That sounds right.... I haven't sold land as an agent in 25 years - sold ranch properties in a previous life. Just never stopped calling them HUD-1 as that's what they always were before.

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Just because you sold something and it was easy, that doesn't really mean too much. I could post a Rolex Sub on Craigslist for a grand and sell it within the next hour. Did I get the max value? Did you save 6% and miss out on 20-30%?

The likely cause is everyone knows a Realtor and they use friends and family. It's a saturated business with a lot of agents who just throw your property on the MLS and that is all the they do marketing wise. A great or even good agent, would have made you more in your pocket than the 6% you saved.

I'm not going to say that real estate agents are worthless, but I'm confident that the grand majority can see worthless from where they're standing. Most Americans can't read or write for ****, and plucked from this group is an army of delusional idiots who've convinced themselves that their self-taught contract law skills are good enough to manage $1M+ sales and demand 6% of the sales price.

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Tex100 said:

---

Ed Harley said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

You keep repeating this fake news. Nothing is unbundled. How has removing the commission percentage [just] from the MLS, done any of the things you mention in this post? The media has put out a bunch of BS and people here are parroting it.

---

If that is correct then not much will change from current state. I've read media reports stating that seller's and buyer's commissions would be unbundled. Didn't save the links.

---

I am telling you the truth, as this is my livelihood as an agent and corporate brokerage owner. Like most things lawyers and government touch, this just adds an additional layer to the process, but changes nothing.

Agents now have to communicate directly with the other agents, to see what they're getting paid. Some people believe this will lower pricing, but it won't. It certainly doesn't unbundle anything. It just adds more work to the process. Agents will talk directly to the selling agent, find out the no/low pay listings, remove them from the lists they send their clients. After the property sits, the sellers will make adjustments, just like now.

A good listing agent will not take any listing where the buyers' agent isn't getting at least 2%. They know this house is likely not going to move. You will get some new agent who might take it, if their broker lets them, but they won't have the book of business, nor skills, to get any traction on the property.

---

Wow. You openly admit to screwing clients over by only sending listings that benefit you. Real stand-up professional -- I'm shocked more people don't sympathize with you.

---

It has to be a deal that is worth his time. Maybe that will need to be in the agreement between the buyer and their agent - the agent will not show a home if they are getting less than 2%. You don't have to have an agent as a buyer.

---

I realize that. But the transparency you're talking about wasn't in his post. It was "if I don't get paid on a deal, I won't present it as an option." Totally unethical, but as he acknowledged, is done by agents all the time.

---

How come you ignored my reply to you? I asked you to quote or highlight the portion where you believe that I implied what you're accusing me of. I am still waiting on that. Just because I stated what is going to happen, and has happened in the past.... That doesn't implicate me in that and I didn't implicate myself.

Edit - Oh, and I love the new reply. I bet if you didn't get paid to go to work, you would still show up, right?

---

I didn't ignore your reply. Staff deleted, presumably because you flagged it.

I never said I would go to work if I didn't get paid. I said I wouldn't **** over my client to get paid, which is what you said buyer's agents would do by not passing along certain listings. Stop acting like you're wearing the white hat in this. You're not. You're the problem by defending these shady tactics.

---

I didn't flag anything.

So, if you won't go to work for free, why do you think it's unethical for contractors not to work for free? You really think agents should be required to present properties where they would be working for free? Yeah, here is a list of no commission properties, that I am really excited to tour with you on, negotiate, do the contracts on and follow-up with! Absolute lunacy.

Again, I have no problems with commission discounts, as long as they are structured correctly. 2%-2% or 2% seller agent - %3 buyers agent.

Look, all of this is a non-issue. Again, listing agents won't even bother repping sellers who aren't paying a buyers commission. The few who do, won't gain any traction and it won't happen for long. It was never a requirement to pay a buyers commission before and I never saw a single zero commission listing. The confusion and MLS commission omission could lead to more commission discounting. That is perfectly fine.

