client control

[sdrealtor]

JP,
There is absolutely nothing illegal about pulling out of a contract if it doesnt appraise as well as for many other reasons. However, when a buyer pulls out their credibility with the seller and listing agent takes a hit. Even if it doesnt sell, gets reduced and a lower offer gets submitted by the same buyer, the seller and theri agent have good reason to wonder whether the buyer will walk again. When you accept someone’s offer you take your property off the market and lose the chance to find other buyers that may perform. Thus while not illegal, from a practical standpoint it can be a challenge to come back to a property you have previously cancelled on.

I dont know if you misunderstood the OP’s meaning he just threw the concept out there. I just tried to clarify what it means or should mean in an agents eyes.

[sdrealtor]

BG
agree with most of what you said

[sdrealtor]

BG
agree with most of what you said

[sdrealtor]

BG
agree with most of what you said

[sdrealtor]

BG
agree with most of what you said

[sdrealtor]

BG
agree with most of what you said

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Too many agents think they’re the ones who should control the transaction. Not in my book. The party bringing the money to the table is the one whose interests need to be protected. If more buyers had the cojones to stand up for what’s right and not play along with all the agents’ and sellers’ games, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a housing bubble (or at least it wouldn’t have been so bad).[/quote]
(emphasis added)

CAR, I have already posted about this topic ad nauseum on pgs. 4-5 of this thread.

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market

It is actually the buyer’s AGENT that needs the cajones to “protect the interests” of their clients. It is actually the buyers’ AGENTS who are currently cooperating with and condoning all these *games* sellers play (and get away with, more often than not). The BUYERS’ AGENTS ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL to facilitate the market returning to a more level playing field.

[quote=CA Renter]OTOH, I really do feel badly for agents who show clients 40 houses, then have the buyer go with another agent. For this reason, there should be “menu pricing” where a buyer can pay for individual services (like unlocking/showing a house, writing up a contract, ordering reports, etc.) as opposed to the agent being paid by commission only. What’s funny is that most agents will fight this tooth and nail, but then complain about the “unreasonable” buyers.[/quote]

CAR, I don’t think buyers should have to pay anything to an agent. All the commission should be paid by the seller, who will be reaping the proceeds from the sale. The only exception to this *rule* is if a buyer has hired a “relo agent” to find them suitable property to fly out and look at and has given them the exact specifications they are looking for in a property. The buyer in this case would be located out of town and the agent locally tied to the area the buyer was shopping in.

If this case, the buyer would sign a contract with the relo agent who would receive a finder’s fee for each property they showed the buyer which met all of their specifications but which the buyer did not place an offer on. If a serious offer (not drastically lowball unless the prop. warrants this) is placed by that agent on behalf of that buyer, then the normal agency agreement would apply for a commission instead of the finders fee. This keeps the buyer from flying out to view properties which are unsuitable and keeps the agent looking out for a buyer’s best interest who is not even in the local area yet or who may not even possibly end up moving. The reason I made mention of “lowball” offers is because many transferring employees from other states are SHOCKED at what they can buy here when they actually VIEW properties in person in their price range. They immediately make a comparison to what their families are already living in, in say, Houston and decide not to take the transfer, after all. In this case, the agent needs to protect their many hours of work. Sure, you and I can look at properties in Denver on the internet but we can’t tell SO MANY THINGS from that description and those photos. There’s nothing like being there in person!

Many discount brokers already have piecemeal pricing as you describe in place for SELLERS but I do not believe these services are a good idea for most sellers. They are okay for sophisticated and repeat sellers who know how to perform many selling functions by themselves properly, such as staging, showing and qualifying the persons their property is shown to. These sellers are far and few between and the rest of the sellers need an agent that will TAKE CONTROL of all aspects their listing and run with it and deserve every penny of their full commission upon a bona-fide sale.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Too many agents think they’re the ones who should control the transaction. Not in my book. The party bringing the money to the table is the one whose interests need to be protected. If more buyers had the cojones to stand up for what’s right and not play along with all the agents’ and sellers’ games, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a housing bubble (or at least it wouldn’t have been so bad).[/quote]
(emphasis added)

CAR, I have already posted about this topic ad nauseum on pgs. 4-5 of this thread.

