For the record, I’ve taken a couple of “classes” on “Protecting the Fee” but that is not what this post is about. I DO NOT derive any portion of my current income from RE commissions.
[quote=drboom]. . . [quote=bearishgurl]When the facts became more clear in drboom’s case, he WAS represented the first time by a former colleague of the listing agent[/quote]
Change to “would have been represented…”, and I would have received a four figure check.[/quote]
drboom, in order to place an offer on your short sale, you would have had to have been “represented” by an agent/broker in the “agency confirmation” area of your offer to purchase. Before your signature, there is a portion which delineates the “Broker Compensation Due from Seller.” One or both participating brokers will be named next to their respective percentages that they will be paid. You stated yourself you were represented by Mr/Ms Fig Leaf, a former colleague of your listing agent. Even if you wrote the offer yourself and never met this agent who had an office on the moon and their phone was disconnected, for all intents and purposes, Mr/Ms Fig Leaf was your agent, “straw-agent” or whatever the case may be. You really don’t know what duties Mr/Ms Fig Leaf would have performed had your offer been accepted, but since it wasn’t accepted, you never found out.
Since you never met or spoke to Mr/Ms Fig Leaf, I don’t see how you could have had an agreement for a commission rebate from them.
If YOU, drboom, were licensed and hung your license with a broker, YOUR name could go in there as representing YOURSELF. As it stood, YOU COULDN’T, so A LICENSED INDIVIDUAL HAD to have been listed there for you. I don’t care if Mr/Ms Fig Leaf can’t find their way to the public restroom! He/she has a license and you don’t so that person’s name went on your agency confirmation. If it did not, then you were engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent at the time of placing your offer.
[quote=drboom][quote]and he engaged in a dual agency with the same listing agent in the second, successful transaction.[/quote]
Now where in the hell did you get that? Dual agency? What? I had my agent, and the seller had theirs. My agent split his co-op commission with me 50/50. I got a four figure check a week or so after closing and put it in the smoking crater that used to be my bank account.[/quote]
I apologize in that this was my error. Your agent represented you as a buyer’s agent in your successfully closed short-sale.
[quote=drboom][quote]In both instances . . . [/quote]
I wrote about three, actually.[/quote]
You mentioned three here, drboom, a longtime agent/former Navy veteran but even after being repeatedly asked about him, you stated you “never met him.” You never answered when I specifically asked what kind of relationship you had with him. You never elaborated if he had placed any offers for you or what services he performed for you, or if you had a Buyer Broker Agency agreement with him. Then you had the agent with whom you participated in two short-sale transactions, one where he was the listing agent and one where he acted as your buyer’s agent. That makes two agents, total, that you told us about and two transactions, but one agent handled both transactions with the first transaction listing a third “straw-agent” stand-in for your representation (“Fig Leaf”).
[quote=drboom][quote] . . . drboom posted about here, he WAS represented by an agent[/quote]
Totally wrong in the first case, barely hairsplitting right in the second case, and correct in the third case.[/quote]
In the “hairsplitting right” instance, drboom, you either WERE OR YOU WEREN’T represented. Compare this statement to, “I’m a little bit pregnant.”
[quote=drboom][quote]but he emphatically denied this and stated he was representing himself. (No offense to you, drboom – many, many buyers do not understand this concept.)[/quote]
. . . I signed exactly one agreement with an agent.[/quote]
What kind of agreement was that, drboom? And which agent did you sign it with and for which deal. Your posts are unclear on this.
When you signed your offers to purchase, you agreed to the agency representation contained within them. If you don’t believe this, why don’t you locate the offers in question and reread them?
[quote=drboom][quote]If truth be told and documents examined, I maintain that unrepresented buyers are actually engaged in a dual agency with the listing agent![/quote]
Leave the technicalities to the lawyers . . .[/quote]
As sdr stated, IT IS WHAT IT IS, drboom. If an agent/broker or whoever you were dealing with wanted to sell you property which you wanted to buy and you insisted on representing yourself, I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY TOLD YOU THAT YOU COULD “REPRESENT YOURSELF,” or that you could avail yourself of whatever piecemeal “services” you needed and perform some of them yourself . . . whatever it took to get your signature on the offer or counter offer, etc. BUT THEY COULDN’T SUBMIT YOUR OFFER without including your agency representation.
[quote=drboom]What is true is that Realtors(tm) have a monopoly on the only realistically priced inventory: short sales and REOs. Good for you. What’s also true is that buyers who are willing to do their homework can negotiate a better deal for themselves to mitigate some of the gouging. Yes, the California average of 5% is “gouging”. Thirty grand to sell the average house in San Diego is ridiculous . . .[/quote]
As a buyer, why would YOU CARE about the “thirty grand?” It’s not your debt. When/if you are ever a seller, YOU ARE FREE TO SHOP AROUND AND GET THIS COMMISSION REDUCED AS LOW AS POSSIBLE, or “better yet,” go FSBO! Are you aware that in areas of the midwestern portion of the US, the “reasonable and customary” RE sales commission is 7-8%?
By negotiating a better deal for yourself as a buyer here, you DID NOTHING ABOUT ELIMINATING “GOUGING” for YOUR sellers or any other sellers. You don’t have any control over a contract entered into by third parties. All sellers are free to accept or reject an agent/broker’s listing terms.
It doesn’t matter whether buyers think the “system is broken” or that “Realtors” have a monopoly on the inventory. YOU ARE FREE TO BECOME ONE YOURSELF, drboom. If you can’t BEAT ‘EM, JOIN ‘EM! Or lobby your legislators to eliminate the entire licensure portion of the DRE, CAR and NAR and let chaos reign!!
[quote=drboom]I got a check. I don’t care if you call it “commission” or “fettuccine alfredo”, it was paid out of the commission proceeds. Moreover, I did the fee split deal with my agent on a handshake … because that’s how honorable people do business whenever possible. Nothing was in writing to satisfy your obsession with paperwork.[/quote]
I am VERY happy for you that you got a check at the close of your successful escrow, drboom! If your agent was willing to rebate you, that’s awesome and I’m also happy for you that your oral agreement was honored by your agent. But your sellers STILL PAID THEIR CONTRACTED AMOUNT OF COMMISSION!
As an aside, I don’t think “commission” is the reason for overpricing. FSBO’s can also be overpriced. I think it’s sellers that are living in the past that is the problem. Secondary problems are sellers who owe too much or have sunk too much $$ into their properties and are trying to recoup as much as they can and they find themselves in the unfortunate position of HAVING to sell in this market. The MUST-SELLS are a very high portion of the current market.
