http://realestatecafe.pbwiki.c.....ommissions

Would gladly to talk in person with anyone attending NAR convention after exhibit hall closes at 6pm. Open to perspectives for and against divorcing commissions, particularly positions based on consumer benefit.

You can reach me at the convention via
http://twitter.com/realestatecafe

I pay for the advertising, the packaging, the label, the reputation; none of which add value to the gum. But I pay for it.

“Conspiracy against the consumer” is retold so many times it makes me wonder if Oliver Stone is his BFF.

I do agree with some of what Greg points out but it’s difficult to find amongst all of the claims of “conspiracy,” “parasitic fees” and “deception.”

Mentioning in part 4 that if I’m scrupulous, I’ll help my wayward client for nothing, makes me, once again, question what I agree with. If I go to another dentist who screws up my filling, I highly doubt that my current provider will be so scrupulous as to fix the mistake for free.

People who buy cars without representation aren’t spending (in my market) a minimum of $500,000. Oftentimes with the expertise buyers claim to have, they don’t even know what they don’t know. To say that they get what they wanted in the way they wanted is misleading. They may be happy with their unrepresented decision for the moment but once they understand that they could have done better with a professional, that gratification will vanish.

I’m not “pretending” to be any one’s representative. Every time I sign a Disclosure Regarding Agency Relationship, I not only explain to the client who I represent, I acknowledge it with my signature.

Why the focus on 3%? Who sets that? By putting the payment in the Buyer’s hands, they are able to better negotiate their fee with their representative, rather than depend primarily on what the Seller is willing to offer.

In fairness, the trackback is wrong- this should link to the previous article which is where my original question about dual agency went unanswered.

As for whether you’re wrong or right on any and/or all levels is not up to me, but where I see it leading is, and this is what I’m addressing.

Debating the tiny points is fruitless, let’s just address the outcome and save us both days of explaining our points…

The bottom line in what I’m saying about your idea is it removes a seller’s ability to create incentive within their profit margin- this in no way hurts a buyer, in fact, it should come off of the sales price if the buyer can afford to pay the commission out of pocket (as well put 20% down)- either way, you’re right, the buyer pays it in the end.

My answer to your 15 page diatribe is simply this- the buyer already pays the 3% anyway, at least the seller has it built into the sales price to be negotiated down even further. You’re asking a buyer to jump a new hurdle of paying 3% out of pocket. How does that motivate a buyer? It doesn’t. It leaves them to call your sign- now you’re really financing it on top of the sales price. How is THAT buyer friendly or even wise?

Eventually (a year from this becoming practice), the seller will have to take into account that a buyer will need to tap into 3% of the sales price and escalate to offset to the point that the buyer is now paying a $103,000 final sales price or $97,000, either way, the buyer is still paying the commission- so what’s the point in ‘touching’ your argument? There isn’t one, really.

I read your current post, and I still think you’re missing my point- either way, I am an American consumer, and I do disagree with you. Unless you can take this from an objective logical approach to an ‘on the street perspective’ in 1000 words or less, we’re not going to see eye-to-eye. Objective & logical is what gets policy into trouble. You have to look at the longterm.

For the record, you did say in your current article that buyer’s agents are good, but you also said they’re dishonest- we will never agree on that last point.