Actually the seller pays the listing agent in my state and as the listing agent I "can" share the commission with another agent to meet the seller's goal of selling.  That's how my listing agreement reads.

Richie Alan Naggar I'd be fine with buyers paying their (buyer's) selling-agents and home-sellers only paying their listing agents; but it has to be all or nothing to make it fair. It'll never work if some sellers do pay while others don't - that would actually negatively affect all parties. I'm fine with local dues, I just wish we could "kill" NAR as a mandatory MLS access. If NAR had to earn our business vs. holding us hostage - we'd either have a very different NAR or none at all.

It's all a negotiation and sellers agree to what and who they pay in the listing agreement.

For the 8,000th time:

Sellers pay their listing broker. The listing broker then decides if they will share to entice the buyers broker to help sell their property. The seller's not paying the buyers broker, I am.

It's good business to get help from everyone possible to solve the problem.

This is just silly.

Interesting that some agents fail to understand Realtor forms and payout. No wonder sellers are suing, they have the same mindset!

Sellers should be interviewing agents to be the “ Director of Marketing” who can drive traffic to their property. They also are looking for an Advocate who will protect their interests all the way to the finish line ! This will require 

Undivided Loyalty !  They should not chose to hire an Agent whose claim to fame is - I have a Buyer ( so does Santa , the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy)

Richie - you sound like a consumer when you say that.  And that's why, when we have a consultation with a seller, we explain, just like Tammy Lankford, how it works.  You, Mr. & Mrs. seller, pay us... we, then offer compensation to the buyer's agency to expose you to the largest buyer pool which helps you sell for the best price.

Richie, I've had buyers pay all or a portion of their fee. The problem is the majority of buyers can't or won't. I've also had buyers walk away from properties because the builder/seller isn't pay the fee. 

What really bothers me about NAR is the embarrassment a few individuals have brought upon the association. 

 Hi, Richie Alan Naggar 

  I am selling a property that I own.  Yes, I will pay a commission to Buyer's side agents.  It doesn't matter to me who they represent, or how they choose to negotiate.  Just get it to Closing;  I will  pay you a Finder's Fee of 3% for bringing me that Buyer.

  re:  NAR and their subordinate State and Local Associations.  Once they lose control of MLS and Standard Forms, they are done.  Good riddance.

Oh boy, it saddens me to see such comments from a licensed professional. I have to agree with Alan, you do sound like a consumer who is unaware of all the nuances of this business. Our listing agreements also state that the seller is paying a commission to the listing broker who then chooses to offer compensation to a cooperating broker, or subagent. I consider it a marketing expense that benefits the seller by getting the most eyes on the listing. 

As a buyer's agent, I'd also argue that I am selling the seller's house. I researched the neighborhoods that best fit my buyer's needs, I pulled the comps, I toured the home and noted any needed deficiencies or upgrades, I compared it to any competing properties on the market, and I presented the facts and statistics to my buyer. I ensure my buyer is well educated about the process, and the house, and is in the best possible position to close on the sale without ugly surprises along the way. 

On another note, let's not forget about VA buyers. I've worked with many as my area has several bases and a large community of retirees. Are you aware that brokerage commission is not an allowable expense under VA rules? Do they not deserve representation? Leaving that large of a buyer pool out of the equation would be a disservice to all my sellers. 

The devil is in the numbers. If a buyer must pay their agent out of pocket as a closing cost, how will that affect how much they can offer and still get financing? Meanwhile, those who can afford the change are the lawyers who sued for it.

This whole thing is a mess. I'm still of the opinion that one day the all-and-powerful will dictate commissions and make cooperating agents receive a fee from the buyer.

Well, I typed a very long reply to this and when I hit the post button I got an error message and my long reply was lost.  Seeing lots of 500 server errors and lots of Chihuahuas. If it changes to buyers have to pay their agent, I think it's going to put a burden on lots of buyers to come up with the extra money.

The times they are a changin.

I suspect that sellers agents and sellers will stop offering to pay the buyers agents for a while, until they discover the number of buyers who cannot afford to pay their agent, thus avoiding all those properties.  Then things will swing back to the way it is now.  Unless of course the govt steps in and makes it mandatory that all buyers pay for their own agents.

lots of stuff does not really make sense.  Death and Taxes are the only sure things in this world.  Having the same lawyer representing two individuals in a divorce situation has never been tried, it might work.  SERIOUSLY?

I see the current system as what is best for our industry.  We have a multiple listing service which has changed real estate sales forever.  This system prevents a seller's agent from serving their own best interest over their clients.  Should the buyer have to pay their agent we would be back to a system in which the listing agent would double end a majority of the transactions.  I see this as a catastrophe for the public.

I am definitely sick of paying the ever increasing dues and not receiving ANY benefit from them.  Similar to taxes and how the government doesn't spend our money properly, haha.  I guess it is the way of the world, whether we like it or not.

The issue I have with double-ending a listing is when the listing agent's focus and end goal is on bringing the buyer. To say that things should be open, fair, and transparent in the world we live in is foolish.  I would love it to be that way yet that is not how I see the world turning.  

I live by the Golden Rule. I have full control and choices over my decisions and how I live my life.  I do not have that over others. 

At the end of the day if the sellers are satisfied with how the agent they hired managed the transaction ... that is what matters. 

The dues are FAT.  There is too much FAT at the top which is why we pay so much for what we get.  I would love to see the NAR go Poof! 

What Tammy Lankford, said...

BUT

In CA, you could also represent the buyer. Dual Agency is legal. Is it wise? Is it beneficial to the parties other than the agent who will cash a bigger check at the end?

And what happened to the argument that, since the money to buy the house is coming from the buyer, it is the buyer who is paying to commission - which is included in the sale price - to BOTH agents.

just some thoughts that come to mind:

1. If buyer has to pay commission, buyer would have to come up with not only down payment, closing costs but also commission.  That means less house to buy.

2.  If seller only pays half of the commission, more buyers will go unrepresented to seller agent and seller agent will do both sides of the transaction for that half of the commission (rather than double ending).

I think this concept is going away. The sellers are rebelling! Of course the technical way the payments work now is exactly the way Tammy Lankford,  indicated, but ultimately we do share and it comes out of the seller's proceeds. There are also arguments to the effect that it is in fact the BUYER who ultimately pays since the price gets grossed up to include the commission.

In NC & SC, our sellers pay their agent's broker. Whether or not their agent's broker wishes to share that fee with the buyer's agent's broker, is 100% up to them. Our listing agreement specifies very clearly what my broker intends to do with that fee the seller pays.

And, YES! We need to secede from NAR. NAR is only running our profession into the ground as evidenced by the latest of scams. Not to mention, their attorneys could not nip the lawsuit about this very discussion in the bud! Who needs them? Our states can very easily lobby for what OUR individual states need.

Things will change, that's certain

Contact your board.  Many associations offer an "emeritus" status for people who've been with the board X number of years.  Some require service to the board before they'll waive the fee for life.  After 30 years at our board, if you've served on a standing committee you no longer have to pay local dues.  CAR has a 70/30 rule that if you're over 70 and been a member for 30 years, you no longer have to pay dues.

NAR has a similar rule, but requires service to NAR.