Alan May

There are currently zero condos for rent @ Fountain Square in Evanston... with or without parking. Sorry. - Fri Jul 10 2009, 14:25

Debbie, if you're going to be this reasonable and logical about all of this stuff... well gosh!
(thumbs up from me) - Wed Jul 8 2009, 09:59

I withheld a useful vote on a recent post of Alan's as it was one made actually referring to me as balanced. I resent that remark. lol
~~~~~~~~
actually, you resemble that remark. - Fri Jul 3 2009, 11:05

Wow.. you step away from the computer for a short while, and things take an ugly turn.

Gary, the person Rockin' was referring to has long since deleted his post. So Rockin' was not referring to you, he was referring to someone's post that was readable at the time, but has since been removed. Threats and muscle flexing are unnecessary.

Let's all take a step back, and breathe.

While Rockin' and I don't always agree, I have found his non-professional advice to be fairly even handed, and "not out to prove every agent wrong". He's been a fair an balanced voice for the average consumer out there, voicing the same concerns that I hear from the public on a regular basis... but stating his concerns without the typical vitriol that we tend to find online.

His inclusion of the Northwestern Study and Consumer reports study cite two unassailable sources. We may disagree with their findings (as Debbie mentions statistics can be manipulated to say what you want), but the sources are excellent. NAR, I think we can all agree, cannot produce an unbiased study. They have too much skin in the game. - Fri Jul 3 2009, 05:53

C'mon, Rockin'... where's your sense of "wonder", your belief in "whimsy"? Have you become just that jaded that you can't believe in "chance"...

... you can't believe that a Realtor from Baton Rouge, could find true happiness with a Moose from Frostbite Falls, and live happily every after, while attempting to foil the notorious plots of superspies Boris & Natasha, with occasional run-ins with a Canadian Mountie named doo-right, and his girlfriend Nell?

I can't believe that you've become "that" guy... I just can't. First Michael Jackson... and now this. ;-( - Thu Jul 2 2009, 06:28

Sometime back I posted that this thread has run it's course. Please everybody...I recieve at least 500 e-mails a day! This thread has increased it by at least 50 more! Please get to work or your % will not mean a thing!
~~~~~
Michael... Fortunately, the decision as to whether this thread has run it's course, or not, isn't up to you (or me). It has a life of it's own. It'll end, when it ends, regardless of your desire.

If you'd rather not view any more of this thread. Feel free to turn off your alerts as David suggests. - Wed Jul 1 2009, 09:20

Peter - the "agent" isn't going to "convince" anyone which house is better. Apparently, I give buyers a heck of a lot more credit than you do, in their ability to look at a home, and determine themselves, if it suits them.

Even identical homes are not identical. Lot changes, view changes, condition changes, landscaping, paint colours, carpeting or wood floors, position on the block... lots and lots of changes. The agent doesn't live in the house, the buyer does.

I have yet to have a buyer ask ME to make the decision between two good houses. - Wed Jul 1 2009, 05:47

@ Victor

apparently, I have to repost, for you and others, Joe Shoemaker's clearly "unread" advice:

According to Attorney Timothy W. Grooms, Williams & Anderson, 111 Center Street, Suite 2200 - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0800 (http://www.arkansas.gov/arec/laws.htm)

"Real estate professionals should be extremely cautious to never discuss with other brokers, in any setting, commissions which they are charging to their buyer or seller clients. These discussions, which the author can envision as being potentially "pro-competitive," in that they might cause a broker to realize that he needs to lower his commission schedule to "meet the competition," are so potentially devastating in either civil or criminal proceedings under the Act that they should be avoided in all circumstances."

