That`s right. It`s an archaic system. It`s ripe for disruption, but it seems every time you try to bother by reducing the fees they get a bad rep that there`s somehow less service (think of the red pin). The 5% payment at the current average selling price of the houses is astronomical and does not correspond to the value received. Prices have increased by 30-50% over the last period, the commission is expected to fall to 4%, if not 3%. If agents do not earn enough to earn a living, it may be time to get a new job. There are only so many sales in one year. Do you want to keep keeping the audience away? I`m not sure how this post and its condescending tone will help you gain public trust. RECO`s mandate is to ensure that the trade in real estate helps build and maintain public confidence. They unseal these efforts alone and shoot themselves in the foot. It is this attitude of justification that eliminates people. NOT THE COMMISSION.
But I will say that I have never received a competitive offer from an unrepresented buyer who wants to save commissions. They are usually the ones that offer 7-10% below the list price, in competition… He said, “No, I will only make this offer by you, because I want to save 2.5% commission.” If you are using commission reductions, it is important to establish an appropriate agreement to comply with the Real Estate Services and Business Brokers Act, 2002 (REBBA 2002). I would miss it if I didn`t have one more word on this subject – to sellers who feel they are “saving” money by not offering a buyer`s agent commission. I know you don`t like what I`m saying, but that`s the way it is. As I understand it, this contribution indicates that it is really not possible for buying agents to forego their commissions or reduce them from them. What kind of deal? There are different types of commission agreements that can reach an agent and his client. What is fair to the client and the respective situation depends on the facts. Here are the basics: this raises an interesting question. What happens if the real estate agent does not try to recover the commission due? Crompton v. Norman Hill Realty Inc.
dealt specifically with this issue. It was not possible to conclude certain real estate transactions and the question was whether, under its contract with the brokers, the broker was nevertheless required to pay his commission. The court found that the broker had a positive duty to the agents to do everything in its power to collect commissions (or negotiate an appropriate transaction) and to pay those agents their share. It would be unfair, in the court`s view, to allow the real estate agent to negotiate a transaction that was advantageous to himself, but this was done at the real estate agent`s expense. So let me present a few questions and/or comments that I often receive from buyers and sellers, and without trying to upset someone or have differing opinions, simply explain how the agency and the Commission intersect in these situations… What about an unrepresented buyer who wants to submit an offer and wants to sign a buyer-rep agreement, but wants a buyer`s discount? I`ve seen that this happens more often than a way for buyers to save some of the commission by getting it is a co-op commission discount. As a general rule, the commission is paid to the brokerage company that represents the seller as part of a written agreement representing the seller, which may include an agreement to pay part of the total commission to a cooperating broker representing the buyer. It is important to note, however, that some of the Commission`s models are not mandatory in accordance with THE 2002 REBBA. Different models of commissions are acceptable as long as they comply with the law. If the agent uses a commission for a service provided and tries, months later, to reduce the commission to zero at the beginning of the service, this circumvents the rules of the CRA. Although selling agents may choose to reduce the co-op commission, there is a deterrent effect for them to do so.