Pretend you find yourself in the following situation....

You find out through relatives a house you've always loved since you were a kid is for sale. It's out of your price range, yet, it's something you would consider pursuing since you love the home so much.

You later find out that they are selling the home using a real estate agent. Would you consider waiting until the contract between the seller and agent expires in order to make the house more affordable for yourself and family?

Or would you view this as crooked and dishonest since the real estate agent works off commission?

Pretend you find yourself in the following situation....

You find out through relatives a house you've always loved since you were a kid is for sale. It's out of your price range, yet, it's something you would consider pursuing since you love the home so much.

You later find out that they are selling the home using a real estate agent. Would you consider waiting until the contract expires in order to make the house more affordable for yourself and family?

Or would you view this as crooked and dishonest since the real estate agent works off commission?


When does the contract expire? Is there a chance of you losing the house if you sit and wait?

the real estate agent is working for the seller -not me - the buyer -I'd wait it out...

I'm not sure i undestand the poll question the way it's phrased...

It's not unethical..

What is the seller's intent after the contract expires? relisting with the same buyer who hasn't been able to move their property or go with another agent?

When does the contract expire? Is there a chance of you losing the house if you sit and wait?

Not sure and it's not really relevant. I'm more concerned with whether you think this is a crooked or dishonest thing to do regardless of when it expires.

IF and only IF the seller were to whisper to you that the contract is expiring in XX amount of time.. and it'd be in your best interest to wait it out- then I might question it...

I've never bought a house -but I've watched my parents buy enough houses - the buyer doesn't pay t he commission - so the buyer isn't screwing anyone out of anything.

I'm not sure i undestand the poll question the way it's phrased...

Would you wait for the contract to expire or not as the buyer is what I'm asking. Does it not read that way?

What is the seller's intent after the contract expires? relisting with the same buyer who hasn't been able to move their property or go with another agent?

I'm not sure... as this is a real life situation and I am the buyer.

IF and only IF the seller were to whisper to you that the contract is expiring in XX amount of time.. and it'd be in your best interest to wait it out- then I might question it...

I've never bought a house -but I've watched my parents buy enough houses - the buyer doesn't pay t he commission - so the buyer isn't screwing anyone out of anything.

I was under the impression the commission was wrapped into the price of the house. Without the contract and subsequent commission the house could be 450k instead of 500k for example.

Am I incorrect in that assumption?

Or I guess a different take, if the seller doesn't have to worry about paying commission, they'll be more willing to negotiate to a lower selling price.

crap i meant to say realtor above...

The contract is expiring with virtually no activity on the house -- no activity = no offers...

As the seller _I'd question how hard the realtor is working for me - and if they're doing every thing possible to move the house... Or if they are indeed serious about selling...

I like to believe that I have a fairly strong sense of ethics... so I do not believe that you as teh buyer are under any moral obligation to put any sort of money into the broker's pocket - they had their chance... and didn't do the job... that's life suck it up buttercup... the fact that you're interested in the house at a time when it's avaialbe has nothing to do with them...

I was under the impression the commission was wrapped into the price of the house. Without the contract and subsequent commission the house could be 450k instead of 500k for example.

Am I incorrect in that assumption?

Or I guess a different take, if the seller doesn't have to worry about paying commission, they'll be more willing to negotiate to a lower selling price.

I think it depends on what is in tehclosing contract - you can negotiate closing costs into the price of the house... and price of the house could be inflated to accommodate that commission - or not...

(that's why you need a good real estate lawyer for the closing (i know of several in northern new jersey :) and more than serveral in nyc :D Pa rules might be different...

That's my initial, knee-jerk reaction too.

In this particular case I know the seller's agent did not 'produce' which, IMO, lessens any ethical responsibility the buyer might have. If any exists in the first place can be argued I'm finding out.

In the poll question though, I'm more interested in knowing what people would do without knowing if the seller's agent did or did not do his or her job.

Would you feel an ethical obligation since they work off commission?

Would you make an attempt to wait the contract out to make it more affordable?

Would you feel a moral obligation to right the broker even though you did not find the house by way of him or her?

I too feel like I have a good moral compass and this is the first time I've had to question it in a long while.

Would you feel an ethical obligation since they work off commission?

No because the realtor works for the seller not me

Would you make an attempt to wait the contract out to make it more affordable?
yes, because it would affect my bottom line... and by waiting it out -- the price will drop



Would you feel a moral obligation to right the broker even though you did not find the house by way of him or her?
None whatsoever... again -they didn't do anything for me... and I realize that sounds selfish... but if somoene doesn't directly help me - then why should they profit off of me.

