
If you buy the home on 123 Main Street, the listing brokerage will receive a commission of X% of the sales price; the buyer’s brokerage will receive a commission of Y%. In addition, the seller is offering the buyer’s agent an incentive bonus of $X dollars.
Burdensome? Give me a freaking break. That took all of 15 seconds to type. Burdensome my ass.
Tony Jarrett, regional vice president for the Triad for Allen Tate Realtors, doesn’t believe in-house compensation is a disclosure issue. Why not? Why shouldn’t BOTH the buyer and seller be completely aware of all the costs in a real estate transaction? Why hide it???
Yet Mr. Jarrett is joined by others:
Jarrett is supported by the presidents of Realtor associations in Charlotte, Greensboro and Raleigh, each of whom wrote letters on the issue in the past month to the real estate commission.
I’d LOVE to see those letters because I simply can’t fathom why informing home buyers of the costs / compensation involved in a real estate transaction could remotely be considered a bad idea.
The Genesis of the disclosure rule, according to the Charlotte Observer:
Real estate brokers are typically paid a commission, or a percentage of the sales price. Some sellers, particularly homebuilders, also pay agencies a bonus for finding buyers. Such extra incentives, which come in the form of cash, trips and gifts, are legal. Before 2008, however, an agent didn’t have to acknowledge receiving those extra incentives until after the homebuyer had made a purchase offer on a home. Agents also were only required to tell the customer orally, making the rule hard to enforce.
The 2008 rule required that buyer’s agents inform homebuyers of bonuses in writing – and before that offer is made.
The rule was prompted by a 2007 Observer report that revealed millions of dollars in bonuses paid by homebuilders to Charlotte-area company Realty Place. The investigation found that Realty Place potentially violated state rules and federal law by not disclosing those bonuses to homebuyers they steered to those properties.
So here is a brokerage getting “millions of dollars” for sending homebuyers to certain homebuilders. Maybe those homes were the best choices for their clients. Or maybe the brokerage sent their clients there to earn millions of extra dollars. We don’t really know. But”¦
Realty Place owners agreed in 2008 to permanently close its doors in the face of an investigation by the real estate commission, which licenses and regulates real estate agents in the state.
So it would appear that not all was on the up-and-up. Greed is ugly. When a builder is dangling a boat load of money in front of you, it’s not all that difficult to convince someone to look toward that builder for their slice of the American Dream.
To address questions about what might be considered "extra incentive," the 2008 disclosure rule requires simply that brokers disclose all compensation they expect to receive from a transaction, including commissions and bonuses. In the case of an in-house transaction, that means the agency must disclose all of the compensation that both the buyer’s agent and selling agent will receive.
Good! The agency should disclose ALL of the compensation that both agencies in the transaction receive. ESPECIALLY if it is an “in-house” transaction.
Jarrett, who said that he supports the intent of the disclosure rule, argues that only the buyer’s agent should be required to reveal compensation for in-house transactions – and that a customer gains no benefit from knowing if a company is getting extra compensation by a third party, such as a relocation service.
Such information also can confuse consumers and burden agents with new disclosure requirements, Jarrett and others said.
Here’s this “in-house” issue again. What difference does it make that it is an in-house transaction? Dual agency once again rears its ugly head. This deception protecting hiding what a brokerage makes on an in-house transaction sure sounds to me like someone wants to protect their dual agency cash cow. If there is nothing wrong with a dual agency transaction (which is legal in many states, apparently including North Carolina) then why the move to attempt to hide the compensation from the buyer? (or anyone else for that matter).
A “customer gains no benefit from knowing if a company is getting extra compensation by a third party, such as a relocation service.” Really??
Dear homebuyer customer –
You need to see this home at 123 Main Street! It is AMAZING! It is EVERYTHING you’ve been looking for! There is simply no other home on the market that meets your needs. Trust me, I’m here for you and I know this. The fact that I’ll receive extra compensation from the builder or the relocation company has nothing to do with my steering you this way. Trust me.
