The Irish Doggy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 I wonder why 14% to a credit card is OK, but 3% to a realtor is not. Discuss. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 I wonder why 14% to a credit card is OK, but 3% to a realtor is not. Discuss. 3% to a realtor would be fine - the standard rate is 5-7% isn't it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 3% to a realtor would be fine - the standard rate is 5-7% isn't it? yup around here they try to steal with 5-7 ... and that is stealing 14 credit card is stealing also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) 3% to a realtor would be fine - the standard rate is 5-7% isn't it? If people want to pay 5-7% for a realtor, fine by me. What is not fine by me is when a real-estate agent (basically) says, "The commission on this sale is 6%; 3% of that will go to me as the seller's agent and 3% will go to your buyer's agent. Oh, you aren't using a buyer's agent? Well that means I get to keep all 6%." Edited May 10, 2007 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If people want to pay 5-7% for a realtor, fine by me. What is not fine by me is when a real-estate agent (basically) says, "The commission on this sale is 6%; 3% of that will go to me as the seller's agent and 3% will go to your buyer's agent. Oh, you aren't using a buyer's agent? Well that means I get to keep all 6%." wrong then u go tell on him or here for that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If people want to pay 5-7% for a realtor, fine by me. What is not fine by me is when a real-estate agent (basically) says, "The commission on this sale is 6%; 3% of that will go to me as the seller's agent and 3% will go to your buyer's agent. Oh, you aren't using a buyer's agent? Well that means I get to keep all 6%." If he is the listing agent AND he finds a buyer why shouldn't his commission be more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If he is the listing agent AND he finds a buyer why shouldn't his commission be more what if the buyer just walks in the door at an open house.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 If he is the listing agent AND he finds a buyer why shouldn't his commission be more Finding a buyer is the listing agent's job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 what if the buyer just walks in the door at an open house.... Who's having the open house........the listing agent, it's part of the game. And I think it's pretty rare to get a buyer from an open house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Who's having the open house........the listing agent, it's part of the game. And that is why the listing agent is getting 3%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexgaddis Posted May 10, 2007 Author Share Posted May 10, 2007 Not to hijack my own thread here but real estate agents were much more valuable before the age of the internet...but now everyone has access to the MLS to find what they want...my agent on my house purchase was worthless...I found the listing on the computer and told her about it...all she did was get an appointment to go see the house and because it was only on the market 6 days, we paid the asking price...she made thousands of dollars for absolutely no work at all... ...we TRIED to offer less but ended up settling for the asking price as the seller was a crazy bitch who couldn't bear to let go of the house she built 20 years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Not to hijack my own thread here but real estate agents were much more valuable before the age of the internet...but now everyone has access to the MLS to find what they want...my agent on my house purchase was worthless...I found the listing on the computer and told her about it...all she did was get an appointment to go see the house and because it was only on the market 6 days, we paid the asking price...she made thousands of dollars for absolutely no work at all... bingo--this is pretty much exactly the point I made in the other thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 And I think it's pretty rare to get a buyer from an open house. I bought mine after an open house. In fact, I was first one there and made an offer before it ended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChuckB Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 And that is why the listing agent is getting 3%. So I can just list houses all day and let other agents bring buyers to me and make the same commission as if I was going out humpin to find the buyers.....It's just like tons of other industries the more you do the more you make, that's the incentive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 IMO...Never use a selling agent as your agent when you're buying a house unless the selling agent is willing to lower the commission they are charging the seller. This will allow you as the buyer to put in a lower offer on a house and the seller of the house to still get more money on the deal than from another buyer who comes in with their own agent and makes a higher offer. (Man that sounds confusing....) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Country Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 IMO...Never use a selling agent as your agent when you're buying a house unless the selling agent is willing to lower the commission they are charging the seller. This will allow you as the buyer to put in a lower offer on a house and the seller of the house to still get more money on the deal than from another buyer who comes in with their own agent and makes a higher offer. (Man that sounds confusing....) Did you read any of muck's thread? There are about 4 pages of posts on this very subject, which is how it started up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SayItAintSoJoe Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Did you read any of muck's thread? There are about 4 pages of posts on this very subject, which is how it started up here. Nope Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 the 6% commission might have made sense a long time ago, when houses sold for far less (even after adjusting for inflation), and when real estate agents were actually a lot more necessary, due to no internet, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) So I can just list houses all day and let other agents bring buyers to me and make the same commission as if I was going out humpin to find the buyers.....It's just like tons of other industries the more you do the more you make, that's the incentive. You "should" make the same commission on each sale, but you will sell a ton more houses and hence make more money if you bust your butt to sell the homes. Edited May 10, 2007 by wiegie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Irish Doggy Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H8tank Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 (edited) I have a need to transfer several balances, does applying with two seperate company's at the same time hurt the chance with either one individually? Edited May 10, 2007 by H8tank Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiegie Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Wow. Didn't know you had that many hooks on your line, did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 I have a need to transfer several balances, does applying with two seperate company's at the same time hurt the chance with either one individually? I don't think so, but honestly don't know for sure. What I can tell is this: - you will be charged a balance transfer fee for each card you are transfering from (i.e., if you are consolidate three cards, you'll be hit with three balances transfer charges even though you're transfering the balances all to one new card); - I'd call the new credit card company and try to do this over the phone. They should be able to tell you what the aggregate maximum amount you can transfer is (which you won't know if you apply by mail). The reason you do this is to make sure you don't get only part of one or more cards transfered, leaving you with more credit cards than you had to begin with (the new one, plus partial balances remaining on the old ones). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted May 10, 2007 Share Posted May 10, 2007 Who's having the open house........the listing agent, it's part of the game. And I think it's pretty rare to get a buyer from an open house. thats how i found my first home... second was the intranets. and the land i own was the internets.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.