He was just interviewed for an hour on the Bob Brinker financial radio show on 790am. He got a good question about commissions from a caller. At first he agreed that 6% was too high, but then went on to say it could be a good strategy in a tough market to pay MORE than 6% (particularly more than 3% to the buyers agent)to incentivise agents to steer trafffic to your house. (Brinker also had to correct him on the commission structure of stock buying, noting that it has been greatly reformed in recent years.)
I find it very interesting that the chief economist and VP of the NAR fails to note, even in passing, how this implies how unethical most RE agents are. In other words, if you have a house listed for a long time and you are getting no traffic from buyers’ agents with a 2-3% commission listed, but then with a 5% commission the agents start showing up with clients and offers, how in the world can you argue that those “buyers’ agents” are acting in the interest of their buyer clients??? Oh, so they would not dream of showing a certain house to their “client” when the seller is offering a standard commission, but the house all of a sudden becomes the deal of the century when the commission to the buyer’s agent doubles. Hmmm.
It is utterly disgusting that the VP of the NAR did not even blink at the concept. In fact, he endorsed it.
It will not be a day too soon when the “professional” RE industry, which has so much fueled the absurd run-up in places like SD, finally gets buried.
By the way, on this note, everybody seen this site?:
JJ – I heard him today. I am an avid Bob fan and Marketimer subscriber. I tried to call in today but could not get through. I wanted to lay some lumber on him but I most likely would have used an alias so he couldn’t send the men in black after me!
.