Baseball Is Life said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Just because you sold something and it was easy, that doesn't really mean too much. I could post a Rolex Sub on Craigslist for a grand and sell it within the next hour. Did I get the max value? Did you save 6% and miss out on 20-30%?

The likely cause is everyone knows a Realtor and they use friends and family. It's a saturated business with a lot of agents who just throw your property on the MLS and that is all the they do marketing wise. A great or even good agent, would have made you more in your pocket than the 6% you saved.

---

Exactly.

Arguing that in the macro that RE agents are overpaid at 3% and selling a home FSBO is better are two entirely different things.

a 3% average may be too much on the aggregate. I can agree with that. But using an FSBO sale as proof of that is crazy.

It is pretty well documented that FSBO is a losing proposition unless you really know what you are doing. And yes. I know. This is Texags and we are ALL experts. But in the aggregate FSBO loses. And it is not even close.

Deputy Travis Junior said:

---

I'm not going to say that real estate agents are worthless, but I'm confident that the grand majority can see worthless from where they're standing. Most Americans can't read or write for ****, and plucked from this group is an army of delusional idiots who've convinced themselves that their self-taught contract law skills are good enough to manage $1M+ sales and demand 6% of the sales price.

---

It's been a while, but I thought the exam was average. Not too hard, not too easy. However, I know many college educated people who have failed the exam multiple times. There are zero complete idiots who hold a Texas Real Estate License. Now, that doesn't mean they are capable or willing to correctly prep and market your property, but they're not dumb in general. I will also say that the state required coursework does not prepare you to fill out contracts and forms, as that is learned on the job.

The pass rate sits at only 57%.


https://www.trec.texas.gov/education/education-provider-exam-passage-rates-sales-agents-and-brokers

So you're saying I shouldn't buy a house yet?

agsalaska said:

---

Baseball Is Life said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Just because you sold something and it was easy, that doesn't really mean too much. I could post a Rolex Sub on Craigslist for a grand and sell it within the next hour. Did I get the max value? Did you save 6% and miss out on 20-30%?

The likely cause is everyone knows a Realtor and they use friends and family. It's a saturated business with a lot of agents who just throw your property on the MLS and that is all the they do marketing wise. A great or even good agent, would have made you more in your pocket than the 6% you saved.

---

Exactly.

Arguing that in the macro that RE agents are overpaid at 3% and selling a home FSBO is better are two entirely different things.

a 3% average may be too much on the aggregate. I can agree with that. But using an FSBO sale as proof of that is crazy.

It is pretty well documented that FSBO is a losing proposition unless you really know what you are doing. And yes. I know. This is Texags and we are ALL experts. But in the aggregate FSBO loses. And it is not even close.

---

Great take and spot on!

Based on the comments in this thread I don't think it's an unfair guess to say that perhaps part of the reason fsbos don't do well is because they refuse to participate in the realtor circle jerk on the sellers side and therefore aren't gonna get invited to the buyers side party

I don't think you're right there. I think it's because there's more to it than some people think.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

So every property sells for list price? And every commission is baked in and paid by the buyer ultimately?

You know.. the price that was agreed upon by the seller's agent and the seller.. the one that the net proceeds were calculated off of which included a debit in the amount of the total commissions to be paid?

Example:

List price - $300k
Expected commission - $18k.
Proceeds net of commission - $282k

Actual sale price - $285k
Commission - $17.1k
Proceeds net of commission - $267,900k

Difference in seller net - $14.1k

If the commission were built in to the price, why is the seller taking a $14k hit from their expectation? Looks like the seller took 94% of the hit. Each agent took a 3% hit. Buyer got a nice discount, slightly lower closings costs, possibly a lower loan amount or larger equity % in the home.

---

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Even if the buyer gets the house below the list price, they are ultimately still writing the check that pays the commissions.

---

A house is worth what a house is worth. There is no.. this house is $285k but I'm going to list it as $300k to cover the 6% Realtor fees out of my pocket. Now, over time.. especially how long the shared commission model has been in place, you could argue that home prices naturally inflated slightly higher than their worth. But I doubt you could provide concrete proof of that. If you can, I'd love to see it.

