Posted on 05/09/2005 4:59:07 AM PDT by Koblenz
NEW YORK (Reuters) - U.S. antitrust regulators are preparing to sue the National Association of Realtors (NAR) over policies they believe will illegally restrict commission discounting and harm online competitors, The Wall Street Journal reported Monday.
The effort by the Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission aims to protect buyers and sellers of homes and could help contain high real-estate costs in a booming housing market, the newspaper said.
(Excerpt) Read more at money.cnn.com ...
In a subdivision near me, the realtors got together and somehow passed a covenent that ONLY realtors can post for sale signs. FSBO or personal "garage sale" signs are banned by the covenents. What a scam!
Ditto 5%. And that's a split, between Buyers, and sellers. If the DDA sells it it's 4.
Most of the people complaining, I suspect are those that have seen the value of their home shoot up over the last 7 years.
And you've worked on a commission basis for how long? First, by law commissions (at least in our state) are negotiable. Market pressure from discount brokers has reduced the average commission over the past few years.
The agents portion of the earnings varies by indivual ageement with the employing broker, and probably averages out to a 50/50 split.
One company used to bill itself as the two percent commission company, but if you wanted MLS (cooperative marketing)exposure the rate was over 4%. Now they promote a 3% program with MLS participation, but there's a catch. They offer out 1% to the co-broker. The typical payout in our market is 2.5%, so agents avoid showing their listings unless there are no options, or show them last. Needless to say, a high percentage of their listings expire unsold.
Compare a Realtor at 6% to an attorney on contingency at 33% plus expenses. If either fails to perform there is no paycheck. Should we limit lawyers' charges too?
Bottom line is, most agents earn their pay by doing better for the client than theclient can do for himself.
Six Percent is not bad when considering that agents have to pay for their own overhead such as advertising.
On the surrface a higher percentage sounds great, but the actual profit is what they should look at. Would you rather sell a $100,000 house for 4% or a $200,000 house for 2% ? I think flat fees are they wave of the future.
Curious. That's exactly what we did when we sold our home in the Twin Cities. We negotiated a 5 percent deal and the real estate couple were happy to have it. They did both sides of the deal, by the way.
A year ago I hade a customer who was $700 short of funds needed to close. His realtor called me and asked me to reduce my fee by the $700 so the customer could close. I asked her if she would be cutting her 6% fee also to help out. She said no. So I said, neither am I. I told her to cut the 6% realtor commission or the transaction doesn't happen. She didn't, but the guy found $700 quickly.
I haven't. That's not the point. Nor is the specific commission an agent receives. If a realty agent can get a 33% commission for him or herself, than by all means, go for it. I'm not asking for realator's fees to be limited.
My problem is that the realator's associations are trying to get laws passed to mandate a specific commission, rather than letting the free market decide what those commissions should be.
Well, if there is no work and big paychecks, why aren't you a realtor?
In Arizona it is illegal to fix the commission rate. It is negotiable between agency and the seller as it should be.
Good to learn that congress has balanced the budget, secured our borders and now has time to face the peril of realtors.
A good realtor is worth every penny that they earn.
In my subdivision, no signs are allowed period. But in other parts of town you certainly can put up a sign on your own property. Even realtors can only put up a sign on the listed property.
So, you failed to check what a Realtor would have known about local ordinances, and somehow the Realtors are the bad guys? There are a number of towns in our area which have sign restrictions, and they WILL ticket and fine you. Agent or FSBO will pay alike for violations. Town governments pass these regulations; why would a Realtor's relative have an interest in restraining the trade?
Please cite the case or example in question; I know that the NAR is in favor of the free market system.
I'm surprised the FBI hasn't been turned loose on realtors. If it took the Bureau 20 years to crack a mob murder in Chicago, there no telling what they could accomplish (while our elections are being stolen. terrorists are walking in from Mexico, etc).
Sure, you can hang a sign on the telephone pole on the main road outside your neighborhood indicating you've got an open house this weekend. You can put an ad in the local papers...
Honestly, there's not that much to selling a property. I've sold literally dozens in my lifetime. I've never used an agent. It is, however, a good idea to get yourself a real estate attorney. A transaction can usually be completed for under $1,500 in attorney's fees. Unless you've got a property in a lousy neighborhood, I really don't think the average person needs an agent to market their home.
Also, with the internet, I can't see why the average person needs an agent to buy a home. Remember the more people you have taking a cut of the selling price, the higher that price needs to be.
I understand some people want or need Cadillac service, but I don't think the average Joe falls into that category.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.