TepEvan

Yea, sometimes it disappears

WhrDLMI

We haven't signed anything yet but there is a person Bobbie has talked to a couple of times. I can't think of his name off the top of my head... Tom something... He works for Redfin. Our thinking is that we don't want to spend much on listing the property because, quite frankly, houses in our area sell themselves.

WhrDLMI

We really beat ourselves up talking over what size commission to offer to who. We recognize that when you need a realtor, you need a realtor. Our house in HF was a nightmare and the poor woman we hired to sell it for us earned every penny of her commission. We just don't think the townhouse is going to go that way - there isn't anything really wrong with the property and it is in a very desirable location. It's not going to be hard to sell.

We also don't want to short change the buyer's commission because that realtor is going to be the person that keeps our purchaser in check. We NEED that if we have any hope of the next couple of months going smoothly. I don't want to end up homeless.

The plan is to list it cheaply and sell it high.

Nandska

Gotcha. There are some financial changes that will happen in the next week with realtors. I want to say starting the 18th, but may be wrong. I don't remember if it just affects the buyers, sellers or both.

Nandska

https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate...ssion-changes/

WhrDLMI

You are talking about the NAR lawsuit. We have talked about that a lot, too. It mostly has to do with commissions - particularly how the seller pays the purchaser's realtor.

I mostly agree that the seller should still pay this commission. The problem, as I see it, is that there are too damn many real estate agents out there and most of them are unprofessional and in it for a quick buck. If the seller doesn't offer a high enough commission, the pros will stay on the sideline and not bring their clients to your house. I completely agree that it is dumb for the seller to pay the purchaser's realtor to show that purchaser all the other houses they didn't choose but the system is still rigged in favor of the buyer because the seller is the one with all the money - especially if the home has greatly increased in value. The purchaser is looking at a new mortgage that is probably higher than their old one (most people buy up, right?) and either can't or don't want to pay anything to get that new house. The seller is then "incentivized" to pay that fee. A tough pill to swallow, IMHO.

That lawsuit changes what the seller "has to" pay but, honestly, I don't think it changed all that much in the way this whole thing works. We are going to offer a 2.5% purchaser's agent fee so we get the higher qualified buyers.

Nandska

yeah. that.

WhrDLMI

Good article.

WhrDLMI

Which will be, by the way, somewhere around $17,000 to the buyer's agent. A quick buck indeed.

Nandska

Yeah. That's pretty crazy. Especially, if you know the house that you want.