When I do a multifamily deal and a buyer's rep tries to bring me a deal, there's always a caveat that we (the buyer) pay his fee. Why? Because it's not baked into the price. It's a separate line item tacked onto our closing costs.

Realtor fees are not included in the mortgaged amount. The only way you can get close is if you can convince your Realtor to take a reduced fee and have the seller drop the price by the same amount.

---

The fact that the price of something includes the cost of selling it is so obvious that it doesn't need to be proven.

However, if you'd like evidence, I've been in the exact situation you describe in your closing paragraph. For my last home purchase the seller marked down the selling price by 2% because my agent was getting 1% instead of 3%.

Home buyer agents are worthless. Home seller agents are glorified exec admins worth around $20-$30/hr.

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

That's true for every product and service sold including whatever you do.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Correct. That's why the person earlier stating that the agent is negotiating on the buyer's behalf is incorrect. There is a conflict of interest. They are not trying to negotiate the best deal for the buyer.

Also, why would anyone enter a contract with a buyer's agent? I've never entered an agreement with a buyer's agent. Many have tried to lock me on though, to only buying a house through them. It makes no sense.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Realtors have a code of ethics and a fiduciary duty to their client. So, in theory your statement is true, but as a Realtor you don't get many referrals or repeat clients if you think or behave in this way.

Houston Lee said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Realtors have a code of ethics and a fiduciary duty to their client. So, in theory your statement is true, but as a Realtor you don't get many referrals or repeat clients if you think or behave in this way.

---

No agent is going to be active about it. It's a passive thing. The agent for the buyer is not actively working to get a better price for the buyer.

I had an agent one time only show me the highest comps in the area. The sell price of the house I was looking at seemed too high for that area. I got suspicious and contacted another broker. Sure enough, there were a ton of comps that she left out that were much lower. That agent is now a broker, so it didn't hurt her at all. I'm quire sure I was not the first person she did that to.

It's all inside baseball.

wessimo said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

wessimo said:

---

"The seller pays the commissions" is such a ridiculously idiotic take.

The BUYER is the one taking out the loan and/or writing the check for an amount that includes those commissions.

---

So every property sells for list price? And every commission is baked in and paid by the buyer ultimately?

You know.. the price that was agreed upon by the seller's agent and the seller.. the one that the net proceeds were calculated off of which included a debit in the amount of the total commissions to be paid?

Example:

List price - $300k
Expected commission - $18k.
Proceeds net of commission - $282k

Actual sale price - $285k
Commission - $17.1k
Proceeds net of commission - $267,900k

Difference in seller net - $14.1k

If the commission were built in to the price, why is the seller taking a $14k hit from their expectation? Looks like the seller took 94% of the hit. Each agent took a 3% hit. Buyer got a nice discount, slightly lower closings costs, possibly a lower loan amount or larger equity % in the home.

---

I have no idea what point you are trying to make. Even if the buyer gets the house below the list price, they are ultimately still writing the check that pays the commissions.

---

A house is worth what a house is worth. There is no.. this house is $285k but I'm going to list it as $300k to cover the 6% Realtor fees out of my pocket. Now, over time.. especially how long the shared commission model has been in place, you could argue that home prices naturally inflated slightly higher than their worth. But I doubt you could provide concrete proof of that. If you can, I'd love to see it.

When I do a multifamily deal and a buyer's rep tries to bring me a deal, there's always a caveat that we (the buyer) pay his fee. Why? Because it's not baked into the price. It's a separate line item tacked onto our closing costs.

Realtor fees are not included in the mortgaged amount. The only way you can get close is if you can convince your Realtor to take a reduced fee and have the seller drop the price by the same amount.

---

The fact that the price of something includes the cost of selling it is so obvious that it doesn't need to be proven.

However, if you'd like evidence, I've been in the exact situation you describe in your closing paragraph. For my last home purchase the seller marked down the selling price by 2% because my agent was getting 1% instead of 3%.

