I’m not sure this type of setup would work either. It’s not the responsibility of the seller to pay a buyer’s agent fees when that person isn’t representing the seller. The selling agent is the one who sets up the inspections once a contract is offered. The bank sends out the appraiser. I’d imagine an AI software comes along that can help the buyer do a lot of the things a buying agent would do. Such as flag real problems with the house- termites, leaking roof, mold, structural damage to a home. The buyer can negotiate directly with the seller to have those things fixed. Besides, lawyers do most of the work such as deeds, taxes, filings, etc. I’d say buying agents work on an hourly rate for their services- driving people to showings and communications. That doesn’t warrant 2.5 or 3 percent cost of a home commission. I’d give a flat fee as a seller for closing a deal, but that’s about it. If I had to guess I see a lot more open houses in the future and buyers doing a bit more legwork and homework about potential neighborhoods and schools
The seller has been paying the buyer's agent fee via the listing agent. That streamlined standard is being dismantled. Buyers will still need representation - that will never go away. The big question is - who will pay their commission? It will be entirely negotiable and a new industry standard will be set through trial and error. You might feel that a low flat fee is fair but ultimately, if a buyer make a generous offer and you have to pay their agent's commission to accept it, you'll likely pay it. Thank you for your comment.
@@BalboaRealEstatewell that was the whole point of the lawsuit. Honestly I don’t know where all this will end and we are all just pontificating. There was a time you had to use a travel agent to do anything, nowadays you don’t. Looking at this from an objective viewpoint why should the seller pay the fees for someone who doesn’t represent them? Arguing that the seller has the most money or it’s always been done that way isn’t a good argument for a lot of people. I see a great opportunity for AI in this field to fill in the gaps is all I’m saying. If AI is poised to take millions of jobs, I’m not seeing how real estate will be spared.
@nicoles9077 Third party companies like Zillow and Trulia aren’t able to service a buyer in the purchase because they are technology companies and not state licensed brokers. An AI company would be the same and would only be able to participate in the sale or purchase if they are licensed in California as a broker to do any representation. This is the reason why Redfin became a brokerage. But I understand your pov but agree with @balboarealestate an agent would still be hired by buyers who take more into consideration than just the issue of compensation in due diligence for a client that requires a lot more services than just writing up a RPA. Given the option of having peace of mind that all negotiating is by a real living licensed person right now always wins the majority of business.
Would it be possible for you to show us how to accurately price a home and run a CMA on the MLS or RPR? So that we can share that information with the seller to come up with a price to list it at.
You can pressure all you want. This San Diego seller isn’t going to pay the buyer agent commission. If you want to add it to the sale price fine, but I’m not going to eat 50k the buyer should be paying their own agent. There’s always another buyer.
The buyer's agent has historically been paid from the listing broker's commission. The big change is the listing broker's commission may be reduced as it will not factor in paying a buyer's agent. So, going forward a seller can pay a listing broker a larger fee or a small fee and pay the buyer's agent directly. The cost is the same. Thank you for your comment.
If the only offers they are getting ask for the compensation the seller will, or they'll sit on the market longer. If their competition is and they are getting bypassed, they will. Simple product supply and demand.
Dismissing a BAC does not guarantee you will net more money as a seller. 1) Depending on sales price and the BAC requested, a seller could easily find themselves with a similar NET after it’s all said and done. For example, a full price offer with seller offering no BAC and another offer with BAC added to the sales price could equal the same net or possibly even net the seller more EVEN WITH the seller paying BAC. Wouldn’t make sense to refuse paying BAC upfront without knowing the net, right? 2) Home prices are very inflated now and sellers have been and continue to be greedy. When I see a home sell for $2M and then 6 months later, relist it for $2.5M with no upgrades or changes, that is ridiculous. And if that seller does end up selling at that ridiculous price not only can they afford to pay BAC & still make a profit, they should be happy a buyer’s agent brought a buyer willing to pay that crazy price. 3) Sellers have forgotten that buyers AND buyer’s agents are their customers. Going into the market refusing to negotiate and digging their heels in the sand on not offering BAC (without even running the numbers) is why some homes just sit on the market. A good listing agent would encourage a seller to accept ALL offers and then run net sheets to see what their client would net. Unfortunately, the low interest rate era gave sellers a huge housing ego as if their home is the most prized possession that EVERY buyer wants. Not anymore. Buyers have choices, more discernment and aren’t chomping at the bit to buy your house.
Buyers will not bring lowball offers or reduced price in order to be able to obtain a 3% Credit on Buyers Commission. The Sellers have the power of Bargaining and the Buyers have weak bargaining, Folks. Lowballl offers by the Buyers are are not going To exist. Buyers must come up a full price offer.the game of the past are gone now!
This is a very interesting comment. You're right, this will create an incentive for offers to be more generous. Although, I think lowball offers will always exist. This may reduce them.
House prices are very inflated right now so a “lowball offer” is more in line with the real market value. When I see a seller buy a home for $2M and then 2 years later list it for $3.5M with no new upgrades, that is being greedy. And if that home does sell at that ridiculous price, they can afford to offer a buyer agent compensation. This is just a cost of doing business.
Your videos are so excellent easy to apply everything. Thank you
Thank you for showing us some different options and being on top of this.
Thank you so much for the valuable information.
Thank You as always 🙏
I guess you don’t need the BRBC when using the CBC as I had originally thought
Correct, not needed.
