What the heck? So I'm looking at this listing and they offer 4 percent. In the comments section, it says only 2% to non members? Someone elaborate on this.

That usually means that agents who are not part of the local MLS will be compensated differently than those who are members. I'm confused, though, by your example. Usually the split would go something like the following:
5% total commission
2.5% to listing company/agent
2.5% to buyer's company/agent
BUT in the case of a non-affiliated company:
5% total commission
3% to listing company/agent (non-member)
2% to buyer's company/agent (non-member)

In your 4%/2% example, it looks like a 50/50 split regardless. Maybe the listing is trying to emphasize that non-affiliated companies will be treated the same as affiliated companies?

And this reduction to non members will A) convince them to show the property since, they need to look at the MLS sheet first to show and know this right? Oh,(duh) forgot they aren't members! or b) convince them on the short sided benefits of non membership? or bring back from the *dark side*

I have witness this in our MLS here too, but to buyer side only, its short sighted. I found cooperation to non MLS real estate agents/brokers in smaller markets does help them see the benefits of being a Realtor and at least one has become a member of our board and I know it was the coop transaction we had.

Its sad to see that language in a listing sheet.

i agree that is sucks, since agents shouldn't have to join a board just to get access to MLS, maybe it'll change one day...

It absolutely does NOT suck! I think that agents should be required to join an MLS and an association in order to gain access to the MLS. It helps govern our industry so things don't get out of hand. Our associations are helpful to our business. By being required to join an association in order to gain access to the MLS, it forces the people that want to make the "quick buck" out of the business, which is great! It attracts the serious career agents. If anything, they should raise the bar to be able to gain access to the MLS. I definitely don't want that information public. It helps protect our business by locking it up.

Agent 007 I agree with you. I pay fees every year to join my local MLS. Why should agents who don't pay the fees get the same benefits and commission splits as agents that pay the fees to join?

Why does it suck? If they are not members of the board that means that the listing agent must meet the agent at the property to open the listing as they will not have supra access so the listing agent will have to let them in for the showing. More work so the listing agent expects to be compensated for the additional work.

I also dislike working with non members for that reason and many others.... like they often use non standard forms as they would be in copyright violation if they use the MLS/ REALTOR® copyright forms. They typically have far less knowledge of what the heck they are doing including required disclosures for the area, what the actual market comps are.

Not being a member of the local associations, may work for commercial real estate in some areas but not belonging and attempting to do residential real estate is illogical and places their clients in a significant disadvantage. We Never share the same commission with these semi agents as fully associated agents, that would be unrealistic and stupid.

Here's a quick question. If a licensed agent that is not a Realtor uses the Realtor Association's forms, they are in violation. What if an unrepresented FSBO uses the Association's forms? Are they in violation also or not because they are not held to the same standards?

Here in the land of Ahhhs, there is not a majority of licensed re agents that are members of a board and therefore the majority of licensed re licensees not members of NAR. The minority of board members in our state are in the larger cities only, leaving 95% of this 2x4 state geographically outside to non members.

Blogging personally, while almost 95% of my REO listings are sold co-op with a board member, and I belong to three (3) MLS boards, 5% of my co-op transactions are still with non members because the listing is in a small rural town miles away from a city with a board. Many times these non members have to have another income channel as an insurance agency and/or appraisal service as well to make a living too.

I am not an advocate of giving away services, or data compiled through the board mls to non members, but really now with proliferation of data flow from internet access to public records and associated realtor sites, local and national, do any of you think there isn't a large amount of MLS data that doesn't gets in to the public access information pipeline? I do advocate the cooperation with any non-member licensee, if they have a buyer for one of my listings to sell any of my client's property. Even if I were narrow in focus and in line with some opinions expressed here justifying a lower split for non members my master listing agreements with REO lender clients as they are, do not allow disproportionate compensation to the selling agent regardless if they are or are not a non member of MLS.

I know sugar draws more than vinegar...

How would they get them? Can the general public just buy them? I would say it should be a violation, since by using them you are implying that you are a realtor.

Some agents drop off these forms to FSBO's.

Or, you just go to our State website and print, write or download any RE form you need.
http://www.dora.state.co.us/real-estate/contracts/contracts.htm

Len is talking specifically about REALTOR copyrighted forms, not ones available freely in the public domain.



I would bet that doing so is against the terms of use allowed for in the copyright info....

SAME PROBLEM: Had the same problem in Canada, until there was a complaint filed resulting in a successful federal prosecution, where the court ruled such paractices to be a discriminatory trade practice, and a restraint of trade, in violation of federal law.

It also raised the issue as to whether such practices was in the best interest of the consumer and it this instance, the listing broker's clients.

This ruling sent a clear message that anyone in violation of the law would be federally prosecuted.

We now have the “Agreement to Co-operate” signed prior to the presentation of the OFFER by both the listing broker and the co-operating broker representing the buyer containing the specified percentage of the commission payable to the co-operating brokerage firm on completion of the transaction.

We now have the “Buyer Broker Agreement” wherein the buyer agrees to pay a specified percentage, with the amount received from the listing broker to be credited to the buyer’s account and it is understood and agreed that the buyer agrees to make-up any short fall in the commission due. In the event of a short fall, it is the buyer's choice of whether to proceed with his OFFER or decline.

This appears to have solved the problem locally.

Personally, I have always been willing to pay the same and equal commission to any real estate firm, to get the property sold in my client's best interest.

Important Notice: This information is provided as basic educational information by the author and is not a substitute for the advice of an expert and/or the advice of a lawyer. There is NO representation as to legality, accuracy, correctness of the herein information and the reader is strongly urged to consult a lawyer in the relevant jurisdiction to ensure accuracy before acting on this information .