I go into a clothing store- I pick out a sweater I want - I head to the wrap station to purchase it -I have done all teh work myself -i resent being asked who on the floor helped me so they could get credit for teh sale... The fact that they were on the floor breathing -isn't enough to give them credit... they have to be actively working for me to get the credit -like find me my size, pick out the color - do something..

If you have called and gotten information about the house, or looked at the house since she has had it listed then you would have to wait what is typically a 6 month period After the contract is expired. Most realtors list homes on what is called a right to sell contract. This means that no matter who sells the house during that time frame, they are due a commision. Also most of these contracts have a clause that if anyone that was involved with the home during this period comes back to buy the property for XXX amount of days (broker fills in this number with what ever they want. 180 days is usually standard.) Then they are still due a commision. This clause is standard to avoid exactly the situation you are referring to. It is not against the law to wait and I really don't think it is immoral, however it is very risky if you really want the house. Most listings are for a 6 month period, then if you have to wait the additional 6 months, that is a year for someone else to slip in under you.
What I would recommend instead, is to work with the realtor. Make an offer of what you want to pay. She is obligated to submit it to the seller no matter how low it is. If they don't accept it, fine. It is in the file and the seller knows you seriously want the house. You never know, they may take it. You have no idea of the sellers bottom line or motivation for selling. And it is not unusual, especially if you are working with the listing agent, for the agent to cut their commision rate to help the deal come together. Especially in this market, it's a bird in the hand.

Not sure and it's not really relevant. I'm more concerned with whether you think this is a crooked or dishonest thing to do regardless of when it expires.


The only reason I thought it would have been relevant was if it became an issue of you losing the house to another buyer b/c you were waiting out the contract, that's all.

If you are willing to wait, I see no issue with it at all.

If you have called and gotten information about the house, or looked at the house since she has had it listed then you would have to wait what is typically a 6 month period After the contract is expired.

A buddy of mine who does mortgages explained this to me. He also mentioned that most contracts have clauses where it the buyer comes from a source besides the original listing with the old agent... then that voids this 6 month clause.

That said, I don't see how they would tell the difference where the buyer comes from so I don't know how valid this is.

Most realtors list homes on what is called a right to sell contract. This means that no matter who sells the house during that time frame, they are due a commision. Also most of these contracts have a clause that if anyone that was involved with the home during this period comes back to buy the property for XXX amount of days (broker fills in this number with what ever they want. 180 days is usually standard.) Then they are still due a commision. This clause is standard to avoid exactly the situation you are referring to. It is not against the law to wait and I really don't think it is immoral, however it is very risky if you really want the house. Most listings are for a 6 month period, then if you have to wait the additional 6 months, that is a year for someone else to slip in under you.

Thanks for the information.

First, I was mostly interested in your take as to whether the buyer would be dishonest in his attempt to wait the contract out.

Second, in this particular situation I would never wait, as the buyer, an inordinate amount of time. If I found that the contract had months left on it, I would place my offer now.

If I found out that the contract had a couple of weeks on it... that might change things.

What I would recommend instead, is to work with the realtor. Make an offer of what you want to pay. She is obligated to submit it to the seller no matter how low it is. If they don't accept it, fine. It is in the file and the seller knows you seriously want the house. You never know, they may take it. You have no idea of the sellers bottom line or motivation for selling. And it is not unusual, especially if you are working with the listing agent, for the agent to cut their commision rate to help the deal come together. Especially in this market, it's a bird in the hand.

Thanks very much for the insight.

The only reason I thought it would have been relevant was if it became an issue of you losing the house to another buyer b/c you were waiting out the contract, that's all.

If you are willing to wait, I see no issue with it at all.

Thank you, and see the above post for the context of your concern. :)

No because the realtor works for the seller not me

This is not always the case. Most times when a realtor lists a home they list as what is called a Transaction Broker. This means they don't really work for either side. No loyalty is shown to either side, and the seller signs that they understand that. The realtor works for the transaction. Trying to make a deal that everyone is happy with. Even though technically the commision comes from the sellers side of the money, you are right, the buyer is paying at least a portion of it.

yes, because it would affect my bottom line... and by waiting it out -- the price will drop


This is not always the case either. Most people make this assumption and think if they buy a house for sale by owner they will get it for less. The seller is just as worried about his bottom line as you are. If the market says his house is worth X amount of dollars he usually wants X amount of dollars. If he is willing to come off that number he will do so before the contract expires. If not he is going to want to keep the extra money that he is now not paying to a realtor.

