NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/misc/consumer/house/14752

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 5.9 KB | 110 lines

Newsgroups: misc.consumers.house
Path: sparky!uunet!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!think.com!rpi!newsserver.pixel.kodak.com!psinntp!psinntp!dg-rtp!chutney!eliot
From: [e-mail] (Topher Eliot)
Subject: Re: Re: How to tell a REAL buyer's agent
Sender: [e-mail] (nadm root login)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 17:25:50 GMT
Reply-To: [e-mail]
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Organization: Data General Corporation, Research Triangle Park, NC
Lines: 97

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher) writes:
|> In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Topher Eliot) writes:
|> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ed Green - Pixel Cruncher) writes:
|> >|>
|> >|> What "last minute?"  Most buyers agents get paid this way to begin
|> >|> with, the only difference from a "normal" RE agent being their legal
|> >|> obligations.
|> >If the agents are getting paid by the seller to begin with then they aren't
|> >really 'buyers' agents, they're 'selling' agents.
|>
|> If you want to pick nits, there is no such thing as ANY agent being
|> paid by the seller, 100% of the RE fees come out of the buyer's pocket,
|> as they are tacked onto the price of the house.

You can use exactly the same logic to demonstrate that the agents are getting
paid by the seller, since their fees reduce the amount received by the
seller.  Sure, the money doesn't pass through the seller's hands, but it is
the seller who agrees to the terms of the contract with the agent(s), and the
seller who is obligated to pay (and in theory might have to do so even if
there is no sale).

|> The RE agent's favorite euphemism, "the proceeds of the sale," works
|> both ways.  The fact that an agent is paid a percentage of the sale
|> price does not necessarily restrict his obligations to one of the two
|> parties.

I'm not sure if you're talking about the realities of what happens out there
in the world or the legalities of what is _supposed_ to happen, but in the
latter the agent is supposed to be influenced by who pays -- if the seller is
paying, then, for example, the agent is not supposed to reveal to the buyer
that the seller would accept a lower price.  Of course in all cases the agents
are obligated to treat everybody "ethically", i.e. not out-and-out lie.

|> >|> > It makes me think
|> >|> >that if I ever list a house for sale through an RE agent again (not that I
|> >|> >think it's a good idea in general), I will put a clause in my contract stating
|> >|> >that if the buyer is represented by a buyer's agent at any point in the
|> >|> >negotiations, the commision I pay will go down by 50%.
|> >|>
|> >|> What difference does it make to you as a seller WHAT representation the
|> >|> buyer has?
|> >
|> >If one of the agents is giving advice to the buyer on how to get me to lower
|> >my price, and providing the buyer information that might otherwise have been
|> >withheld, then I am not getting as much advantage from this representation
|> >as I would have otherwise.  So I don't want to pay as much for it.
|>
|> Legally, you are not paying both agents, so you have no control over
|> their actions or obligations.  You pay the listing agent.  If that
|> agent sells your house, they keep the entire commission.  If another
|> agent provides a buyer, your agent can (and will) split the commission
|> with them.
I suppose that technically you're right, the listing agent can do anything
(s)he pleases with the commission, including giving it away to charity.  My
point was to discourage it being paid to a "buyers" agent that has been working
AS IF (s)he would be paid by the buyer -- if the "buyers" agent has been
working that way, then (s)he should be paid that way!  As you point out, I
can't control what the listing agent does with the commission received, but
I *can* control the amount of commission received, if I arrange to do so before
the listing contract is signed -- and I propose that the contract stipulate
that if the other agent (if any) is acting as a "buyers" agent at any point
in the negotiations, then the commission I pay goes down by 50%, and the
agents and buyer can between themselves figure out how the buyers agent will
get paid.

|> The buyer's agent is not working directly for you (although
|> in most cases is legally obligated to you, which is why RE is such a
|> racket to begin with).
I'm getting a little tired of trying to explain the differences between a
"buyers" agent and a "selling" agent (neither of which is a "listing" agent),
but I'll try one more time.

A "buyers" agent is paid by the buyer, and is legally obligated to the buyer,
NOT THE SELLER.  If an agent is legally obligated to the seller, then they're
not a "buyers" agent, they're a "selling" or "listing" agent.

BTW, I agree that there are "racket" aspects to the RE business.  But that's
not the issue here.

|> >|> You pay your agent to list and sell your house.
|> >
|> >No, I pay the agent to sell the house at the highest practical price; if the
|> >'selling' agent is also working towards that goal then the selling agent is
|> >doing the same job as the listing agent; if the 'selling' agent is really
|> >acting as a 'buyers' agent, then they are working towards a different goal.
|>
|> I said, you pay *your* agent to list and sell your house.  The agent
|> furnishing the buyer is paid by your agent.
True.  I just want to have some influence over that decision.

--
Topher Eliot             Data General DG/UX Systems Administration Development
[phone]                                             [e-mail]
Obviously, I speak for myself, not for DG.
misc.consumers.house archivist.  Send mail to [e-mail]
"I can understand Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but I can't understand mutually
recursive inline functions."  --anon.