I'm a big believer in the (essentially) free market system, including its application to real estate commissions. I'm also a big believer in disclosure of unusually high and low commissions offered to me when I am representing buyers. The free market doesn't require me to work for either lower or higher commissions than what my work is worth, it simply allows prospective clients to choose how much value vs. risk they want in their potential transactions and the services that lead to them.
Recently I was working with a buyer who was very interested in a property for which a selling commission was being offered that was nearly double the typical selling commission range for the market. I immediately disclosed to the buyer that this unusually high commission was being offered, that I had some homework to do to find out why the seller and listing agent felt it was necessary to offer an unusually high selling commission, and that I don't accept commissions above the typical range for the market. This made the buyer rightfully concerned about what might be wrong with the property, and rightfully trusting that I was an ally in finding out, rather than a salesperson looking to profit at the buyer's eventual expense.
It wasn't difficult to get to the bottom of the unusually high commission offer. There was an issue that might have squeaked through an inspection and cost the buyer thousands of dollars in the not-to-distant future. Armed with that knowledge, our eventual offer included a provision that the seller would hire a licensed contractor to remedy that issue prior to closing, and another provision that I would be paid a commission typical of the market we are in. The deal closed with a very happy buyer who will remain very happy for a much longer time than if I had simply taken the unusually high commission and left the looming major expense to them.
There isn't anything inherently wrong with offering higher commissions. But there is a great deal of value in turning them away when taking them would have the effect of shifting risk or cost to our client, especially with our knowledge but without theirs.
19 Comments on Commission Disclosure
Hmmmm, very interesting post today. I think you did the right thing by checking out the reason why the unusual higher commission was being advertised....I've never run into this situation before. Guess I would have been suspicious too!
Patricia/Seacoast NH
Usualy added commision is a come on to the agent, but the excessive amount carried a red flag. Good job hunting down the source. I feel fortunate I subscribed to your blog, David. I've been enlightened frequently. Thanks.
Good point, well taken. Good advice to remember. Thank You! Dan
Point well taken. I have recieved commission from 2 to 4%, never more. Often times the big commission is just to get the traffic. If something sets to long I cut my commission and raise the other half to 3.5%.
Hi David,
Good post, I also reveal anything out of the norm when I'm showing homes. I'm curious, was the issue disclosed through the Sellers Disclosure Statement?
Dan, the Seller Disclosure wasn't yet available at the time my client first became interested in the property, and the issue wasn't necessarily required to be disclosed. I'm avoiding going into specific details so as to avoid identifiability of a specific transaction. In the end it turned out that the sellers and their agent were exceptionally cooperative and adequately forthright.
Good catch. I'm sure your clients were thrilled that you put them first as it should be.
Interesting. You clearly did the right thing in finding out the 'issue that might have squeaked through an inspection and cost the buyer thousands of dollars in the not-to-distant future." (I understand your need to keep confidentiality on this.) Not knowing the specifics causes the mind to conjure numerous scenarios until one gets a headache. "Not necessarily required to be disclosed." More conjuring...
David I wonder if you can answer a question. By refusing the above average commission, did that amount somehow get passed on to your client, the buyer, and how was that done? Or did it just result in a savings to the seller who was offering it? And I hope this additional question does not sound too crude. Why would you not take the higher commission as it was offered? You did your job well. You earned it, no?
OMG....when did money become something we are ashamed of making? I just don't get it. It's fine if you are wondering if there is something wrong with the home...but it's part of our job to help our buyers get good inspections and investigations anyway. I would work just as hard for 5% as for 2% it's my job. It's crazy to turn down commission out of principle. If I'm an ethical Realtor who helps buyers buy homes they want, it's noone's business how much I make.
Just a reminder.....
I would be very careful using the phrase "TYPICAL SELLING COMMISSION" , "AVERAGE COMMISSION" , "NORMAL RATE OF COMMISSION", etc.
There is no such a thing as a "TYPICAL SELLING COMMISSION" , "AVERAGE COMMISSION" or "NORMAL RATE OF COMMISSION".
Keep in mind: in real estate everything is negotiable including commission.
Penalties for breaking Antitrust Laws are very stiff...
Halina, absolutely, there is good reason that commissions are as they should be, negotiable. The context of my post supports that, and in no way makes any suggestion or representation of what a commission should be. And your reminder is a good one. Thanks for commenting.
In michigan you can not use the purchase agreement to negotiate commissions either up or down. the Purchase Agreement is between a buyer and a seller, not real estate agents.
The coop commission being offered is a contractual agreement between the seller and the listing agent. No one else can renegotiate the commission.
Seems it would be similar in other states as well falling under contract law or code of ethics.
This was wrong on so many levels but was overshadowed by the good intention.
George & Don, the adjustment to my share of the commission was agreed between the listing agent and me. In turn, the listing brokerage and the seller agreed to a corresponding adjustment to the total commission. We negotiated a deal for our clients that included a remedy for the issue in question, in addition to whatever price and other seller concessions we would have negotiated anyway. The net effect was that my client got a better deal due to the remedy, and I was fairly paid, while the seller probably came out close to the same as they would have under the original commission offer.
Karen, you and I disagree, except that we both agree that there is no shame in making money.
I appreciate the comments and concerns.
David: Using the phrase "TYPICAL SELLING COMMISSION" , "AVERAGE COMMISSION" , "NORMAL RATE OF COMMISSION", etc. is against the federal Antitrust Laws.
I am in the possesion of a great article on the subject. However, at this time I do not have the permission from the author to reblog it.
Halina, thanks for your concern. I appreciate it.
David, Good job on doing your homework & putting your client first.
I understand not using "normal" or "typical"... but "average" is merely statistical, and should be allowable for comparison.
How do you handle the question from a seller: " What is the usual commission charged?"
"There is no 'usual', we all make it up as we go along" does not sound like an answer. People generally know the unspoken 'usual' for their area.
I find no issue with stating "the average commissions for this area are X, but understand that all commissions are negotiable".
I don't get why the 'antitrust', when 95% of listing commissions are the same. What's the harm? The IMPORTANT part is to inform your client that they are negotiable. IMO.
Hello David, great post and heads up for us.
Very good points David. Great post and great food for thought.