Asolutely it is honest. The sales person earns a commission based on his/her ability and resources to sell/market the home. If you have not used their services/resources to make your buying decision then why give them money? You could even flip the script and say that you would be doing the family a dis-service by basically forcing them to pay a 6%+ commision to sell a home that they have pretty much sold themselves. I am a commisioned salesperson so I have pretty stiff ethics about these things and I tell you I could do it in good conscious.

A buddy of mine who does mortgages explained this to me. He also mentioned that most contracts have clauses where it the buyer comes from a source besides the original listing with the old agent... then that voids this 6 month clause.

That said, I don't see how they would tell the difference where the buyer comes from so I don't know how valid this is.

They don't know where a buyer comes from. That is why the only way to void this clause is to name the buyer at the time of the listing. If I go to list your house and you tell me that your old neighbor might be interested in the home and his name is John Smith then he is named in the listing contract as exempt from commision.

If the market says his house is worth X amount of dollars he usually wants X amount of dollars. If he is willing to come off that number he will do so before the contract expires

If the market says the house is worth xx dollars - and in 6 months time the house hasn't had any nibbles -the price is going to drop on the house - or it's goiing to be pulled off themarket because the market is dead... and wait for a better time... or a more motivated agent...

Asolutely it is honest. The sales person earns a commission based on his/her ability and resources to sell/market the home. If you have not used their services/resources to make your buying decision then why give them money? You could even flip the script and say that you would be doing the family a dis-service by basically forcing them to pay a 6%+ commision to sell a home that they have pretty much sold themselves. I am a commisioned salesperson so I have pretty stiff ethics about these things and I tell you I could do it in good conscious.

Thanks very much for this response.

They don't know where a buyer comes from. That is why the only way to void this clause is to name the buyer at the time of the listing. If I go to list your house and you tell me that your old neighbor might be interested in the home and his name is John Smith then he is named in the listing contract as exempt from commision.

That's what I figured... the buyer's name would have to be written into the contract.

If the market says the house is worth xx dollars - and in 6 months time the house hasn't had any nibbles -the price is going to drop on the house - or it's goiing to be pulled off themarket because the market is dead... and wait for a better time... or a more motivated agent...

That is exactly right Mal. If he is willing to come off the market value number, he will do it before the contract expires. And by not working with the realtor Steve would have no idea that this guy dropped the price of the house by $20,000 this morning and he got a contract on it two hours after it hit the MLS at the new price.

Thanks everyone for your insights... very helpful.

My husband is a Realtor, and even though he works from straight commission, I don't see any problem with waiting out the contract. Now, if you've asked another Realtor to show you the home or signed a buyer's agency, that's another issue altogether...

Also, I personally would recommend making an offer with a different agent than the selling agent. Although they might be willing to cut commission, they are legally obligated to represent the sellers, since they are locked into a listing agreement. There is a such thing as "dual agency", but you have to have someone's best interests at heart, and who knows who that will be - maybe the Realtor. :)

If the sellers feel that their agent is doing the best job possible, and would re-list the property with him after the current contract expires, then I think it would be underhanded to go in there and wait it out. However, if they are not satisfied with his job performance, then I don't think it's bad, b/c they would've re-listed the house with another agent at that time anyway.

In financial advising, which I know is a different world than being a R/E agent... we were doing something similar. We would do financial planning and investment recommendations for a potential client in hopes that they'd choose to execute with us at the time of decision and we'd be paid by earning commission on the products we invested their monies in.

There were times however, when we did not get the business. We did the work up front, the individual was free to take the plan we prepared for them and execute elsewhere, and we weren't paid for it. And my firm doesn't consist of a bunch of schlups. We've been in business and we are family run for over 50 years. We do excellent work and are one of the larger, private financial advisors out there for a reason.

As a side note, looking back, I never once felt like the potential client was dishonest or underhanded. I understood it was the nature of the business.

My main point though is the 'market' corrected itself with regards to the deficiency in the context of advisors getting paid. Eventually financial advisors didn't like not getting paid for their work enough so that they changed the model. What happened?

Fee for planning started. You started charging a fee for up front planning and then you'd also earn a commission on transactions placed after the planning.

And now the industry or market is taking it a step further and ditching the commission-based mentality and pushing the fee-based platform where the advisor is paid on a percentage of invested assets. This way the advisor gets paid regardless.

