I listed an expired listing which had been on the market for 6 months with another agency. I listed just below (5%) what the first agency had it listed for. I supported my pricing with numberous comps. The 2nd day on the market I get an offer within several thousands dollars of the list price. The seller does not thank me but immediately brings up the commission. He says he will pay 50% of our agreed on commission because "you did not have to do any work." The seller says I have no cost incured and therefore should get half the agreed commission. This was a co-broke offer. What would you say to this seller? What if it had been my own offer and I got this response from the seller? How would you react?

Did he accept the offer?

I am curious to know how another agent would respond.

Again...did he accept the offer?

Survey say NO! You got an accepted offer and a listing Contract that calls for X% commission. It does not say X% if it sells in the first week or X% if it takes longer.

You did your job that you were contracted to do.

I assume the offer was accepted. Remind the seller that you performed services under the terms of the contract that the seller agreed to. You and the seller were both hoping for the exact results achieved -- a quick sale. Explain that your brokerage and the selling brokerage will expect the agreement to be honored. Then, ask for a testimonial. (okay maybe ask for that at closing)

Absolutely well said Paul ... I often use that in my listing presentation to avoid that problem. Sometimes if I get a seller that is cost conscious, I offer to sell it for 20% less if it sells in the first 30 days.

I only get burned when I sell both sides as then it's 40% less -- but generally that's o.k. as I'll get both sides. I explain that the co-broke's commission stays at 100% regardless of DOM.

This does 3 things in my eyes --

1. Makes them more keen on a reasonable price
2. Gets them thinking about/o.k. with the idea of dual agency.
3. They think it's a bargain and I save money over the old I'll sell for 1% less than the going rate which may be for hypothetical sake 6%. Which sounds better to you ... I'll sell if for 1% less or I'll take 20% off if it's sold in the first 30 days? Ultimately I'm saving roughly 13% over the 1% savings route.

I think the seller should pay a bonus for getting the job done so quickly! ;-) But I suppose you will need to accept the agreed upon amount in the listing contract!

Really, truely, honestly.... Many, many... dare I say... MOST... agents wouldn't have a lick more invested (time or money) in a listing if it took 30 days to sell or 6 months- other than refilling the flyer box on occassion, and a heck of a lot of 'em don't even do that. I'm not saying that's how anyone should do business, but it's the way a lot of agents work.

Working cheap gets you two things 1) old 2)broke
You earned the money, the seller SAVED extra house notes, and wouldn't appreciate it if you did the sale for free so don't be concerned.
In business these people don't count, but they do
make you better. You gain knowledge for future bargaining. You will also gain more skill by anticipating the situations that may arise. You will come to realize YOU CAN CREATE the
situation you want without the other person realizing that you did it.
Keep on track. Wishing you the best.

I like Mr. Foreclosure's idea. Maybe I should have argued for a bonus for the speed of my performance.

I used to counter this objection by writing into the listing agreement that I would reduce my commission by a small percentage if the home sold in the first week of marketing. It had the dual advantage of making the seller think just a minute longer about pricing to sell, as well as calming his concerns that we might have underpriced his house (because he'd still net a little more from my lower commission).

And, frankly, a home that sells quickly IS less work for me than one that sits around. If reducing my commission would always result in quicker sales, I'd reduce it all day long!