“Such information also can confuse consumers and burden agents with new disclosure requirements, Jarrett and others said”
Burden agents? See the 15 second disclosure typed above.
Confuse consumers? I don’t think “Jarrett and others” are giving consumers much credit. Hell, that practically screams “YOU DON’T HAVE TWO BRAIN CELLS TO RUB TOGETHER”. Buyers (and sellers) are smart. They are completely able to understand a simple compensation disclosure.
"We do want to be able to disclose, but we want to do it in a practical way," said Lyn Kessie, president of the Charlotte Regional Realtor Association.
I. Don’t. Even. Know. What. To. Say.
Just disclose it for Pete’s sake! How difficult is it? You want practical? Here’s what you write in the law:
“Real estate brokerages ”“ both on the selling and buying side ”“ are required to disclose in writing all compensation, of any form, received in a real estate transaction.”
Period. Forget “in-house” contingencies. Forget trying to determine if you disclose the buyer-side commission or the seller-side. Forget trying to determine if a cash bonus, an increased commission rate based on multiple sales, or a non-cash incentive “counts”. Forget the lame-ass excuses that it’s a “burden” or it will “confuse” the consume. JUST DISCLOSE ALL FORMS OF COMPENSATION. Period.
(Tom) Miller of the real estate commission said the additional disclosures for in-house transactions protect homebuyers, because the agency involved employs the agents on both sides of the potential transaction. "The company is telling the agents what to do," Miller said, "and that company might be receiving incentives from another party."
An example: If a builder offers a real estate company a bonus for selling its homes, that company could theoretically direct its agents to show those homes first. If those companies were exempted from providing full disclosure of its compensation, those incentives could be hidden from consumers. "We would be back to where we were before the rule was adopted," Miller said.
Sadly, Mr. Miller is correct.
Phillip Fisher, the commission’s executive director, said the commission is unlikely to vote on any major changes in the rule today. Commissioners could appoint a task force to study "in house" transactions, or it could direct the legal department to do the same, before deciding on any changes in the rule.
Said Jarrett, who worked on a 2007 real estate commission task force that initially studied the disclosure issue: "We just need to figure out what the solution is."
Oh for the love of God. Now we need a “task force” at a state real estate commission, and let’s drag in the legal department while we’re at it. All this to “figure out what the solution is” to what seems so stunningly simple and obvious ”“ tell people what the costs are in buying a home, which includes agent/broker compensation and incentives ”“ before they purchase a home.
Why is this so difficult? Why is it even a topic of debate? What am I missing?
Photo credit: t-shirthumor.com
The Phoenix Real Estate Guy was started by Jay Thompson, and I have a little blogging problem... he liked to say...
Amazing. This is why real estate is not a profession. All professionals must disclose actual or potential conflicts of interest, financial or otherwise. I come out of the legal profession and if I had received or paid undisclosed "bonuses" for sending or receiving clients, I would have been disbarred and likely served a prisioners term. Those who oppose these disclosures are hurting the industry and should get out!
Amazing, yet truly dumb! Thank goodness we've developed a new designation with curriculum for such circumstances: You Can't Fix Stupid! Do you mind if we incorporate your disclosure statements as a case study?
Thanks for expressing my views for me, Jay. If this were my Association, I would be calling for heads. I find it difficult to believe that these "leaders" speak for the majority of professional Realtors.
I really appreciate their taking so much time and effort to further discredit Realtors.
With friends/"allies" like these, who needs enemies?
.-= Jim Duncan´s last blog ..Twitter Week in Review =-.
Jay, I am not sure that I get your or Jim Duncan's argument on this one.
In California commissions are negotiable and are normally paid by the Seller when they list their property for sale. Since there is no fixed commission rate each property is placed into the Multiple Listing Service with an offer of compensation to the cooperating Broker while the listing agent keeping the rest.