---

Everything that is sold has baked in commission in the price, or baked in costs in the price, hence why your example above applies. I am in sales and I am negotiating a deal and if someone comes to me and offered to lessen commissions they are paid, the cost of what I am selling is reduced accordingly.

It is a simple premise, if one group died, they wouldn't get designed. If another group died, they wouldn't get built. But if a third group died, they'd still sell.

Long thread, didn't read it all, so apologies if this is redundant.

Bought 3 home over the years, sold 2.

Never used an agent. Never paid a dime in commission on either end.

Side note. I computerized an MLS in 1986 (rather my employees did). Used a laser printer to print out the book for printing. Back in the day that book was their lifeblood. Even had an on-line interface of sorts for the agents to access.

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Realtors have a code of ethics and a fiduciary duty to their client. So, in theory your statement is true, but as a Realtor you don't get many referrals or repeat clients if you think or behave in this way.

---

No agent is going to be active about it. It's a passive thing. The agent for the buyer is not actively working to get a better price for the buyer.

I had an agent one time only show me the highest comps in the area. The sell price of the house I was looking at seemed too high for that area. I got suspicious and contacted another broker. Sure enough, there were a ton of comps that she left out that were much lower. That agent is now a broker, so it didn't hurt her at all. I'm quire sure I was not the first person she did that to.

It's all inside baseball.

---

You really don't know what you are talking about. Comps can be lower or higher than a listed price. They are mainly used to price a house and for appraisals. Sellers are going to try and use the higher comps to justify their price. All your agent did was show you that there were indeed higher comps and that the sellers asking price was in line with the market. They did nothing wrong. If you wanted to make an offer at a lower price than listed, you still could. Did you make an offer or are you just full of crap?

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Realtors have a code of ethics and a fiduciary duty to their client. So, in theory your statement is true, but as a Realtor you don't get many referrals or repeat clients if you think or behave in this way.

---

No agent is going to be active about it. It's a passive thing. The agent for the buyer is not actively working to get a better price for the buyer.

I had an agent one time only show me the highest comps in the area. The sell price of the house I was looking at seemed too high for that area. I got suspicious and contacted another broker. Sure enough, there were a ton of comps that she left out that were much lower. That agent is now a broker, so it didn't hurt her at all. I'm quire sure I was not the first person she did that to.

It's all inside baseball.

---

You really don't know what you are talking about. Comps can be lower or higher than a listed price. They are mainly used to price a house and for appraisals. Sellers are going to try and use the higher comps to justify their price. All your agent did was show you that there were indeed higher comps and that the sellers asking price was in line with the market. They did nothing wrong. If you wanted to make an offer at a lower price than listed, you still could. Did you make an offer or are you just full of crap?

---

You show all the damn comps so we get the median and the mean. You don't intentionally leave out comps to justify the seller's asking price! Which is exactly what she did!

If I decide to offer the upper range, that's on me!

No ****ing way I'd ever you use as a realtor. Sleazy!

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't have a dog in this fight, but will state the obvious... it's ludicrous to hear realtors say they act in the best interest of both parties when they are compensated by the seller. They are paid more when the selling price is higher.

---

Here, here.

Now that EVERYONE knows commissions are negotiable (which was NEVER publicized before), no seller agent - I can find my own place. And when I'm selling, I may use an agent on a flat fee and 1% commision.

And turn your nose up, high brow agents. Who cares?

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

Logos Stick said:

---

Houston Lee said:

---

BMX Bandit said:

---

Never understood how buyer agent was an "agent" for the buyer given that increasing the price the buyer pays for the house benefits them. No incentive to get the buyer a better deal.

---

Realtors have a code of ethics and a fiduciary duty to their client. So, in theory your statement is true, but as a Realtor you don't get many referrals or repeat clients if you think or behave in this way.

---

No agent is going to be active about it. It's a passive thing. The agent for the buyer is not actively working to get a better price for the buyer.

