Joke Number one:
Q: If you came upon the Buddha in the guise of a hot dog vendor, what should you say?
A: Make me one with everything.Joke number two:
Q: Top Drawer Listing Agent, why do you charge a 7% commission to list a home for sale?
A: Because the lenders won’t pay any more than that.
Jonathan Greene at Real Opinionated invited me to participate in a debate he is having on the question of who pays the sales commissions in the transfer of residential real estate. Todd Tarson has already weighed in with an argument I consider unassailable, so I would rather veer off in another direction: Divorcing the buyer’s agent’s compensation from the listing agent’s commission.
I have written a ton on this subject, with my views changing over time, so please forgive me for digging into the archives:
- Butterflies might be free, but home-buyers pay for real estate advice — whether they know it or not…
- Who pays when “seller pays closing costs”? The buyer…
- Securing the home-buyer’s place at the table: How two simple reforms can finally result in a full, uncompromised form of buyer representation…
- Ask the Broker: What compensation does a buyer’s agent have to disclose…?
- Defining the Divorced Commission: A short-hand term for understanding alternative real estate compensation models…
There’s a lot more, but the Cliff’s Notes version is that I agree with Todd: Except in a Short Sale, the buyer brings every dollar to the closing table, so every disbursement of dollars comes from the buyer. The seller brings the house. The idea that the seller is paying anything is an vestigial artifact of sub-agency, a reflection of the fact that the seller hires the listing agent to market the property, and, therefore, in most cases sets the amount of the buyer’s agent’s compensation.
It is plausible to argue that the seller pays the lister and the buyer pays the buyer’s agent, and, while I don’t agree with that argument, it’s not worthwhile quibbling about it.
Instead, it would be much more worthwhile to completely divorce the commissions, so that what should now be true de facto will be true de jure: The seller would Read more