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market

It is actually the buyer’s AGENT that needs the cajones to “protect the interests” of their clients. It is actually the buyers’ AGENTS who are currently cooperating with and condoning all these *games* sellers play (and get away with, more often than not). The BUYERS’ AGENTS ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL to facilitate the market returning to a more level playing field.

[quote=CA Renter]OTOH, I really do feel badly for agents who show clients 40 houses, then have the buyer go with another agent. For this reason, there should be “menu pricing” where a buyer can pay for individual services (like unlocking/showing a house, writing up a contract, ordering reports, etc.) as opposed to the agent being paid by commission only. What’s funny is that most agents will fight this tooth and nail, but then complain about the “unreasonable” buyers.[/quote]

CAR, I don’t think buyers should have to pay anything to an agent. All the commission should be paid by the seller, who will be reaping the proceeds from the sale. The only exception to this *rule* is if a buyer has hired a “relo agent” to find them suitable property to fly out and look at and has given them the exact specifications they are looking for in a property. The buyer in this case would be located out of town and the agent locally tied to the area the buyer was shopping in.

If this case, the buyer would sign a contract with the relo agent who would receive a finder’s fee for each property they showed the buyer which met all of their specifications but which the buyer did not place an offer on. If a serious offer (not drastically lowball unless the prop. warrants this) is placed by that agent on behalf of that buyer, then the normal agency agreement would apply for a commission instead of the finders fee. This keeps the buyer from flying out to view properties which are unsuitable and keeps the agent looking out for a buyer’s best interest who is not even in the local area yet or who may not even possibly end up moving. The reason I made mention of “lowball” offers is because many transferring employees from other states are SHOCKED at what they can buy here when they actually VIEW properties in person in their price range. They immediately make a comparison to what their families are already living in, in say, Houston and decide not to take the transfer, after all. In this case, the agent needs to protect their many hours of work. Sure, you and I can look at properties in Denver on the internet but we can’t tell SO MANY THINGS from that description and those photos. There’s nothing like being there in person!

Many discount brokers already have piecemeal pricing as you describe in place for SELLERS but I do not believe these services are a good idea for most sellers. They are okay for sophisticated and repeat sellers who know how to perform many selling functions by themselves properly, such as staging, showing and qualifying the persons their property is shown to. These sellers are far and few between and the rest of the sellers need an agent that will TAKE CONTROL of all aspects their listing and run with it and deserve every penny of their full commission upon a bona-fide sale.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Too many agents think they’re the ones who should control the transaction. Not in my book. The party bringing the money to the table is the one whose interests need to be protected. If more buyers had the cojones to stand up for what’s right and not play along with all the agents’ and sellers’ games, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a housing bubble (or at least it wouldn’t have been so bad).[/quote]
(emphasis added)

CAR, I have already posted about this topic ad nauseum on pgs. 4-5 of this thread.

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market

It is actually the buyer’s AGENT that needs the cajones to “protect the interests” of their clients. It is actually the buyers’ AGENTS who are currently cooperating with and condoning all these *games* sellers play (and get away with, more often than not). The BUYERS’ AGENTS ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL to facilitate the market returning to a more level playing field.

[quote=CA Renter]OTOH, I really do feel badly for agents who show clients 40 houses, then have the buyer go with another agent. For this reason, there should be “menu pricing” where a buyer can pay for individual services (like unlocking/showing a house, writing up a contract, ordering reports, etc.) as opposed to the agent being paid by commission only. What’s funny is that most agents will fight this tooth and nail, but then complain about the “unreasonable” buyers.[/quote]

CAR, I don’t think buyers should have to pay anything to an agent. All the commission should be paid by the seller, who will be reaping the proceeds from the sale. The only exception to this *rule* is if a buyer has hired a “relo agent” to find them suitable property to fly out and look at and has given them the exact specifications they are looking for in a property. The buyer in this case would be located out of town and the agent locally tied to the area the buyer was shopping in.