Take moment, and actually READ that paragraph, written by a real estate attorney about these precise circumstances.

and yes, Victor... oddly enough... I do believe what I said. I do believe that it's a violation to discuss commission amounts amongst Realtors... especially on a public (and national) website. I didn't just type it to see my name in print. and a snide remark such as "I encourage you to report me" is uncalled for. I have no intention of reporting you... you're doing a fine job all on your own. My warning was intended to keep agents from potential problems... if you'd like to go full steam ahead into the torpedos... feel free. - Tue Jun 30 2009, 20:44

@Alan, don't take her words so literal, chill... just take the 3% comment and replace it with whatever your fee is. BTW there is such a thing as a standard commission and it's not an anti-trust issue either (most brokers have or should set minimum standards or prices within their agency policy). Anti-Trust issues only come into play when the "standard" or pricing conspiracy is an industry wide effort to stamp out competition and does not refer to company policy. BTW, one can make an argument that flat fee brokers are violating these same anti-trust laws. ;-D
~~~~~~~~~~
the anti-trust issue, Victor, is in actually having any discussion amongst Realtors (especially in a national forum) about what we charge. That, in and of itself, is a violation.

And "no", there is no "standard" pricing between agencies, or in a community. Yes, an office could have it's own standard commission, (for example our manager has commission standards and guidelines we must follow), but I am not allowed to discuss what those standards are with any realtor outside our office, nor with any other agency. And "no", that is not because we don't want them to know what our rates are... it's because it would violate Sherman anti-trust laws, and might be construed as an attempt to price fix. - Tue Jun 30 2009, 06:09

Rockin'

it's the "bribing" agents to show/sell your property that doesn't make sense.

the commission is paid to the listing agency. It's the decision of the listing agency, as part of their marketing, to offer a co-operating brokerage fee to the buyer's agent, in order to entice them to bring their buyers.

That's not really paying the buyer's agent to "negotiate against me"... it's a marketing expense. Offering the co-op fee is the way that we attract the people who have the most buyers out there.... the buyer's agents. We don't expect them to work for free, so we offer them a reasonable share of the pie to make sure that the property gets the most exposure possible. - Mon Jun 29 2009, 09:24

Peter... "decisions" aren't your forté, are they?

You said "A good real estate agent on the buyer side should work with an exclusive buyer broker agreement, and put in the clause that he will get 3% commission regardless of what home is bought." (ahh... so that means a low commission DOESN'T matter)

then you said: "Some agents might be a bit greedy though and go after the higher commission especially in developments with cookie cutter homes and many on the market at the same time." (ohh... so it DOES matter)

then, before you could take another breath you said: "A standard commission will most likely work best at any rate!" (right... so it DOESN'T matter... ?)

and then you end with: "Why risk scaring some one away??" (er... it DOES matter??).

No wonder the public is confused. Four separate opinions from the same agent, in a single comment. - Sun Jun 28 2009, 05:57

any discussion of commission, and standard, average, normal, regular, usual, common... (you get the idea) commission... among Realtors... could be construed to be an attempt to fix pricing.

A reader might note, that since David Mott thinks the average is 5.5 in Miami, and I'm in Miami too, I guess I should be charging the same.

Four realtors on a golf course... when one of the brings up a discussion of commissions... the other three should immediately leave the fairway.

David.. thank you for "leaving the fairway". - Sat Jun 27 2009, 14:57

for david, and other who insist on ignoring Joe Shoemaker's 1st posting... and writing things like "average commission"... and quoting their own commission rates on a national website... I repeat Joe Shoemaker's excellent post from downthread:

According to Attorney Timothy W. Grooms, Williams & Anderson, 111 Center Street, Suite 2200 - Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 372-0800 (http://www.arkansas.gov/arec/laws.htm)

"Real estate professionals should be extremely cautious to never discuss with other brokers, in any setting, commissions which they are charging to their buyer or seller clients. These discussions, which the author can envision as being potentially "pro-competitive," in that they might cause a broker to realize that he needs to lower his commission schedule to "meet the competition," are so potentially devastating in either civil or criminal proceedings under the Act that they should be avoided in all circumstances." - Sat Jun 27 2009, 14:19

Bob Rumson for president! - Sat Jun 27 2009, 09:16

Antitrust Pocket Guide for REALTORS® and REALTOR ASSOCIATES®
~~~~
Hey, Dunes... do you have a link for that ... I think many of us could use a refresher. - Fri Jun 26 2009, 15:05

Keep in mind that overpriced listings will not sell regardless of the commission.
~~~~~~~~
and "properly priced listings WILL sell, regardless of the commission". - Thu Jun 25 2009, 07:12

Catherine says: " But suffice it to say that 6% is the norm, with 5% being acceptible."
~~~~~~~~
Please show your response to your managing broker... and watch her face while she's reading it. Should be a buncha new colours... should be a pretty show.

