commision from realtor
Jump to Page:
< Previous [ 1 ] [ 2 ] [ 3 ] [ 4 ] [ 5 ] [ 6 ] [ 7 ] [ 8 ] Next >
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
Is it necessary to buy through a realtor and if not does one get a cash back of 2.5% from the seller's agent ?
If you put offer at your own, you don't get cash back from seller's agent but, basically you can negotiate on price for that 2.5%. Normally seller pays to both agents, so if you are dealing yourself, you will either get that 2.5% or can negotiate in price.
Quote:
Originally posted by Fido
if one knows what he / she wants isn't a buyer realtor dispensable ?
Yes.
In that case, make sure you put your offer correctly because home inspector and lawyer comes afterwards and neither helps in putting an offer/negotiation. I guess it is both for seller and buyer. Seller can also decide to sell himself and only pay buyers agent and save 2.5%.
PS: I am not a realer/salesperson.
Thanks Frnd for replying .
If I wanted to negotiate first on the listed price (as would ve been done by buyer's realtor ) and then ask for a further 2.5% discount on the agreed price (as would have been the case had there been a buyer's realtor ) would this be workable ?
In other words - does the seller offer full 5% to the seller's realtor or 2.5% each to the buyer's as well as the seller's realtor ? This would help determining which party is to be negotiated with what ?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fido.
I think 5% is divided by the two agents. Seller gets 95% and 5% divided by 2 goes to both agents.
But how do you know that you will get 2.5% off from 100% or 2.5% off from 102%?
I'd suggest negotiate over listed number. And then bring the 2.5% off factor. But won't the seller's agent know that you don't have buyer agent? Usually the offer has the agent's details. And if he has this knowledge, I think 2.5% factor will already been considered as the first thing.
Either way, good luck. And do let us know the output. Good luck.
Quote:
If I wanted to negotiate first on the listed price (as would ve been done by buyer's realtor ) and then ask for a further 2.5% discount on the agreed price (as would have been the case had there been a buyer's realtor ) would this be workable ?
Again I am not expert and haven’t tried this before but looks like it won’t work. Because negotiation will not be verbal. Everything you do will be using OREA forms and will be in written. Also it is written in listing that how much buyers agent will get that is 2%, 2.5% etc (you will not see in MLS though). So I guess seller (‘s agent) would know if you are dealing directly as you put offer yourself.
Quote:
In other words - does the seller offer full 5% to the seller's realtor or 2.5% each to the buyer's as well as the seller's realtor ? This would help determining which party is to be negotiated with what ?
Both commissions are differently quoted. So if buyer don’t have agent, he can negotiate 2.5% (for example) directly with seller (‘s agent). Sellers agent will get whatever he is getting for selling the house regardless if buyer is dealing directly or has agent.
Quote:
Originally posted by Rajeev Narula
Did you know that INDUCEMENTS in any form offered by any REALTOR are prohibited by law & contrary to RECO code of Ethics. If someone is willing to ignore these to get business, what else would this person be willing to do that may not be ethical or lawful? Food for thought!
Rajeev,
I am with Century 21 Green in Mississauga. I do not believe that INDUCEMENT is the correct/appropriate term. If you charge 5% commission but the client will only sign at 4.5%, it cannot be assumed that you are inducing the client with a lower rate. In an open market, negotiations are key part of the Selling/Buying process beginning with the commission rate.
The clients now do a lot of research (www.mls.ca) before contacting a Real Estate Salesperson/Broker to help them with the sale/purchase of a home. Since the clients do a lot of the "legwork" (internet work), there are several companies that are embracing new ways of conducting real estate to reduce their expenses and therefore offering the savings back to the clients.
Real estate is evolving for the betterment for everyone involved.
Raj Bajwa
Salesperson
Century 21 Green Realty Inc., Brokerage
Office: 905.565.9595
Posts: 286
Location: Mississauga/ Toronto, Can
Posted on: 12-07-09 00:23:09
Location: Mississauga/ Toronto, Can
Posted on: 12-07-09 00:23:09
Quote:
Originally posted by Agent Raj
Quote:
Originally posted by Rajeev Narula
Did you know that INDUCEMENTS in any form offered by any REALTOR are prohibited by law & contrary to RECO code of Ethics. If someone is willing to ignore these to get business, what else would this person be willing to do that may not be ethical or lawful? Food for thought!
Rajeev,
I am with Century 21 Green in Mississauga. I do not believe that INDUCEMENT is the correct/appropriate term. If you charge 5% commission but the client will only sign at 4.5%, it cannot be assumed that you are inducing the client with a lower rate. In an open market, negotiations are key part of the Selling/Buying process beginning with the commission rate.
The clients now do a lot of research (www.mls.ca) before contacting a Real Estate Salesperson/Broker to help them with the sale/purchase of a home. Since the clients do a lot of the "legwork" (internet work), there are several companies that are embracing new ways of conducting real estate to reduce their expenses and therefore offering the savings back to the clients.
Real estate is evolving for the betterment for everyone involved.
Raj Bajwa
Salesperson
Century 21 Green Realty Inc., Brokerage
Office: 905.565.9595
It is rare to get an unbiased view when there are vested interests involved.
And talking of "inducements", really interesting to note an agent calling price negotiations as inducement. Is it because it reduces the commission? If one finds the agents commission too high or unreasonable, a buyer must have every right to negotiate.
And about ethics, the lesser said the better. One case in point - why do all agents/ brokers say that the buyer does not have to pay the agents commission, when as a matter of fact the buyer is charged back (5% to 8% of the deal value) by the seller to pay both brokers through a commission inflated house price? Hence the buyer in effect ends up paying both agents (indirectly through the seller). Misrepresentation of facts is not ethical (even though it is an accepted norm).
One query - why does the MLS website not provide the level of detailed information that most of the 'For Sale By Owner' websites provide?
Trinity
Posts: 286
Location: Mississauga/ Toronto, Can
Posted on: 12-07-09 00:30:01
Location: Mississauga/ Toronto, Can
Posted on: 12-07-09 00:30:01
Duplicate posted deleted.
