As an agent I can tell you this is likely going to hurt the buyer more then the seller because before the seller was expected to pay the buyer's broker's commission. Now besides coming up with the down payment and closing costs, the buyer now has to come up with a way of paying their representative 1 - 3 % of the sales price. Ridiculous!
How is it going to hurt the buyer. I'm a potential buyer, if my agent wants me to pay for his commission to show me a house, then I will just reduce my offering price by the same amount of commission that I will be paying my agent. No? What's the fuss of this? I don't understand.
@@cleveranwitty811 So, if it's not accepted, it's not accepted. Even if the seller pays for the buyer agent's commission and the buyer offers the full listing price, this same situation will still happen when there are other buyers who don't mind to over bid and overpay to get the house. So, in the end, it's still about who can pay what money to get the house. So, I still don't understand why there is a fuss on the new commission arrangement rule.
If you can't pay your agent, you can ask your agent to ask the seller to pay for his/her commission when writing the offer. Seller's still have the choice to offer compensation to buyer's agents.
Commissions have ALWAYS been negotiable. California was not the problem that created this lawsuit, but in fact was other states that failed to disclose to the Seller that part of the commissions being paid went to the Buyers Agent. California ALWAYS DISCLOSED this to sellers. But the issue will be if sellers decide not to cooperate with offering compensation to a Buyers Agent, the buyer would have to pay for the Buyers Agent compensation at closing. If they are not able to do this, they can't buy that house. Who does this hurt? THE SELLER! The SELLER will have fewer buyers. Less competition = Lower Sales Price. Classic "Penny Wise - Pound Foolish!"