I'm not making this point to suggest right or wrong.... I'm simply curious if:

a) Is losing deals to this sort of behavior mentioned in this thread a major problem with being a real estate agent and if so....

b) Do the agents in this thread ever see a push to correct the 'deficiency' similarly to what we see happening in the financial advising arena today. I am completely ignorant about the industry but do you ever see it going in the direction where the agent is paid partially up front using some medium to calculate... either current property value or something more fancy?

If there is any kind of change taking place in the real estate market it is cutting into the brokers profits and not adding to them. A realtor never gets paid for showing properties to a buyer. You can spend infinate amounts of time and gas and every Satuday and Sunday afternoon for months lugging these people around, just to find that they either won't or can't buy anything.
As a broker, one of the first things I try to teach a new agent is to try to prequalify a client. Make sure they have the ability to buy. Can they get financed. It is a tight rope. Because you don't want to waste your time, however you don't want to scare off your new client. People tend to bow up when you start asking about their finances.
On the listing side is where realtors traditionally make their money. But as you can see from some of the posts here, people tend to think that realtors make way too much money for doing way too little work. I will keep it short and just say that there is alot more time and work involved in working a listing than most people realize. I would also point out that all expenses that are incurred along with that listing come straight out of the realtors pocketbook. Not the company or the broker but the realtor herself pays for all her signs and advertising and fliers etc. Up front with no guarantee of being reimbursed unless the house sells.
So there are some companies out there that have started some new ways of making it look cheaper to list with them. You have the flat rate companies that charge a much cheaper flat rate up front. This is not a great deal for the homeowner because they pay for services that used to be free. Plus there is no incentive now for the realtor to work the listing. They have already been paid. But they are cheaper so some people use them.
Then you also have companies that are pricing listings ala carte. It will be this much to list it in MLS. This much more if you want us to show it for you. This much more if you want us to write contracts etc. Also not a great deal because the homeowner is left to do alot of the work themselves or even if they buy the whole package they are back to the original percentage and now they are working witn an agent that is not always a full service agent and may not be as experienced in some areas.
So in my opinion, as much as the general public would love to not have to pay a realtor to sell their home, much of the time it is the best and often times the least expensive route to take. In some sellers markets as we have had recently it is possible to find buyers on your own, but there are alot of legal ramifications and liabilities to be considered with that approach.
There are good ones and bad ones of every group of people. The sale and purchase of real estate are some of the most important decisions you will make. Don't just pick one out of a crowd and hope for the best. Make sure you feel comfortable. Ask for references from people you trust. Most good realtors don't advertise much, they make a living off of referrals from past customers and associates.
Wow, I am sorry this got so long, I guess it is the sales person in me. :leaving:

Awesome post!

And you certainly don't have to sell me on the idea that finding a competent agent to negotiate my deal is the best thing for me.

I was more interested in what direction you agents see your industry heading if this "dishonesty" is something that commonly happens in your business. Or is it part of the business and it's accepted as such. Build the best business model you can in hopes that this will be enough to minimize the "dishonest" tactics used by some clients.

From the sounds of it, there is some push but it's not really in the right direction.

Pretend you find yourself in the following situation....

You find out through relatives a house you've always loved since you were a kid is for sale. It's out of your price range, yet, it's something you would consider pursuing since you love the home so much.

You later find out that they are selling the home using a real estate agent. Would you consider waiting until the contract between the seller and agent expires in order to make the house more affordable for yourself and family?

Or would you view this as crooked and dishonest since the real estate agent works off commission?
The problem with waiting for the contract to expire is that they may close a deal with the agent, given that an agent has many more marketing opportunities available to him or her.

The only thing I can think of that would help, would be if you could convert a portion of the home to a rental property and get a mortgage assisting tenant in there. That could be the best thing for you or it could turn out to be a nightmare. It's always a gamble being a landlord.

Again, this wasn't about the risk of waiting for the contract to expire or not.

This thread was solely to hear your opinions on whether you think the buyer has a moral obligation to the seller's agent to not wait for the contract to expire.

Assume there are no negative consequences of the contract expiring.

ignore this post.

Again, this wasn't about the risk of waiting for the contract to expire or not.

This thread was solely to hear your opinions on whether you think the buyer has a moral obligation to the seller's agent to not wait for the contract to expire.

Assume there are no negative consequences of the contract expiring.
In that case, not your agent, not your problem.

I don't think its dishonest or immoral. You have nothing to do with that agent. You did not hire them, you did not sign contracts with them. Its not your problem.