hachiko wrote: ↑Thu Jun 10, 2021 11:15 pm
If your agent has information that would allow you to sell the property for more, not only are they most certainly obligated to tell you, they are incentived to tell you.
If only it were this easy...
As some have already suggested in the current case, and definitely in some other cases, there can be a real difference between what gets the *seller* the most money and what gets the seller's *agent* the most money.
If a seller's agent has an offer where they get both sides of the commission (e.g., if there is no "buyer agent" involved to split that commission), then it would not be in the agent's "best own financial interest" to present an offer with shared commission that is just slightly above an offer with no shared commission.
And that is one of the biggies, although ethically it shouldn't be.
And that might well be what is going on here, but not necessarily.
But in terms of other "potential issues", albeit not necessarily in this situation, one is that because the agent gets a rather small percentage of the total selling price, it may not be "worth it to the agent" to spend more time/effort trying to get a "small/modest amount more" for the seller. If the agent could find or negotiate an offer with another, say, $100k, then the agent would get somewhere in the $2,000 - $6,000 more (less some costs, or even only a part of that if shared with a broker). But the seller
would have gotten something like $94,000 - $98,000 more. That IS a difference! And for a price of even $25k or $10k extra, it's even less financially lucrative for the agent to spend the extra time, but the seller would still have benefited nicely.
I'm surprised there aren't some sliding scales, such as "... or 10% [or 20%..., etc.] of anything over $XXXX" put into the selling contract.
I'm not even sure if that is legal (?).
When I looked into this, it seemed that any "side arrangement" might be a violation of something (e.g., realtor ethics rules?), perhaps *unless* disclosed to the buyers. I'm not quite sure why, or why it would be a problem to disclose such an arrangement to buyers. (But I am not a real estate sales professional.)
And finally, one apparently major reason NOT to disclose those letters and photos is that those can be a time bomb waiting for a discrimination case to be filed by some upset prospective-but-unsuccessful buyer. Didn't get the property? Learn that the buyer was in fact in some "potentially more attractive category" than yourself? (That could be ethnic, age, family status, etc.; there are quite a few "protected classes".)
Whammo... lawsuit time. Or at least on the seller/seller's agent side, the fear of such a lawsuit later.
Hence, NO disclosures about such characteristics of the buyers.
Yup, that means NOT learning that a prospective buyer *really* wanted children to go to those top-rated schools, the ones that may have meant so much to you, the seller, for your own family when you were buying some years ago! Or perhaps that a prospective buyer *really* wanted to live in that "gay friendly neighborhood" or "nice mixed race neighborhood". And those are indeed types of reasons that might matter to some buyers... and could lead to a nice lawsuit in certain cases... or "just" the worry about one, by the seller/seller's agent.
All fine, unless/until
that buyer didn't get the property and suspected - or just "wanted to claim" - that the property was sold to someone else because of some related issue...
The "best price or strategy" is not necessarily identical for seller and agent, although in most cases, they are indeed the same.
This signature is a placebo. You are in the control group.