There has been some very interesting discussion on this issue. My two cents worth:
My take on this is that this would not be negotiating a commission with a purchase agreement. The agents are not parties to the purchase agreement. Instead, this would be negotiating a modification of the brokers agreement regarding commission between agents with listing agent attempting to make a unilateral modification.
If a listing agent places a listing in the MLS stating 3% to the selling agent, and listing agent is aware that the bank may only pay a 5% commission total on this transaction, listing agent is obligated to take 2% and give 3% to selling agent. This "bait and switch" tactic is unethical at the very least, and undermines the very fabric of the trust and cooperation between agents.
Moreover, listing agent contracts with seller for a 6% commission ("Listing Agreement"). Listing agent advises seller, and seller agrees, that listing agent may pay a cooperating agent 50% of that commission. Listing agent then enters into an agreement with selling agent to split commission. During a short sale, lender advises listing agent it will only pay 5% commission. The fact that the listing agent renegotiated his commission with lender does not provide listing agent with the privilege to unilaterally modify broker agreement to pay selling agent 3% after selling agent has performed under the broker agreement. This is contracts 101.
Lenders have listing agents by the "short hairs" when it comes to short sale transactions. Without a mutual agreement, listing agent cannot pass some of his loss to the cooperating broker even though the lender has passed some of its loss to listing agent. Listing agent has two options: (1) refuse to accept modification of the listing agreement he had with seller to change commission from 6% to 5%, and walk away from the transaction (of course this option will be a detriment to the seller who will probably be facing eminent foreclosure); or (2) accept the modification of 5% commission, giving 3% to the cooperating agent and taking 2% for himself, if the broker agreement and MLS stated 3% to selling agent. The second option is the best and most ethical option for all parties, buyer and seller; listing agent and selling agent.
Fighting these lenders on the issue of modification of commission during a short sale is like fighting city hall. There are no winners. The lender is in all probability taking a large hit in discounting the amount of money owed on its loan. What the lender is attempting to do is to re-distribute its loss among the parties by lowering the commission to brokers. In the current climate, this can merely be viewed as a "cost of doing business."
I also do not believe it would be ethical for a selling agent to agree to a modification of his commission from 3% to 2.5% or 2%, and then try to collect the difference from his buyer unless the buyer has agreed to pay this difference.
Yvonne Baker, Real Estate Consultant
http://www.YvonneBaker.com
ycbaker@kw.com
- Sat Sep 13 2008, 15:24