Plain Talk About Real Estate Commissions
When I sell a property I own, I absoloutely hate paying a real estate commission. Really, I hate to do it. And I'm a real estate agent!
But I know that if I don't do it, I most likely will not sell my property as quickly or at as high a price. Figures from the National Association of Realtors have proven that's the case. Real estate agents sell property faster and for a higher price.
So, I grit my teeth and pay it. And I pay a full commission, no discounting. If an agent has a buyer, I'll give a full incentive to bring that buyer over and sell my property.
Even the St. Petersburg Times -- which for years has urged sellers to hire agents only as a last resort -- even they are now advising home sellers to hire agents and pay the full commission. Don't believe it? They ran an article to that effect on June 9, 2007, page 10, Section F, headlined "Agents: Commissions help move the merchandise". In that article the paper acknowledges that aggressive marketing efforts available only through real estate agents justify the commissions charged.
So, how 'bout some plain talk about real estate commissions from somebody who just hates the thought of paying them?
Here's what you should keep in mind.
Any seller who does not offer a full real estate commission is shorting himself an opportunity to sell his property. Here's why ...
Real estate agents get paid ONLY by commission. So if you reduce the commission you are also reducing the agent's income and taking away their incentive to show your property to prospective buyers.
If you're a seller, do you really think it is a good idea to cut somebody's income while asking them to do a full marketing program to sell your property? Remember, the agent has to pay for the marketing materials out of his own pocket in most instances. So if you cut his income, where's the incentive to the agent in a deal like that?
Do you think it's a good idea to reduce the amount of money you'll pay to an agent for brining you a buyer when there is a huge inventory of property similar to yours offering a full commission in the Multiple Listing Service? Where's the incentive to show your property when the agent could show similar properties and get paid a higher commission?
Cutting commissions is like cutting your own throat in the world of real estate today.
The St. Petersburg Times article stresses this reality: "In slow-moving markets glutted with homes for sale, listing agents seek to entice buyer's agents with high co-op commissions. Most commissions are split between the listing agent and the selling agent who brings the buyer to the table." Today you can't entice anybody to bring you a buyer with a discounted commission -- that's the reality of the situation and the reason to offer a full commission.
Sellers should take the advice offered by the St. Petersburg Times and be sure to offer a full commission. It's one of the best ways to entice agents to bring potential buyers to your property -- in fact, it's the best way. Remember, on average the listing agent finds the buyer only about 1 time in 11. So 10 out of 11 times the buyer is coming to you as a result of the efforts of the other agent. Do you think it is a good idea to offer that agent a reduced commission -- especially when owners of homes similar to yours are offering a full commission? Just keep that in mind when you start negotiating the listing fee for your property.
For more information about real estate in Tampa Bay, visit my website at http://www.thestpeterealestatesite.com/.
But I know that if I don't do it, I most likely will not sell my property as quickly or at as high a price. Figures from the National Association of Realtors have proven that's the case. Real estate agents sell property faster and for a higher price.
So, I grit my teeth and pay it. And I pay a full commission, no discounting. If an agent has a buyer, I'll give a full incentive to bring that buyer over and sell my property.
Even the St. Petersburg Times -- which for years has urged sellers to hire agents only as a last resort -- even they are now advising home sellers to hire agents and pay the full commission. Don't believe it? They ran an article to that effect on June 9, 2007, page 10, Section F, headlined "Agents: Commissions help move the merchandise". In that article the paper acknowledges that aggressive marketing efforts available only through real estate agents justify the commissions charged.
So, how 'bout some plain talk about real estate commissions from somebody who just hates the thought of paying them?
Here's what you should keep in mind.
Any seller who does not offer a full real estate commission is shorting himself an opportunity to sell his property. Here's why ...
Real estate agents get paid ONLY by commission. So if you reduce the commission you are also reducing the agent's income and taking away their incentive to show your property to prospective buyers.
If you're a seller, do you really think it is a good idea to cut somebody's income while asking them to do a full marketing program to sell your property? Remember, the agent has to pay for the marketing materials out of his own pocket in most instances. So if you cut his income, where's the incentive to the agent in a deal like that?
Do you think it's a good idea to reduce the amount of money you'll pay to an agent for brining you a buyer when there is a huge inventory of property similar to yours offering a full commission in the Multiple Listing Service? Where's the incentive to show your property when the agent could show similar properties and get paid a higher commission?
Cutting commissions is like cutting your own throat in the world of real estate today.
The St. Petersburg Times article stresses this reality: "In slow-moving markets glutted with homes for sale, listing agents seek to entice buyer's agents with high co-op commissions. Most commissions are split between the listing agent and the selling agent who brings the buyer to the table." Today you can't entice anybody to bring you a buyer with a discounted commission -- that's the reality of the situation and the reason to offer a full commission.
Sellers should take the advice offered by the St. Petersburg Times and be sure to offer a full commission. It's one of the best ways to entice agents to bring potential buyers to your property -- in fact, it's the best way. Remember, on average the listing agent finds the buyer only about 1 time in 11. So 10 out of 11 times the buyer is coming to you as a result of the efforts of the other agent. Do you think it is a good idea to offer that agent a reduced commission -- especially when owners of homes similar to yours are offering a full commission? Just keep that in mind when you start negotiating the listing fee for your property.
For more information about real estate in Tampa Bay, visit my website at http://www.thestpeterealestatesite.com/.
-30-
posted by Terry Ward at 6:26 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home