This amount could be 5%, 3% of the purchase price or a flat fee of $500.00 or $1.00.
Any ethical agent looking out for the interests of his/her Client(s) would not let a commission amount effect their decision to show, or sell, the property.
Nor should it be a conversation with the Client – it's not relevant in the decision making process.
If you think the agent you're working with is influenced either positively or negatively you may want to rethink your choice of agents – in other words you got bigger problems.
If a buyer wants to know the amount of compensation being paid to their agent they are always welcome to sign a Buyer Broker Agreement. This contract outlines how much compensation will be paid regardless of a specific property – so if the Buyer happens to choose a property offered at 2% and the Buyer Broker Agreement calls for 3%, the buyer would owe the additional compensation unless the agent (Broker) chooses to waive the amount. Most Buyer's don't want to make that commitment.
Furthermore should the Buyer also be concerned with the compensation to the Listing Agent. Commissions are normally split 50/50 with a Selling agent, but there is no law in California that requires that. Complicate the issue even further where a Listing Agent will offer a reduced commission to the Seller is a Selling (Buyer's) agents in not involved and the transaction is a dual agency.
The other day I sold a home to some young Clients that I showed over 60 homes to. After getting the offer accepted I found the listing agent had offered a 2% commission. Should I go back and let my Clients know that? Is it really relevant to their decision which home was the best for them?
Just some thoughts looking at it from a different angle. And don't even get me started on the dual agency thing.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Commissions are negotiable in Arizona too Jeffery (and everywhere else). While many argue that the seller pays the commission, it is still a buyer's cost. And I want my buyers to know ALL the costs involved. BEFORE they close, certainly not AT closing.
You are absolutely correct that an ethical wouldn't let the amount of commission affect how they select or show property.
But sadly, there are countless examples out there of sellers offering bonuses, and increased buyer-side commission splits to buyer agents. The purpose of these offerings seems to be for the sole purpose of influencing the buyer's agent to show (or "push" or "sell") the property to their clients.
The agreement between brokers on how to split the commission isn't nearly as big a deal to me as the disclosure of additional compensation. In my opinion, it's totally material to a buyer if their agent is earning additional compensation for selling one house over another.
Not long ago here, there were builders here in bidding wars for buyer's agents. They were offering 8, 10 and even 12% commission to buyer's agents. Basic human nature makes it hard for someone not to show Builder A at 10% over Builder B across the street that is offering half that. The buyer deserves to know about this type of situation. Immediately.
Commissions are on the HUD-1 form a buyer signs at closing. I sure don't want my buyer to see, when they have pen in hand, that I got some form of "extra" compensation. So I tell them up front.
Mr. Jarrett seems focused on hiding the cost of a "in-house" transaction. If there is nothing wrong with it, what is the point in hiding it?
Jay, In California the buyer's HUD-1 does not reflect the commission amount, since it was not paid by the buyer. I understand and agree with your statement that at the end of the day, the Buyer is paying the commission within the selling price, unless it is a short sale.
If my buyer wished to know any compensation that I am being offered all they need do is ask. Again I think that for most good agents it is a non-issue and the commission rates offered are free market.
I certainly see your point where commissions of 10 or 12% were offered – never had one in my entire career. This clearly would be a strong incentive for many agents – frankly I would pass the majority of it on to the Client or negociate it off the purchase price. Rarely do we see over a 4% commission offered by some Developers, and this is usually because they are not paying a full listing side commission.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
See, I don’t get why folks don’t use buyer-broker agreements. I don’t like my commission *ever* being dependent on what some third-party with whom I don’t have a contractual/client relationship.
My fee is what it is, whether that’s lower or higher than what is being offered through the MLS.
Jim, Exactly. Solves the whole issue.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Here is a better idea forget the bonuses and price the house to sell. Because the incentives are usually tied to getting a certain price.
.-= Jeff Link´s last blog ..The iPad is a game changer when it comes to marketing Asheville Homes. For that matter showing buyers around is going to be made easier also. =-.
