Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am not in favor of a duplicitous scheme with the foundation built on the buyers' unilateral ability to determine final compensation without regard to agent performance.
3% * salesPrice means buyers have "unilateral ability to determine final compensation without regard to agent performance." They get to pick which house, and thus the salesPrice that goes into this formula.
When your arguments against my proposal equally apply to a plan that you are defending, that is a specious argument.
3% * salesPrice means buyers have "unilateral ability to determine final compensation without regard to agent performance." They get to pick which house, and thus the salesPrice that goes into this formula.
When your own arguments against my proposal are equally applicable to a plan that you are defending, that is a specious argument.
Please show me what I have defended and where I have done so.
Probing a bizarre and duplicitous scheme does not constitute a defense of anything.
Well heck.
That my euphemisms are more fun and more accurate than yours doesn't constitute an argument supporting something I clearly do not support.
Why so selective about the use of these euphemisms? You've mentioned the "classic model" many times in this thread that you've had ample opportunity. Since the classic model also contains these qualities that you despise so much, why didn't you preface your criticisms with, "Well, this is also a weakness of the [colorful euphemism here] classic model, but..."
Last edited by perfectlyGoodInk; 09-06-2012 at 04:47 PM..
Why so selective about the use of these euphemisms? You've mentioned the "classic model" many times in this thread that you've had ample opportunity. Since the classic model also contains these qualities that you despise so much, why didn't you preface your criticisms with, "Well, this is also a weakness of the [colorful euphemism here] classic model, but..."
But it's YOUR thread and YOUR scheme under discussion.
I am on record in the thread and beyond questioning the status quo. Even invited you out of your scheme and into a mission that would be more productive than trying to deceive those you believe to be deceivers.
You asked for input on your scheme after your derision of the real estate industry in a local thread and you have received input. Good and accurate input with bonus content.
But it's YOUR thread and YOUR scheme under discussion.
A critique of my plan that is equally applicable to the standard compensation plan isn't much of a critique, even if you add colorful derisive euphemisms to it.
And why so coy? Which compensation plan do you use with your clients? In an ideal universe, what does the perfect compensation plan look like? Suggested improvements to my plan are very much on-topic.
Why so selective about the use of these euphemisms? You've mentioned the "classic model" many times in this thread that you've had ample opportunity. Since the classic model also contains these qualities that you despise so much, why didn't you preface your criticisms with, "Well, this is also a weakness of the [colorful euphemism here] classic model, but..."
Your logic reminds me of a highly educated Professor who has little experience with people in the real world. The average Buyer would walk away from your Commission Lecture thinking ???
If you were actually in a sales position dealing with the public you'd be broke fairly quickly. I don't believe anyone here is buying what you're selling.
Quote:
I completely agree with you, but it does inflate the price of the property. Its factored in.
Every product sold in an open market has the cost of selling factored in.
Every product sold in an open market has the cost of selling factored in.
But few products claim to be free. The ones that do are typically small add-ons, like the free doughnuts and coffee you can get at the mechanics shop while waiting for your car to be fixed. These aren't actually free either, the cost is built into the price of the service you are paying for just as much as the cost of the tools. But the doughnuts are also not what they're really selling, either. They're selling the auto service.
Buyer's agents are also selling a service, but some agents are also calling that service free when the money for that service comes out of a check written by the person to whom they are providing that service to. This is a little different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
If you were actually in a sales position dealing with the public you'd be broke fairly quickly. I don't believe anyone here is buying what you're selling.
I work close enough with salespeople to know that I would be terrible doing what they do. I'm not selling anything, and don't intend to. There is no money that this earns me. I'm asking for feedback for a compensation plan to use with my agent. Most of the feedback has been of the form of criticisms equally applicable to 3% * salesPrice, but with derisive language tacked on.
This tells me that the people here don't like it. It doesn't say very much about the reasons.
I think the problem with your scheme is that you are underestimating how much bias the agent will have to show you cheaper homes at the bottom of your price range. Its not about negotiating but really just about finding a cheap house.
The cheap house might be a much worse value and it might be much worse for your needs. To me this would be a pretty big backwards incentive.
I think that paying based on percent paid of list price makes more sense. Your argument was that there was no incentive for the agent to find homes in the lower end of your bracket but I think that is a good thing. The agent should be equally shopping all homes in your price range as the more expensive ones may still provide better value and a better fit. You should not be disinscentivising the higher end of the range.
The way to get no bias is to pay your agent by the hour. Personally I think serious home buyers are generally going to better off this way. Agent commission has built in that many people never even complete the transaction. Therefore those of us that do are paying for those who waste realtor agents time. If you would like to not pay for that its probably cheaper to pay by the hour. The exception would be if the home's price is pretty low. I'd suggest that you pay the agent hourly and the agent rebate you the difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