I had an agent one time only show me the highest comps in the area. The sell price of the house I was looking at seemed too high for that area. I got suspicious and contacted another broker. Sure enough, there were a ton of comps that she left out that were much lower. That agent is now a broker, so it didn't hurt her at all. I'm quire sure I was not the first person she did that to.

It's all inside baseball.

---

You really don't know what you are talking about. Comps can be lower or higher than a listed price. They are mainly used to price a house and for appraisals. Sellers are going to try and use the higher comps to justify their price. All your agent did was show you that there were indeed higher comps and that the sellers asking price was in line with the market. They did nothing wrong. If you wanted to make an offer at a lower price than listed, you still could. Did you make an offer or are you just full of crap?

---

You show all the damn comps so we get the median and the mean. You don't intentionally leave out comps to justify the seller's asking price! Which is exactly what she did!

If I decide to offer the upper range, that's on me!

No ****ing way I'd ever you use as a realtor. Sleazy!

---

Random off topic story on comps. A good appraisal and analysis to arrive at the valuation will be driven by the market, not specifically selected houses that are in the same price bracket. That is to say houses that are within a certain distance or directly in the neighborhood, that are similar in bedroom/bath and a couple other things, are going to be more comparable in age, equipment/furnishings, and size. I remember when I was looking at purchasing a property and the seller's agent sent like 40 properties in a response to our offer. Most of those were not comparable in bed room or bathroom count and also pretty far away from the subject property in some of the more desirable areas (this was not in a rural setting). This seller's agent was also a residential appraiser.

All of that is to say that not everyone understands what is comparable or a good valuation. Finding good comparables is more than just putting in a value range and finding the median/mean/average for what it is listed for or what someone thinks it should be listed for. I've seen homeowners say their property is worth quite a bit more than what it appraises out as or what other sources of data give.

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Bad Realtors and bottom feeders will for sure be gone. And it's needed. I'm in favor of making the entrance testing 10x harder. It's a joke right now.

But Realtors aren't going away. I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money on that.

Now if only we could go after lawyers, the over inflated healthcare and pharma industries, and simplify the tax code to rid ourselves of hundreds of thousands of useless accountants who only exist because of a purposely overly complicated tax code, with the same passion we attack Realtors with.

---

You just proved my earlier point. How about the angry mob with pitchforks and torches come looking to rid ourselves of whatever it is that YOU do and the compensation that goes with it.

It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a mob mentality regarding all of this. But of course you would most likely respond that you are an incredibly hard worker and that you deserve every penny that you earn. In fact you probably think that you dont make enough for what you do. But dammit to hell everybody else owes me goods and services for a hefty discount or for free for that matter.

If people dont want to use realtors, dont use them! But no, lets dance on the grave of their perceived misfortune. I am learning a lot from this and it has nothing to do with the lawsuit or the results therein.

fc2112 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't have a dog in this fight, but will state the obvious... it's ludicrous to hear realtors say they act in the best interest of both parties when they are compensated by the seller. They are paid more when the selling price is higher.

---

Here, here.

Now that EVERYONE knows commissions are negotiable (which was NEVER publicized before), no seller agent - I can find my own place. And when I'm selling, I may use an agent on a flat fee and 1% commision.

And turn your nose up, high brow agents. Who cares?

---

If you didn't know that then you didn't do your homework, on two houses I negotiated commissions.

I feel like a lot of y'all have only dealt with crappy realtors.

I just bought a house a couple of weeks ago and the 3% going to my Buyers agent was worth every penny


-created an MLS search of the area for us including pre-MLS listings
-arranged several showings for us where we had the place to ourselves for an hour
-Provided comps
-found an inspector for us
-prepared all of the offer paperwork for us to sign digitally (took about 2 minutes to sign)
-connected us with a lender that could move quickly
-presented our offer and negotiated for us (the seller had a pain in the ass father that was getting involved)
-has a list of contractors for some light reno we need done before moving in
-is in contact with our lender to make sure we hit our 3 week closing date.