I’m not sure this type of setup would work either. It’s not the responsibility of the seller to pay a buyer’s agent fees when that person isn’t representing the seller. The selling agent is the one who sets up the inspections once a contract is offered. The bank sends out the appraiser. I’d imagine an AI software comes along that can help the buyer do a lot of the things a buying agent would do. Such as flag real problems with the house- termites, leaking roof, mold, structural damage to a home. The buyer can negotiate directly with the seller to have those things fixed. Besides, lawyers do most of the work such as deeds, taxes, filings, etc. I’d say buying agents work on an hourly rate for their services- driving people to showings and communications. That doesn’t warrant 2.5 or 3 percent cost of a home commission. I’d give a flat fee as a seller for closing a deal, but that’s about it. If I had to guess I see a lot more open houses in the future and buyers doing a bit more legwork and homework about potential neighborhoods and schools
The seller has been paying the buyer's agent fee via the listing agent. That streamlined standard is being dismantled. Buyers will still need representation - that will never go away. The big question is - who will pay their commission? It will be entirely negotiable and a new industry standard will be set through trial and error. You might feel that a low flat fee is fair but ultimately, if a buyer make a generous offer and you have to pay their agent's commission to accept it, you'll likely pay it. Thank you for your comment.
@@BalboaRealEstatewell that was the whole point of the lawsuit. Honestly I don’t know where all this will end and we are all just pontificating. There was a time you had to use a travel agent to do anything, nowadays you don’t. Looking at this from an objective viewpoint why should the seller pay the fees for someone who doesn’t represent them? Arguing that the seller has the most money or it’s always been done that way isn’t a good argument for a lot of people. I see a great opportunity for AI in this field to fill in the gaps is all I’m saying. If AI is poised to take millions of jobs, I’m not seeing how real estate will be spared.
@nicoles9077 Third party companies like Zillow and Trulia aren’t able to service a buyer in the purchase because they are technology companies and not state licensed brokers. An AI company would be the same and would only be able to participate in the sale or purchase if they are licensed in California as a broker to do any representation. This is the reason why Redfin became a brokerage. But I understand your pov but agree with @balboarealestate an agent would still be hired by buyers who take more into consideration than just the issue of compensation in due diligence for a client that requires a lot more services than just writing up a RPA. Given the option of having peace of mind that all negotiating is by a real living licensed person right now always wins the majority of business.
Would it be possible for you to show us how to accurately price a home and run a CMA on the MLS or RPR? So that we can share that information with the seller to come up with a price to list it at.
Hopefully this helps: th-cam.com/video/lt_j4XsSAks/w-d-xo.htmlsi=IjTIAmRe9cVqLqeD
lmao
As of this summer it will be gone entirely
@@BalboaRealEstate I like your rant
You can pressure all you want. This San Diego seller isn’t going to pay the buyer agent commission. If you want to add it to the sale price fine, but I’m not going to eat 50k the buyer should be paying their own agent. There’s always another buyer.
The buyer's agent has historically been paid from the listing broker's commission. The big change is the listing broker's commission may be reduced as it will not factor in paying a buyer's agent. So, going forward a seller can pay a listing broker a larger fee or a small fee and pay the buyer's agent directly. The cost is the same. Thank you for your comment.
If the only offers they are getting ask for the compensation the seller will, or they'll sit on the market longer. If their competition is and they are getting bypassed, they will. Simple product supply and demand.
Dismissing a BAC does not guarantee you will net more money as a seller.
1) Depending on sales price and the BAC requested, a seller could easily find themselves with a similar NET after it’s all said and done. For example, a full price offer with seller offering no BAC and another offer with BAC added to the sales price could equal the same net or possibly even net the seller more EVEN WITH the seller paying BAC. Wouldn’t make sense to refuse paying BAC upfront without knowing the net, right?
2) Home prices are very inflated now and sellers have been and continue to be greedy. When I see a home sell for $2M and then 6 months later, relist it for $2.5M with no upgrades or changes, that is ridiculous. And if that seller does end up selling at that ridiculous price not only can they afford to pay BAC & still make a profit, they should be happy a buyer’s agent brought a buyer willing to pay that crazy price.
3) Sellers have forgotten that buyers AND buyer’s agents are their customers. Going into the market refusing to negotiate and digging their heels in the sand on not offering BAC (without even running the numbers) is why some homes just sit on the market. A good listing agent would encourage a seller to accept ALL offers and then run net sheets to see what their client would net. Unfortunately, the low interest rate era gave sellers a huge housing ego as if their home is the most prized possession that EVERY buyer wants. Not anymore. Buyers have choices, more discernment and aren’t chomping at the bit to buy your house.
Buyers will not bring lowball offers or reduced price in order to be able to obtain a 3% Credit on Buyers Commission. The Sellers have the power of Bargaining and the Buyers have weak bargaining, Folks. Lowballl offers by the Buyers are are not going
To exist. Buyers must come up a full price offer.the game of the past are gone now!
This is a very interesting comment. You're right, this will create an incentive for offers to be more generous. Although, I think lowball offers will always exist. This may reduce them.
House prices are very inflated right now so a “lowball offer” is more in line with the real market value. When I see a seller buy a home for $2M and then 2 years later list it for $3.5M with no new upgrades, that is being greedy. And if that home does sell at that ridiculous price, they can afford to offer a buyer agent compensation. This is just a cost of doing business.