You've given one answer on Trulia, thus far... and you opted to start with this one, that violates anti-trust laws. Yeesh! - Tue Jun 23 2009, 20:07

Dunes...
"I don't do 2%" is a valid on-topic post... but please note the outrage in the bulk of the respondents....

the other 2, however, are more about what a LISTING agent will charge their client, and has less to do with "co-op" fees. - Mon Jun 22 2009, 08:48

the TRUTH is, that Realtors® (yes, the one with the registered trademark) agree to work in their clients best interests... NOT in their own.

and that means making sure that your clients are aware of all properties that suit their needs and meet their requirements.... REGARDLESS of what the co-op commission is.

all the Realtors® (and OMG Brokers!) who are replying: "heck what would you do? ... an extra buck is an extra buck! " are breaching the trust placed in them by their clients... and doing so on a national forum... in writing... in perpetuity (cause the internet is forever). - Fri Jun 19 2009, 14:09

Dan, I have turned down many "overpriced" listings, for purely selfish reasons... not in an effort to stabilize the market... but simply because an overpriced listing is just an opportunity for me to spend my marketing money, and not get paid.

Additionally, the public sees my name on an overpriced listing... sitting there month after month... and makes the assumption that I don't know how to price, and I don't know how to sell.. .and my reputation takes a hit, and the people who are willing to list at realistic prices, won't call me to list their house.

just not smart business. - Thu Jun 18 2009, 19:22

" Does the buyer's agent run back and tell their buyer the good news that she would be willing to accept 150K and there will be no reason to offer full price? "

Yes, yes, and abso-freakin'-lutely Yes!

How much client loyalty, and how many referrals do you think I'll garner, when I manage to get my client a 50%-off purchase of a property?? That will more than make up for my potential loss of $2,250.00 here. - Wed Jun 17 2009, 12:02

" Besides, performance incentives can be built into the contract from the beginning. If you do it right, you would not even need to renegotiate. "

Yes, performance incentives can be built into the contract... although in my many years of experience, I've never once had a client request that... I'd be open to performance incentives... they can cut both ways.

But unilateral negotiation (such as "The commission is negotiable at anytime") is not an option, once an agreement has been reached, you cannot go back in and UNdo it, unless both sides agree. - Wed Jun 17 2009, 09:50

[dk, I'm feeling humbled and grateful]

thank you. - Sun Jun 14 2009, 15:32

Personally, Steve....

I feel the same way about "buyer's agent bonuses" as I do about low commissions. Buyer's agents will show the houses that fit their clients... period.

I've never had a client buy a home, because I will get paid more (or less)... they are the ones that are buying the home... any "incentive" you want to offer... should be offered to the buyer... not the agent. And the best incentive, of course, is a lower price. If you were going to offer a 1% bonus... and that amounted to $3,000... instead, lower your price by $3,000.

Who knows.. .that lower price might even attract more potential buyers... and if that happened... they might fight over your home, pushing the price upward. - Sun Jun 14 2009, 12:21

I remember Foxtons... didn't they have all the mini-coopers?

Yes, in Illinois, you can, if you so choose, issue a referral or rebate check to any principal in the deal... at or post closing. It is legal to give a "commission", referral fee, or finders fee to buyer, seller or any licensed agent. It can be in the form of a check, at or post closing or in the form of a reduction in fees.

And, yes, you CAN advertise... "list with me, and I'll give you a $500 rebate at closing" here in Illinois, legally.

