My first instinct is to argue that $2K is a small amount when you consider the overall value of the transaction. However...
From a seller's perspective, that $2K likely represents a much larger percentage against the realized profit/gain. If the seller is walking away with a $100K gain, $2K may be easier to swallow. Then again, if the seller is looking at $10K, $2K could be a much bigger issue.
From a seller's perspective, it is easy to feel antagonistic towards people who stand to realize a gain on a transaction that seems disproportional to the seller's.
From a general perspective, I agree with Wetdawg's observation that many seem to barely be able to bring the minimum 3.5% down. I really feel that buyers should have more skin-in-the-game than 3.5%, but that would also reduce the buyer pool and increase downside pressure on pricing. Personally, that would be painful...but likely a good thing to thin-the-herd.
Add to everything to the REA spiel that "REAs are "free" to the buyer", that means everyone eats off the seller's plate. Good when you're the buyer (unless you stop to realize that you're financing the commissions), sucks when you're the seller and actually see the money leaving your pocket.
I also agree that a different compensation model is needed, but the REAs (as a group) are closed to the option, and consumers (again, as a group) aren't willing/able to?force the issue.
hugo hugo nfl combine 84th annual academy awards beginners 2012 oscars the shore
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.