Buyer's agent commission

[Joe Flacco]

It was previously not a seller concession because the listing broker had a 6% listing agreement, and the arrangement to pay the buyer broker was between the listing broker and buyer broker.

 

[Leland Hill]

A commission should not be counted as a concession unless it affects price enough to see it

Did you read the post I pasted it right from the source. Mortgage lender websites address it as well.

Sellers traditionally paid the so-called "buyer 's agent" commission - the difference is post NAR settlement, the verbiage changed a bit, and disclosures changed.

I have no idea what's going on with MLS boards outside of So Cal, but here the buyer's agent commission is required to be reported as a concession.

 

[J Grant]

View attachment 94966

Seller is covering costs or fees associated with purchasing a home. That is by definition a seller concession. It is not a seller concession that is expected to be reported in an appraisal report or adjusted for since it is customary.

You only posted two lines from the article.

Costs or fees associated with purchasing a home are not necessarily RE commissions. A seller can sell a home without using a RE agent and not pay any commissions, But the seller and buyers must, at closing, pay certain costs and fees. Those are the costs and fees often paid as a concession (or other items, depending on the parties )

 

[Joe Flacco]

You only posted two lines from the article.

Costs or fees associated with purchasing a home are not necessarily RE commissions. A seller can sell a home without using a RE agent and not pay any commissions, But the seller and buyers must, at closing, pay certain costs and fees. Those are the costs and fees often paid as a concession (or other items, depending on the parties )

It was not a buyer cost before and now it is.

Appraisers that think it is not a seller concession are just having difficulty with the idea that not all seller concessions need or should be adjusted for.

 

[J Grant]

It was previously not a seller concession because the listing broker had a 6% listing agreement, and the arrangement to pay the buyer broker was between the listing broker and buyer broker.

Per fanne, freddie and the lenders, THEY do not consider it a concession, wrt there is a cap on what they call IPC's, or independent party contributions such as a seller paying a portion of the buyer's closing costs. A seller or buyer paying any part of a commission they consider IN ADDITION to the cap on IPCs (often is around 9% of the price, though UW might not want to see it over 6%)

Note that the stakeholders sprang into action to ensure none of the lender's business or agent/broker fees would be materially impacted by the NAR settlement.

 

[J Grant]

It was not a buyer cost before and now it is.

Appraisers that think it is not a seller concession are just having difficulty with the idea that not all seller concessions need or should be adjusted for.

It is NOT a buyer cost if the seller covers it !

The main difference is that on MLS listings, the agents can not report the commissions or splits being paid. The NAR settlement was a big nothing burger in the end.