Commissions are negotiable everywhere . . . or the FTC wants to talk with you. What does that have to do with disclosure of financial conflicts of interest? No need for further rationalization. Period.
A offer of compensation is a financial conflict of interest?
Commissions are negotiable but a Broker can have minimum or maximum commission rates.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
A offer of compensation is a financial conflict of interest?
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Here is a better idea forget the bonuses and price the house to sell. Because the incentives are usually tied to getting a certain price.
Offers of compensation in our Multiple Listing Service are unconditional. Meaning it cannot be tied to a certain price or term. If yours is not, that is big reason for concern and truly doing the Buyer (Client) a disservice.
I agree a Seller would be much better served with an aggressive market price rather than a higher commission offered. But I think that should be a choice for the Seller to market their property how they see fit.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Pause for a moment . . . we are right up there with used car salesman . . . let's be professionals and climb out of this abyss . . . let's adhere to a simple standard of full disclosure of who is paying us and how much. Life is simple . . . . stop making it complicated.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..If you register your site for free at =-.
Yes Tyler, perhaps we should submit our current tax returns to each Client we work with including a full profit and loss statement. Full Disclosure.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Jeffery . . . now you are being silly . . . this is a serious topic. A client (and yes, the buyer or the seller is your client) is entitled to know your compensation and its source. If that source presents a conflict of interest, the client must have the opportunity to bow out. For instance, if I am your buyer and you are receiving a bonus to take me to a particular home, I must have a right to know that and a right to say no if that makes me uncomfortable. This is not complicated.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 23.61 Hours) =-.
Tyler, Yes I represent a Buyer or Seller, but never both in the same transaction – so I am very clear on my duties and obligations. Practice dual agency and this argument pales in comparison to what the Buyer risks in way of representation and paying a fair price.
If your opining is so compelling then we should have the compensation to buyer's agent become a public field available for view on Google, Realtor.com, Zillow, and Trulia. Or perhaps lobby the FTC for a fixed commission rate in real estate?
Again, if you are a buyer and you are concerned about the compensation paid to your agent – sign a Buyer Broker Agreement setting that amount up front.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
>we are right up there with used car salesman
I have a friend that keeps telling me a real estate agent is nothing more that a used car salesman with a 2 day class. . . . Of course I have to correct him and tell him it is an 8 day class.
But it goes to show the public's attitude about agents. Choosing a lack of transparency is certainly not going to help build the public's opinion of agents.
.-= Ned Carey´s last blog ..The Last Shoe Is About to Drop =-.
I am sorry . . . did I say "up there" with used car salesman . . . I meant down there . . . way down there!
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 23.94 Hours) =-.
Here's an old post I wrote on incentivising the buyer's agent with a larger than typical commission.
http://www.phoenixrealestateguy.com/the-sacrosanc…
Not disclosing something like this would be downright criminal in my book… The comments on that post contain more thoughts on disclosing commissions and such to buyers.
Jay, Nice post and certainly a good argument for commissions to be disclosed. This offer of compensation would not be possible in our MLS as it is “conditional” in nature. Frankly, it stinks to high heaven and any agent accepting it should be regulated to selling “used cars”.
So question is, when is it appropriate to disclose a commission paid to a Selling Agent – at what level?
This is a tough question because I would not collect such a commission, I would offer it back to the Client or have the Seller reduce the asking price – plan good business. Of course not all brokerages/agents would be so prone to do so.
It seems to be this conversation is based on Good Deal = Low Commission.
A good agent, representing your interest and goals, should and will be able to negociate a better deal than most differences in offer of compensation.
Many of these Buyer disadvantages can be eliminated by effective MLS rules and regulations regarding commission compensation.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
I do not care who you represent . . . that client is entitled to know how much you are being paid and by whom? Period. It is my opinion , but not the law in most states, that one agent should never represent buyer and seller. I have the confidences of my buyer or seller, and I should never put myself in a position where my fiduciary responsibility to my client is subjective to question. Representing the buyer and the seller in the same transaction does just that in my opinion. Period.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 23.36 Hours) =-.