If this case, the buyer would sign a contract with the relo agent who would receive a finder’s fee for each property they showed the buyer which met all of their specifications but which the buyer did not place an offer on. If a serious offer (not drastically lowball unless the prop. warrants this) is placed by that agent on behalf of that buyer, then the normal agency agreement would apply for a commission instead of the finders fee. This keeps the buyer from flying out to view properties which are unsuitable and keeps the agent looking out for a buyer’s best interest who is not even in the local area yet or who may not even possibly end up moving. The reason I made mention of “lowball” offers is because many transferring employees from other states are SHOCKED at what they can buy here when they actually VIEW properties in person in their price range. They immediately make a comparison to what their families are already living in, in say, Houston and decide not to take the transfer, after all. In this case, the agent needs to protect their many hours of work. Sure, you and I can look at properties in Denver on the internet but we can’t tell SO MANY THINGS from that description and those photos. There’s nothing like being there in person!

Many discount brokers already have piecemeal pricing as you describe in place for SELLERS but I do not believe these services are a good idea for most sellers. They are okay for sophisticated and repeat sellers who know how to perform many selling functions by themselves properly, such as staging, showing and qualifying the persons their property is shown to. These sellers are far and few between and the rest of the sellers need an agent that will TAKE CONTROL of all aspects their listing and run with it and deserve every penny of their full commission upon a bona-fide sale.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Too many agents think they’re the ones who should control the transaction. Not in my book. The party bringing the money to the table is the one whose interests need to be protected. If more buyers had the cojones to stand up for what’s right and not play along with all the agents’ and sellers’ games, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a housing bubble (or at least it wouldn’t have been so bad).[/quote]
(emphasis added)

CAR, I have already posted about this topic ad nauseum on pgs. 4-5 of this thread.

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market

It is actually the buyer’s AGENT that needs the cajones to “protect the interests” of their clients. It is actually the buyers’ AGENTS who are currently cooperating with and condoning all these *games* sellers play (and get away with, more often than not). The BUYERS’ AGENTS ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL to facilitate the market returning to a more level playing field.

[quote=CA Renter]OTOH, I really do feel badly for agents who show clients 40 houses, then have the buyer go with another agent. For this reason, there should be “menu pricing” where a buyer can pay for individual services (like unlocking/showing a house, writing up a contract, ordering reports, etc.) as opposed to the agent being paid by commission only. What’s funny is that most agents will fight this tooth and nail, but then complain about the “unreasonable” buyers.[/quote]

CAR, I don’t think buyers should have to pay anything to an agent. All the commission should be paid by the seller, who will be reaping the proceeds from the sale. The only exception to this *rule* is if a buyer has hired a “relo agent” to find them suitable property to fly out and look at and has given them the exact specifications they are looking for in a property. The buyer in this case would be located out of town and the agent locally tied to the area the buyer was shopping in.

If this case, the buyer would sign a contract with the relo agent who would receive a finder’s fee for each property they showed the buyer which met all of their specifications but which the buyer did not place an offer on. If a serious offer (not drastically lowball unless the prop. warrants this) is placed by that agent on behalf of that buyer, then the normal agency agreement would apply for a commission instead of the finders fee. This keeps the buyer from flying out to view properties which are unsuitable and keeps the agent looking out for a buyer’s best interest who is not even in the local area yet or who may not even possibly end up moving. The reason I made mention of “lowball” offers is because many transferring employees from other states are SHOCKED at what they can buy here when they actually VIEW properties in person in their price range. They immediately make a comparison to what their families are already living in, in say, Houston and decide not to take the transfer, after all. In this case, the agent needs to protect their many hours of work. Sure, you and I can look at properties in Denver on the internet but we can’t tell SO MANY THINGS from that description and those photos. There’s nothing like being there in person!

Many discount brokers already have piecemeal pricing as you describe in place for SELLERS but I do not believe these services are a good idea for most sellers. They are okay for sophisticated and repeat sellers who know how to perform many selling functions by themselves properly, such as staging, showing and qualifying the persons their property is shown to. These sellers are far and few between and the rest of the sellers need an agent that will TAKE CONTROL of all aspects their listing and run with it and deserve every penny of their full commission upon a bona-fide sale.