It's not common here either... I don't recommend it... but have used a reduction in commission on occasion to, as you say, get over a stumbling block. - Sat Jun 13 2009, 06:46

Tina, Debbie has already explained that in NJ it's NOT illegal to throw commission into the pot (or rebate to your seller)... but rather illegal to use it as a listing incentive.

In Illinois, it's legal to share commission with any principal to the transaction (buyer, seller, or licensed agent). - Fri Jun 12 2009, 21:05

This is the vocal group that is roaming everywhere in the Forum representing and speaking for the RE Industry. This is the face the public sees, you can say they don't represent but???????????
~~~~~~~~
I don't disagree that they're out there... roaming about mumbling... (my pressshuss... pressshhuuusss)... and makin' the rest of us look like greedy, self-serving, commission whores, but all I'm sayin' is that they're not the entire industry.

Many of us are good, quality agents, who look after the client's interests (almost to a fault), and protect them at our own peril. - Fri Jun 12 2009, 13:46

I'm gonna go out on a limb, Dunes, and say that this particular vocal majority, here on Trulia, does not represent the majority of agents out there in the real world.

I don't believe that the majority of agent and Realtors pay more attention to the co-op fee, than they do their clients requirements. The agents and Realtors that I know (myself included) pay almost no attention to the co-op fee, focusing primarily on the needs and requirements of the buyer. Period. - Fri Jun 12 2009, 09:03

Debbie... Tina's statement was "It is unethical to give a part of your commission back to your client. "

In your scenario, you are allowed to "give a part of your commission back to your client" as part of a negotiation. So, for example... the client says "I won't accept their offer of $200,000 for my home... I want $202,000"... if you, their listing agent, agree to throw $2,000 of your commission into the pot. Or perhaps the buyer's agent and listing agent might split the $2,000... that is legal. (If I understood you correctly).

In Illinois, it's legal to give money back to anyone who is a principal in the transaction... ie: the buyer or seller.

Neither of those scenarios seem "unethical" to me. - Fri Jun 12 2009, 08:42

Tina Santangelo said: It is unethical to give a part of your commission back to your client.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really, Tina? Can you please show me the part of the code of ethics that states that it's unethical to rebate to your client?

It's legal, it's allowed by NAR, and our local board... I can't imagine they'd allow it, if it were considered unethical. - Fri Jun 12 2009, 05:54

Perhaps it is time agents were held just a little bit accountable for ignoring this " Those people are also assessing your value. And when you say "you get what you pay for", and "I won't show properties that offer low co-op fees"... you are telling potential clients that you will not be "working well" for them. "
~~~~~~~~~
well, whoever gave that advice was indeed a sage. Perhaps it IS time for some accountability.... "Urkel!!" - Thu Jun 11 2009, 09:39

dang, Dunes... stop waving that red flag around...

it'll just aggravate the locals. - Thu Jun 11 2009, 08:58

btw David... that wasn't meant to be "critical" (even though I said it was a critique)... I'm very impressed that you're internet-video conversant, you're already light years ahead of me.

I still have yet to post a single internet video... but I have years and years (and degrees) in photography behind me, and those are two rules of composition you just can't break.

I probably should have sent you an offline, e-mail... but I was just typing "conversationally" and came back and noted that it sounded kinda chiding... it wasn't mean that way... so thanks for taking it in the way it was meant. I mean that. - Tue Jun 9 2009, 20:15

David - I don't believe in charging my buyer any portion of the commission. If I run into a property that's offering a $1.00 co-op fee, and they like it and want to buy it... then I guess that'll offset the one that's offering an above average co-op fee.

Also... just a video critique, next time sit closer to the lens, and always have the light in front of you.. .NEVER in back of you. - Tue Jun 9 2009, 19:53

There are several problems that "I" have with this thread.

1) I'm bummed that I didn't post most of the stuff that Rockinblu just posted... but in fairness, I've been out and about for a while... so I didn't get the chance.... er.... and I'm just not that bright.