Tyler, not very hard to figure out where the compensation is coming from.
If you feel your Clients must know, sign a Buyer Brokers Agreement with them outlining your commission level.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Exclusive Buyer Representation Agreements (as we call them) do not typically disclose bonuses or other bribes paid by sellers to the buyer's agent to show the property . . . full disclosure is necessary whether you are comfortable with it or not. It is not your interest that is at issue.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 21.97 Hours) =-.
Not true in California. Any amount over the agreed upon commission is given back to the Buyer or negotiated out of the purchase price. Pretty sure it would be the same in your neck of the woods.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Jeffery,
Cute again, but no cigar. We must to disclose the fact that Champion owns a title company, a lender and an insurance company and that they will make money if the client selects those companies to provide needed services . . . it happens to be federal law anyway. The issue is not all the money a brokerage makes . . . stop being silly, this is serious stuff. The disclosure required is what is being paid in the particular transaction and the sources.
It is really simple: Your client is entitled to know who is paying you and how much!
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 21.89 Hours) =-.
No such animal here . . . sorry. Just tell your clients who is paying you and how much. You'll sleep better. Life is simple.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 21.74 Hours) =-.
Hmm, brokerage or agent, don't see the difference. After all the agent is sharing in what is collected by the Broker. Agents splits certainly are more favorable for those that use the "Company Services" and yes this is Serious Stuff.
Those prices charged by those affiliated Companies go right to the profit margins of Brokers many times at the expense of the consumer.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Jeffrey,
I do not know where you get your information . . . but what you describe is a federal offense. Use our title company, our lender or our insurance company (a pretty good choice since all are backed by the financial strength of Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway) and you get quality service and fair prices and we get no more financial benefit than if you selected any other source for those services. Our company previously gave us our commission check quicker if we used Champion's title company and the Feds said that was a violation of RESPA and required them to stop.
It s my perspective that professionals must not only not have conflicts of interest . . . but they must even avoid the "appearance" of of a conflict of interest. The decision is yours . . . at least for now. At least until the real estate industry matures into a true profession.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 21.60 Hours) =-.
My information comes from first hand knowledge being involved with large brokerages. It’s all about profit my friend.
Real Estate, just like being an Attorney is a profession.
It’s up to the consumer to choose wisely the agent that represents them, they can choose professional or they can choose stupid.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Jeffrey,
Sorry, but I do not understand what the size of the brokerage has to do with our discussion.
All about profit . . . give me a break. You're defining the problem.
Real estate a "profession" . . . not quite yet . . . takes 19 years of education to become attorney . . . if you can get into law school, and that is a challenge today. The fact is the entrance requirements are just too low to get a real estate license. That is and will continue to change as the public demands more than the "profit motive" from its real estate agents.
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 20.80 Hours) =-.
Tyler,
Yes the bar is high to be an attorney with little improvement in the public perception of the industry. There are plenty of lousy examples in the legal profession. Good and bad in all walks of life is my motto. Why bash the profession, find solutions instead rather than use inflammatory language?
My whole point in the discussion all along is pick your agent carefully and make sure they are looking out for you. If you cannot trust your agent on this small issue, how can you trust them to not sell you down the river in much more serious ways. This feeds the basic fears that consumers have in regards to agent, yet it's not the problem.
Enough said…I don't disagree with the premise that any unusual offer of compensation should be disclosed, but you're clearly not wishing to discuss much more common issues, than the very occasional bloated commission offer including dual agency, affiliated company compensation, agent commission splits, and breach of fiduciary duty.
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
I agree, Jay. We disclose everything, period. There's no point in keeping a secret from your client who you are representing!
