Yet another article on our changing industry and how some consumers are supposedly being hurt:

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/broker_1.html

Thinking about this... if this business model ever shows up in my area and a buyer comes to one of my listings claiming to be represented but is unrepresented... I'm going to have them sign a form releasing my firm from all liability, and deduct 1% from the co-broke fee for the xtra work and liability involved.

This probably means I put 2 CB amounts in the MLS listing.

If the buyer wants the house this isn't going to stop them... and if it does, the buyers agent can take the hit. I have every right to compensate another broker as I see fit.

So your solution to the industry's problem is to make it harder for your clients to sell their house?

If you're going resort to this kind of stuff have the courtesy to at least disclose it at the listing presentation. See how many listings yoiu get.

How is that going to make it harder for my clients to sell their house?

Are you saying that because I am offering less of a co-broke fee to an unrepresented buyer that it will drive potential buyers away and kill deals?

I say it won't. Another firm shouldn't expect to receive the same CB compensation as a fully represented buyer for doing less work and increasing my liabilty... should they?

how do you know they're unrepresented? Do you assume that since the agent isn't present at the showing somehow the client is unrepresented?

When you hold open houses and invite buyers off the streets to look at your listings do you have those people sign a waiver too? Or do you only have waivers signed when the buyers come from a competitor?

I mean unrepresented at the showing by the buyers agent. And I'd do that for any agency... not only the ones that give rebates.

If I hold an open house and a buyer comes in I always ask if they are working with another agent. Around here the agents call ahead and tell you they are coming... as a courtesy. If they don't and don't have a buyers agency agreement then they are fair game.

Sorry you don't like the idea... but it's not my problem if other firms base their business models on flawed concepts. Keep in mind that under a buyers agency contract it usually spells out that the consumer will pay the agent a set fee... but it's not up to the listing agency to pay that fee.

I know many firms that won't pay any kind of co-broke if the agent doesn't register the buyer ahead of time. And talk about procurring cause issues... You want the full co-broke... come out with your buyer and see the house.

You don't have a right to the commission.. it's only under my good graces that I am offering a co-broke fee and I can compensate as I choose.

You can do whatever you want, but keep in mind that if you are a member of the mls, you must agree to pay the cobroke amount. There's a difference between a cobroke fee and a buyer agency fee.

I think you're business model is flawed to the max.

If you want to offer variable cobroke to different brokers, no problem. Do it ahead of time so we can filter the IDX and display only listings that will pay a fair cobroke. I'm sure we can get a tech to get this done.

Does it say this in your listing contract?

Most listing contracts I've seen say you will pay x amount to be in the mls. In your case, you'd need a listing agreement that says you will pay x amount except for the following companies..

LOL

"You can do whatever you want, but keep in mind that if you are a member of the mls, you must agree to pay the cobroke amount."

Based on procurring cause... which I would argue these firms don't have if they just send in an offer.

So who are you with? Redfin or the other firm?

Why is my reducing the co-broke fee unfair?

How is your filtering listings by co-broke fee serving your buyer clients? Don't you have a duty to show them everything that is avaialble and let them make their own decisions?

Talk about a flawed business model.

For every bad report there are two good ones. (as reported yesterday)
http://www.rismedia.com/index.php/article/articleview/15007/1/1/

"Most listing contracts I've seen say you will pay x amount to be in the mls. In your case, you'd need a listing agreement that says you will pay x amount except for the following companies.."

We use a custom listing agreement anyway.

Keep in mind that an mls listing is tied to agency and as someone seeking a co-broke fee without an exclusive buyer agency agreement, you are still working for the seller.

Not in Texas, not by a long shot.

By the way the co-broke fee is advertised in MLS here and you can't go changing it after the fact just because you don't like the broker that represents the buyer. Your lower-the-co-broke tactic could get you in a lot of trouble here.

In our MLS you can identify if the co-op is a "variable" commission, which means if the buyer wants to write an offer, you better call and ask what the co-op is for the day.

"as someone seeking a co-broke fee without an exclusive buyer agency agreement, you are still working for the seller."

Sure you are. If you don't have a buyers agency agreement and are seeking a co-broke fee, you are technically a sub-agent of the seller and have a fiduciary duty to the seller. Better do you homework on agency.

I wouldn't change the co-broke fee after the fact... it would be ahead of time when the listing was submitted.

Who pays you has nothing to do with agency or whom you represent or don't represent.
N. Carolina must be one of a handful of states with sub and dual agency.
I wonder which states still offer this archaic way of doing business?