2) When I do a search for my clients, I pay zero attention to the co-op fee. Rockin' is correct....I set my clients up on an auto search, and it sends out ALL the listings that meet their parameters. I don't want to be guilty of holding back the home that might be their perfect house. I will show the homes that fit my clients parameters, regardless of co-op commission. And I have never attempted to renegotiate that fee.

3) Again, Rockin' is right. While we get threads here with 20/30/50 comments, there are easily 100 times those numbers who are "lurking" and make no comments. Those people are also assessing your value. And when you say "you get what you pay for", and "I won't show properties that offer low co-op fees"... you are telling potential clients that you will not be "working well" for them.

This is a National website, and your words are read from coast-to-coast by those interested in buying and selling homes. Think before you type. - Tue Jun 9 2009, 15:03

I wasn't going to bring this up, but now I'm forced to.
~~~~~~~~~~
to quote my grandmother:

"What? Someone put a gun to your head?" ;-) - Fri Jun 5 2009, 10:07

Commissions are negotiable is true... but the negotiated commission you're talking about here, is the one between the seller and the listing agent.

What the listing agency then opts to payout to the buyer's agency is a conversation that you should have with your listing agent and have them explain their logic. For example, I don't believe that higher buyer's agent co-ops actually benefit the seller.

I also don't believe that buyer's agents "filter" the listings they will show based on whether or not they're paying 3%. I show all the properties that fit my clients needs, regardless of what they're offering in co-op. In fact, I once showed a property... ($300,000 condo) that was only offering $100.00 coop (holding my breath, of course, that my client would not like it.... ).

A $100 co-op, or as Vicky described at $3 co-op, might indeed slow your showings... but if it's within a normal range for your area.. you should be just fine. - Fri Jun 5 2009, 06:42

Clearly not much of a dictionary, if the word RUBE was missing. - Tue Jul 7 2009, 18:30

Alan / Elv!s, either is fine.

no problem, but when looking for a word's definition, always better to go to a true dictionary, rather than a word processor's spell-checker. - Tue Jul 7 2009, 18:22

Fred:

Websters (not Microsoft Word) says:

Main Entry: Rube
Pronunciation: ˈrüb
Function: noun

1 : an awkward unsophisticated person : rustic
2 : a naive or inexperienced person - Tue Jul 7 2009, 18:00

the mudslinging has mysteriously been 'deleted'. hmmmm?
Curiouser and curiouser - Tue Jul 7 2009, 12:45

if you take part in the mudslinging, (whether restrained or not) you can't complain when you get a little dirty... - Tue Jul 7 2009, 12:18

and those who lash out at flat-fee? Much more of that.....Much more!
~~~~~~~~
probably true, but doesn't make either right. - Tue Jul 7 2009, 11:23

I agree... there's a business model for everyone.

Some want FSBO, some want flat-fee, FSBO on the MLS, full service, menu-service, there's something for everyone. No need to denigrate anyone's business model.

But Fred, if you're going to lashout at full-service models, you should be prepared to suffer the slings and arrows as well. (btw... Rube is an english word, referring to a country bumpkin... or someone who's easily taken advantage of). - Tue Jul 7 2009, 10:43

Jack, ask your agent to supply you with copies of the "Agent's copy" of the listing, for each listing that you're considering.

The buyer's agency co-operative commission is listed on that sheet. If he balks, stating that there's private information on those sheets (sometimes that's true... such as lock box codes, or personal items intended solely for agents)... tell him that he can redact them (black them out)... but make sure to leave the co-op commission visible.

if he still refuses, he's probably not the agent for you. Find someone who will share that info with you. - Mon Jul 6 2009, 08:02

I think your premise is incorrect. You say "you are expected to return for free"... You can rectify that, by asking upfront when you are hired...

"Is this an REO? Please make sure all of the utilities are turned on for my inspection, I will not turn anything on or off. If I have to return for any re-inspection, there will be an additional charge."

To quote Ann Landers, you can't be treated like a doormat, unless you lie down. - Thu Jul 2 2009, 09:34