And, we never do dual-agency. How can you fairly represent a seller whom you are obligated to earn the maximum dollars for, and also farily represent a buyer whom you are obligated to help purchase for the least amount of dollars…on the SAME house? This just wreaks of a lawsuit to us, so we don't ever do it. An extra point or two (or even 20) of commission is not worth losing our entire business and license over.
I don't understand why some people feel the need to operate their real estate business like a shady enterprise — it just makes it more difficult for the honest people of the world. Good post.
.-= Team Ensor´s last blog ..Are UT Campus Condos Worth Buying Now? =-.
Jeffrey: Of course we do . . . and our listings have two blank spaces for the commission . . . one for the listing agent and one for the selling agent. Disclosure is not complicated, but it is necessary if you want to gain the trust and respect of your clients and the status of a “profession”. I just do not understand the fear of disclosure. What are you afraid of anyway?
.-= Tyler Webb´s last undefined ..Response cached until Tue 16 @ 0:15 GMT (Refreshes in 22.11 Hours) =-.
Tyler,
Respectively you don’t gain the trust of your Clients by telling them how much money you make. You earn their respect by representing them and watching over them in a real estate transaction.
I visited your website an noticed you are affiliated with Home Services. How about disclosing to your Clients all those cozy little profit sharing deals from affiliated escrow, title, mortgage, home warranty, and related industries. After all you have stated that we should disclose everything that the Broker is making?
Thoughts?
.-= Jeffrey Douglass´s last blog ..San Diego Real Estate Good News From Union-Tribune =-.
Jay, this lack of transparency is simply amazing in today's times. My policy is simple, I show homes that are best for my buyer. Whatever is being offered as a commission is fine by me. Any bonuses that may be offered are passed through to the buyer to help make the deal or make it even better for the buyer. I've done exactly that on 2 of the last 3 transactions I've had.
And don't even get me started on dual agency.
.-= HowardArnoff´s last blog ..CharlestonOnlineHomes is now on Facebook =-.
Hi Jay ~ I saw Jim's post too and it totally blows me away that this subject is even up for debate. It's such a no-brainer! Anything that has any bearing or could be construed to have bearing on the buyer's decision needs to be disclosed. Period.
Yes Tyler, it's no wonder the public puts us right down there with car salesmen…
Denise
.-= Denise Hamlin´s last blog ..Weekly North Liberty Real Estate Market Statistics Feb 15, 2010 =-.
Jay – This is one example where Greg Swann's views on divorcing the real estate commission make sense. If the listing agent was paid by the seller and the buyer's agent was paid by the buyer, none of this would matter.
Divorcing the commission is something that will come in time I think, but it won't change the asinine mindset held by those who think consumers don't need to know what they're paying for.
.-= Jim Duncan´s last blog ..Twitter Week in Review =-.
Jeffrey,
I give up. You do it your way and I'll do it my way. Just don't expect any referrals.
Tyler
……. Not to sure what to say. Greed will never die! I'm with you on this one Jay. I cant see where this is anything other than a way to rip off homebuyers. Your right that it's sad these disclosures have to be put in place in the first place.
What ever rules and regulations are being made that is only helping the consumers. They are getting everything at low price and also they are able to check how much a realtor is getting ina single deal.
In Minnesota we have had a disclosure for many years that states what our commission is and it has to be signed by buyers for every transaction. I never thought of it as a problem just disclosure. Never gave it a second though. It has always made sense to me.
.-= Teresa Boardman´s last blog ..A woman of few words =-.
Disclosure of all commissions and high levels of transparency – it's the only way to achieve market respect. I don't see how anyone can see it any different.
Agents should automatically be professional and do what's best for their clients. Like you said, it's our responsibility to represent them. We should find them the best house possible and sometimes they choose a house that offers a higher commission or bonus to us, sometimes it doesn't. I think there are many good agents out there, but there's also a few self-serving ones as well. Because of that, I totally agree, writing out a quick disclosure should be done and isn't really that much of a nuisance.