There’s always something to howl about.

The seller really pays for the buyer’s agent? Definitely not when the buyer pays out of pocket. But what if the buyer really did pay for the buyer’s agent from the buyer’s side of the HUD-1?

There’s a lot of discussion of Buyer Broker compensation going on around the RE.net, and I want to draw attention to it while I can. I have some further thoughts of my own, but I’m not sure I’ll be able to get to them today. It’s Saturday, after all. One of the reasons I’m re-thinking everything associated with buyer representation is the dreadful shortage of Saturdays in the week.

Pursue these links. This is interesting.

Kris Berg argues that it really is the seller who pays both agents. (For agents Back East: In Arizona, and I believe in California and Washington, we do not have sub-agency. The buyer’s agent represents only the buyer, but is paid out of the co-broke established by the listing agent.)

Jeff Brown suggests dropping the veil and having the buyer pay his own agent directly rather than through the escrow process. The key problem with that, of course, is that many buyers don’t have cash for earnest deposit, inspections, appraisal, down payment, closing costs and a buyer’s agent’s fee. Many buyers don’t have cash for any of those things.

ReyEstate has a summary of the latest episode of egg-tossing from Freakonomics. I’d be much more impressed by those boys if they actually worked in real estate.

Jim Duncan argues that the buyer can pay the buyer’s agent’s fee out of the buyer’s side of the HUD-1, rolling the fee into the mortgage, as it is done now from the seller’s side of the HUD-1.

All of this debate is good, I think. There is no doubt that sellers have a very high degree of control over what listing agents are paid. It seems completely reasonable to me for buyers to have that same level of control over what buyer’s agents are paid.

< ?PHP include ("http://www.bloodhoundrealty.com/BloodhoundBlog/DCFile.php"); ?>

Technorati Tags: , ,