All Forum Posts by: Ryan Schwartz

in this particular case it's a cash buyer, home received over a dozen offers within the first 24 hours of being on the mls. Cash buyer waiving all contingencies, wants to close in 10 days. And the cash buyer directly reached out to the agent, cash buyer doesn't have an agent. Yes, slightly more paperwork, and DEFINITELY more liability for the brokerage, but a full commission already at 6% to me sounds a bit greedy because outside of hiring a photographer and putting it on MLS there was no marketing, minimal negotiating and counters as everyone was submitting highest and best offers from the get go. Not to mention a higher financed offer that is SOLID could in the long run be better for the client, and the agent has fiduciary obligations to meet. Ultimately the client makes the decision. Just my opinion, we all have varying opinions it looks like on this thread.

@Frank Jiang thanks for the info.  that's what I was thinking as well

@Karen Margrave thanks for the info, yes a 5% commission is reasonable when having to split with an agent that is bringing a buyer into the transaction.  does it typically not change for dual agency?

@Patricia Steiner thank you for the info, my question was more specific to what a broker will charge for dual agency.  if it's generally the same, or discounted because now a buyer's agent won't need to be included. 

Hi everyone. I'm wondering what your thoughts are... I have a friend who is an agent and his broker usually makes him charge 6% of sales price for a listing in CA.  That's on the higher end of normal, as it seems most agents do 5-6%.  This agent found a buyer for his listing and will be doing dual agency (which is completely legal and above board in CA).  He was thinking he would be able to give the seller a pretty decent discount, but the broker is only willing to let him drop down to 5%.  I told him his broker was way over priced and dual agency reasonably should be 3.75-4% (obviously the broker is taking on more liability with 2 clients).  Maybe I was off, or out of bounds, or not.  It just didn't sit right with me.  I'll take any and all feedback.  Thanks!

@Eric Veronica thanks!

@Brandon Sturgill thanks!

Hi, my wife and I are mulling around the idea of purchasing land and building our own home. I didn't think this would be a feasible option as the loan guidelines for construction loans typically require at least a 20% down or 80% max cltv. I wasn't previously aware that there is an FHA construction to permanent loan out there which has a much lower down payment requirement. I've done some transactions as a realtor in residential real estate, but never for empty lots/land. On the residential side, I know that a prodcut such as the FHA 203k loan isn't usually too desirable if I'm a listing agent looking at a buyer and it's a competitive situation. Those loans can get complicated and take quite a bit of time. Is that the same case with the FHA construction loan product? I'd just like to know if I'm being realistic with this idea and if I'd be taken seriously as a competitive buyer? Everything else (DTI, FICO, assets for reserves) is solid, we just live in a very costly area where the median listings are in the 700k range and won't have a 20% down payment. The lots go for 150-200k and a friend had his home built for about $200 per square foot. This would allow us to get into our "dream" community and possibly have an awesome equity position immediately. Probably too good to be true... but I'm hoping not! Thanks in advance for any advice I may get.

-Ryan

@Stephanie Irto thank you for the help

@Tom S. Thank you for the input