Originally posted by @Peter K.:
Hey Nick,
In this instance, it would be difficult (as a selling point) to buyer's since sellers cover buyer's agent commissions and there are many agents out there that are willing to work with buyers w/o any retainer fees and/or guarantee of payment. At the end of the day, you'll have to make the judgment call with your buyer-client to see if it's worth your time to work with them and have the potential to lose out on a commission if they don't close. Really comes down to your comfort level and judgement call.
I agree. I think it also just comes down to the language within the agreement. In my instance, the language put a limit on the duration of the exclusivity, and it was a short period. I found this acceptable because I like the buyer agent and the team.
For the commission arrangement, I felt like the terms of the contract weren't overly aggressive, but it definitely wasn't market standard. My stance is if the buyer agent wants a guaranteed 2%, then they need to help me locate a property where the seller is offering this commission with the listing agent. The terms in the contract, as stated, essentially said I had to personally guarantee the buyer gets 2%, and if the seller gives less (e.g., 1.5%), then I have to make up for that .5% at closing, which could be added onto my mortgage (that I need to pay back eventually).
If the buyer agent is getting a guaranteed 2% + exclusivity, then I could imagine they definitely have an incentive to get the ball rolling. But the problem for the buyer agent is the market is competitive. At the outset, it's difficult to justify this arrangement, when other brokers are even going so far as to offer rebates on commission fees. It's also hard to demand these type of "aggressive" terms before demonstrating value or distinguishing your services from the other agents in the market. This has been my introduction into the world of real estate investing. Game on!