sdr, in “trolling” around on this thread on a “working weekend,” my aim was not to determine if other Piggs got a “good deal.” We don’t know how long ago drboom’s transaction took place, but perhaps he really didn’t care about a “good deal” as much as he needed an acceptable property within close proximity to relatives in a low-inventory sales environment.
I’m intrigued by any unlicensed buyer who states they “successfully represented themselves” in a transaction of a listed property marketed on the MLS to accept co-brokerage. Especially persons who claim to have recovered a “commission” in the form of a kickback or rebate. I’m not really all that familiar with discount broker business models but realize that in service industries, you pay exactly for what you get.
It is also clear to me that the general public does not understand the meaning of “Agency.” This not only applies in Pigg-land but I’ve heard this kind of argument elsewhere. When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction. In both instances drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)
If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent!
It is also clear that a number of buyers think they can get paid a “commission” even if it is not contracted for PRIOR to an offer being drafted as there is no provision for commission to be paid to an unlicensed principal within the offer to purchase. If that offer is accepted on its face, escrow is opened and the instructions are drafted from the accepted offer.
steveno stated that, since he was unrepresented (and thereby “saving” the sellers 3% in co-broke commission), he had asked for a 3% discount off the purchase price that was going to “come off the top” (of the commission). He doesn’t appear to understand that sellers can’t agree to any amounts coming off their contracted commission BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY BOUND BY THAT CONTRACT. The listing broker is the only one who can agree to a commission reduction. Of course, sellers are free to accept or counter Buyer stevenot’s offer of a 3% (or ANY percent) reduction in sales price or they can counter back instead with a “concession” or “allowance” to the buyer (paid in cash at COE) to repair a real or imagined “defect” in the property.
I now wonder if these buyers realize they CAN be properly represented and also ask for 10% off the purchase price and some more concessions, to boot.
I understand that if drboom, steveno or any other Pigg feels they got a good deal “representing themselves” or whatever version of “agency” or lack thereof they percieve happened in their transactions, then that is the bottom line. Whatever the agent(s) got paid is immaterial to that.