We ended up putting in an offer on a house that was in Pre-MLS. Given the market and the area we are looking in it, had to be competitive to prevent them from going to market. We included a few waivers that I was previously unaware of to help strengthen our offer. A week later, a house with the same floorplan, on the same street, with fewer updates, and in need of more work, sold for $10k more than what we paid.


Several you will be quick to point out that I probably could have done all of the above without a buyers agent/realtor. You are absolutely correct. It would also have taken me a hell of a lot longer and caused me additional headaches to do so. I don't have time for that **** . Our realtor made the process much less stressful and more streamlined than I ever could have on my own. And that's is why she is getting the 3%, she earned every bit of it.

nai06 said:

---

I feel like a lot of y'all have only dealt with crappy realtors.

---

I have been amazed at how many crappy realtors I've had to work with. I've also been amazed by how many great realtors I've had the privilege of working with.

fc2112 said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

I don't have a dog in this fight, but will state the obvious... it's ludicrous to hear realtors say they act in the best interest of both parties when they are compensated by the seller. They are paid more when the selling price is higher.

---

Here, here.

Now that EVERYONE knows commissions are negotiable (which was NEVER publicized before), no seller agent - I can find my own place. And when I'm selling, I may use an agent on a flat fee and 1% commision.

And turn your nose up, high brow agents. Who cares?

---

Ok. Flat fee listings are pretty common. Often less than 1%.

Its the buyers agent that is going to want commission because they are the one that have been following around the buyers for the last month or so showing them, who knows how many houses.

nai06 said:

---

I feel like a lot of y'all have only dealt with crappy realtors.

I just bought a house a couple of weeks ago and the 3% going to my Buyers agent was worth every penny.

---

**worth every penny of the sellers money. You didn't pay a dime.

When you actually have to start paying, you will realize that some of the tasks you listed will be better, more efficiently serviced by you, in house.

Wycliffe said:

---

Heineken-Ashi said:

---

TexasAggie_97 said:

---

I did a FSBO years ago and it was easy as hell. Buyer and I agreed on a price and had the title company do all the work. We showed up to sign paperwork, etc. and saved 6%. Realtors are becoming a relic of a bygone era. In 5-10 years, they may not even exist anymore.

---

Bad Realtors and bottom feeders will for sure be gone. And it's needed. I'm in favor of making the entrance testing 10x harder. It's a joke right now.

But Realtors aren't going away. I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money on that.

Now if only we could go after lawyers, the over inflated healthcare and pharma industries, and simplify the tax code to rid ourselves of hundreds of thousands of useless accountants who only exist because of a purposely overly complicated tax code, with the same passion we attack Realtors with.

---

You just proved my earlier point. How about the angry mob with pitchforks and torches come looking to rid ourselves of whatever it is that YOU do and the compensation that goes with it.

It is pretty unfortunate that there is such a mob mentality regarding all of this. But of course you would most likely respond that you are an incredibly hard worker and that you deserve every penny that you earn. In fact you probably think that you dont make enough for what you do. But dammit to hell everybody else owes me goods and services for a hefty discount or for free for that matter.

If people dont want to use realtors, dont use them! But no, lets dance on the grave of their perceived misfortune. I am learning a lot from this and it has nothing to do with the lawsuit or the results therein.

---

Agree with you. But the reality show, Instagram, and bottom feeder Realtors have made the profession an easy target.

He didn't pay a dime? Lol.

Not sure if this has been posted, but my experience with buyers agents has been terrible. As a lender paid on how much business I generate, I negotiate daily, and I can spot when someone isn't negotiating in good faith.

Buyers agents NEVER negotiate in good faith on your behalf. How do I know this? The lower the price they get you, the lower the commission. Also, they want to maintain good relationships with listing agents for future negotiations.

I will be much, much better off negotiating on my own and paying a flat fee to a buyer representation service for documentation, only. You will be better off too.

wessimo said:

---

He didn't pay a dime? Lol.

---

Correct