I’ve had lengthy discussions with all my sellers, and each of them understand the importance of offering some kind of a concession. Like you mentioned that concession can be used for anything including compensation to the buyers agent. And I’ve already completed all the necessary paperwork to modify my existing listing agreements. I can confidently tell the Buyers Agent that their commission will be either totally covered or partially covered. The issue is becoming that the buyers agent wants more than what the seller has already agreed to offer. And in that case, the buyers agent has to go back to their buyer.
Agreed. It is up to the Buyer's Agent to show there value to the transaction to get paid what they feel they should be paid. If they can't do that, the will be one of the 50% of agents who will be out of the business over the coming 18-24 months.
@@michaelkitchens6022 Unrepresented buyers & buyers who use a discount brokerage will get more of their offers accepted. As you say, this will squeeze the expensive agents out of the business. Sellers only care about their net offers (price less concessions). Our free market is BRUTAL, when it is not compromised by a rigged system.
Seller has never been obligated to offer buyer broker commission. It’s always been a marketing tool for the listing agent to market the property through MLS to other agents
Most MLS, including those utilizing the NAR policy required the seller to offer buyer broker commission in the MLS as a condition of entry. So, no the Seller wasn't obligated to offer a buyer broker commissions, but if they refused to do so it significantly limited the marketing exposure which is often derived from the MLS and IDX distribution. That is, in part, what the agreed upon changes is removing - the obligation to offer buyer-broker compensation as a condition of MLS entry and advertising.
As a seller, I'm going to have 6% in bold letters on all my pillows, to get more traffic. But, I'm going to accept the highest offer (offer price less concessions). Unrepresented buyers will have an advantage. Our free market is BRUTAL, when it is not compromised by a rigged system.
That's exactly the problem. Buyers know that their offer with commission demand built in will be less attractive - I've been cut out of several deals after showing buyers many many properties. Going to court just isn't practical.
@@mellison8706 Likewise, buyers didn't sue agents under the old, rigged system because is wasn't practical. The new process will force most agents out of business.
Thank you Matthew. Very good explanation!
Thank you ✨️
I’ve had lengthy discussions with all my sellers, and each of them understand the importance of offering some kind of a concession. Like you mentioned that concession can be used for anything including compensation to the buyers agent. And I’ve already completed all the necessary paperwork to modify my existing listing agreements. I can confidently tell the Buyers Agent that their commission will be either totally covered or partially covered. The issue is becoming that the buyers agent wants more than what the seller has already agreed to offer. And in that case, the buyers agent has to go back to their buyer.
Agreed. It is up to the Buyer's Agent to show there value to the transaction to get paid what they feel they should be paid. If they can't do that, the will be one of the 50% of agents who will be out of the business over the coming 18-24 months.
@@michaelkitchens6022 Unrepresented buyers & buyers who use a discount brokerage will get more of their offers accepted. As you say, this will squeeze the expensive agents out of the business. Sellers only care about their net offers (price less concessions). Our free market is BRUTAL, when it is not compromised by a rigged system.
Seller has never been obligated to offer buyer broker commission. It’s always been a marketing tool for the listing agent to market the property through MLS to other agents
Most MLS, including those utilizing the NAR policy required the seller to offer buyer broker commission in the MLS as a condition of entry. So, no the Seller wasn't obligated to offer a buyer broker commissions, but if they refused to do so it significantly limited the marketing exposure which is often derived from the MLS and IDX distribution.
That is, in part, what the agreed upon changes is removing - the obligation to offer buyer-broker compensation as a condition of MLS entry and advertising.
As a seller, I'm going to have 6% in bold letters on all my pillows, to get more traffic. But, I'm going to accept the highest offer (offer price less concessions). Unrepresented buyers will have an advantage. Our free market is BRUTAL, when it is not compromised by a rigged system.
That's exactly the problem. Buyers know that their offer with commission demand built in will be less attractive - I've been cut out of several deals after showing buyers many many properties. Going to court just isn't practical.
@@mellison8706 Likewise, buyers didn't sue agents under the old, rigged system because is wasn't practical. The new process will force most agents out of business.