Working with banks and lenders that seem to have only their best interest in mind, I have come to the conclusion that it is better to refer out to a perspective buyer, rather than try to represent both parties.
Mainly, because the banks do not want to pay you 5 or 6 % if you are the only agent involved. My experience is that the first lien holder (bank) does not seem to care they will pay 5%. However, when the second lien holder (bank) finds out that there is only one Realtor involved, they only want to pay 3%, or they will not move forward.
I have gone as far as killing the entire deal and starting all over to see if they will fold, with the understanding that they will get nothing when the property goes into foreclosure. I have been informed that they would rather take nothing, than pay one agent the 5 or 6%. I have all my listing agreements at a full 6%. So it seems that the "ego" of the junior lenders seems to out-way the approvals of the lenders that are in first position.
Don't get me wrong, I have my client's best interest in mind and usually take the loss and accept the 3% to close the deal. BUT if I do all the darn work, marketing, inspections, advertising, etc. Don't you think my due diligence is worth both sides of the commission.
Let's face it, if something goes wrong with the opinion of the buyers or the sellers of the deal, who do you think they will blame? So, if I am liable, isn't that small extra commission earned by me? From now on, I would rather refer out the buyers to another agent and still represent the sellers, and ask for a referral fee from the buyer's agent, and still come out better than doing all the work by myself and only getting paid for half.
Food for thought, my fellow colleagues.
God Bless us all indeed,
Brett Woodruff, ABR
Comments(1)