Interesting read. I don’t have much comment other than if you are compensated based on the value of the purchase, all things being equal, there is no real incentive for you to be agressive about getting the best deal for your client because that means $$ out of your pocket. And pushing the price down to “save the deal” in order to get any commission is different than pushing it down to optimize your income from it.
A British friend is looking to buy up here and is very frustrated with his agent and the commission structure. He notes that buyer’s agents there get paid a flat fee, regardless of the size or cost of house, and that they are often more agressive than the buyers about trying to get the lowest price, because buyers almost always don’t know the market well enough and tend to overestimate price due to emotional motivations to get a house.
Wow, so that is why you hire an agent, because he/she knows the market and values better than you. Go figure.
JWM in SD
Yeah, too bad no one told her that the agent only has fiduciary responsibilty to the seller. Of course, she probably had Heloc $’s in mind when she signed the paperwork.
JWM in SD
Yeah, too bad no one told her that the agent only has fiduciary responsibilty to the seller. Of course, she probably had Heloc $’s in mind when she signed the paperwork.
JWM in SD
Yeah, too bad no one told her that the agent only has fiduciary responsibilty to the seller. Of course, she probably had Heloc $’s in mind when she signed the paperwork.
JWM in SD
Yeah, too bad no one told her that the agent only has fiduciary responsibilty to the seller. Of course, she probably had Heloc $’s in mind when she signed the paperwork.
JWM in SD
Yeah, too bad no one told her that the agent only has fiduciary responsibilty to the seller. Of course, she probably had Heloc $’s in mind when she signed the paperwork.
If the agent is the buyer’s agents, then of course, he had the fiduciary obligation to tell the buyer about all the comps in the neighborhood. I expect a big judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Mrs. Ummel should have used the Internet and posted on Piggington before buying. It was stupid on her part to trust her real estate agent.
Who, these days, buys a house solely based on the information provided by the agent?
If the agent is the buyer’s agents, then of course, he had the fiduciary obligation to tell the buyer about all the comps in the neighborhood. I expect a big judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Mrs. Ummel should have used the Internet and posted on Piggington before buying. It was stupid on her part to trust her real estate agent.
Who, these days, buys a house solely based on the information provided by the agent?
If the agent is the buyer’s agents, then of course, he had the fiduciary obligation to tell the buyer about all the comps in the neighborhood. I expect a big judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Mrs. Ummel should have used the Internet and posted on Piggington before buying. It was stupid on her part to trust her real estate agent.
Who, these days, buys a house solely based on the information provided by the agent?
If the agent is the buyer’s agents, then of course, he had the fiduciary obligation to tell the buyer about all the comps in the neighborhood. I expect a big judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Mrs. Ummel should have used the Internet and posted on Piggington before buying. It was stupid on her part to trust her real estate agent.
Who, these days, buys a house solely based on the information provided by the agent?
If the agent is the buyer’s agents, then of course, he had the fiduciary obligation to tell the buyer about all the comps in the neighborhood. I expect a big judgment in favor of the plaintiff.
Mrs. Ummel should have used the Internet and posted on Piggington before buying. It was stupid on her part to trust her real estate agent.
Who, these days, buys a house solely based on the information provided by the agent?