[bearishgurl]

[quote=CA renter]Too many agents think they’re the ones who should control the transaction. Not in my book. The party bringing the money to the table is the one whose interests need to be protected. If more buyers had the cojones to stand up for what’s right and not play along with all the agents’ and sellers’ games, perhaps we wouldn’t have had a housing bubble (or at least it wouldn’t have been so bad).[/quote]
(emphasis added)

CAR, I have already posted about this topic ad nauseum on pgs. 4-5 of this thread.

http://piggington.com/buying_a_house_at_the_new_top_of_the_market

It is actually the buyer’s AGENT that needs the cajones to “protect the interests” of their clients. It is actually the buyers’ AGENTS who are currently cooperating with and condoning all these *games* sellers play (and get away with, more often than not). The BUYERS’ AGENTS ARE THE ONES THAT NEED TO TAKE BACK CONTROL to facilitate the market returning to a more level playing field.

[quote=CA Renter]OTOH, I really do feel badly for agents who show clients 40 houses, then have the buyer go with another agent. For this reason, there should be “menu pricing” where a buyer can pay for individual services (like unlocking/showing a house, writing up a contract, ordering reports, etc.) as opposed to the agent being paid by commission only. What’s funny is that most agents will fight this tooth and nail, but then complain about the “unreasonable” buyers.[/quote]

CAR, I don’t think buyers should have to pay anything to an agent. All the commission should be paid by the seller, who will be reaping the proceeds from the sale. The only exception to this *rule* is if a buyer has hired a “relo agent” to find them suitable property to fly out and look at and has given them the exact specifications they are looking for in a property. The buyer in this case would be located out of town and the agent locally tied to the area the buyer was shopping in.

If this case, the buyer would sign a contract with the relo agent who would receive a finder’s fee for each property they showed the buyer which met all of their specifications but which the buyer did not place an offer on. If a serious offer (not drastically lowball unless the prop. warrants this) is placed by that agent on behalf of that buyer, then the normal agency agreement would apply for a commission instead of the finders fee. This keeps the buyer from flying out to view properties which are unsuitable and keeps the agent looking out for a buyer’s best interest who is not even in the local area yet or who may not even possibly end up moving. The reason I made mention of “lowball” offers is because many transferring employees from other states are SHOCKED at what they can buy here when they actually VIEW properties in person in their price range. They immediately make a comparison to what their families are already living in, in say, Houston and decide not to take the transfer, after all. In this case, the agent needs to protect their many hours of work. Sure, you and I can look at properties in Denver on the internet but we can’t tell SO MANY THINGS from that description and those photos. There’s nothing like being there in person!

Many discount brokers already have piecemeal pricing as you describe in place for SELLERS but I do not believe these services are a good idea for most sellers. They are okay for sophisticated and repeat sellers who know how to perform many selling functions by themselves properly, such as staging, showing and qualifying the persons their property is shown to. These sellers are far and few between and the rest of the sellers need an agent that will TAKE CONTROL of all aspects their listing and run with it and deserve every penny of their full commission upon a bona-fide sale.

[scaredyclassic]

when i was thinking client control i had no particular idea in mind, but i was recalling this agent we briefly dealt with in albuquerque who just seemed masterfully domineering and kind of had us briefly enthralled. the guyw as good. i cannot remember exactly what it was but he had us eating out of his hand. he seemed, well, in c ontrol.

[scaredyclassic]

when i was thinking client control i had no particular idea in mind, but i was recalling this agent we briefly dealt with in albuquerque who just seemed masterfully domineering and kind of had us briefly enthralled. the guyw as good. i cannot remember exactly what it was but he had us eating out of his hand. he seemed, well, in c ontrol.

[scaredyclassic]

when i was thinking client control i had no particular idea in mind, but i was recalling this agent we briefly dealt with in albuquerque who just seemed masterfully domineering and kind of had us briefly enthralled. the guyw as good. i cannot remember exactly what it was but he had us eating out of his hand. he seemed, well, in c ontrol.

[scaredyclassic]

when i was thinking client control i had no particular idea in mind, but i was recalling this agent we briefly dealt with in albuquerque who just seemed masterfully domineering and kind of had us briefly enthralled. the guyw as good. i cannot remember exactly what it was but he had us eating out of his hand. he seemed, well, in c ontrol.

[Author]

Posts