Reneg Broker's Agreement?

NO! There was no mention of any percentage of a settlement arising from a buyer's default in the last 2 properties I sold, one just last fall.

Yes. This is normal listing language, at least for the big companies. As you already stated, it's 10% of any settlement, usually from the contract deposit. This is usually a non-negotiable term of the listing agreement, since 1). It happens perhaps less than 5% of the time. 2). Settlements are always for much less than the contract deposit amount. Even on a $5mm place (10%/$500k), a "seller" would be lucky to see $100k total as a "settled" amount in a default situation of which, an agent would get $10k. Even the most vetted buyer can turn out to be dud. Agent just lost potential 6% (despite you agreeing to less) standard fee or 3% split = $150k-300k (on $5mm place).

P.S. Good luck on the 4% thing. I imagine your apartment is not in an ideal location or something. 4% is usually an indication of something not being right. I rarely see "reduced" listings with 4% (2% to buying broker). You're only hurting yourself because despite what you might think ("hey, it's a sellers market, I'll sell it anyway") there are many brokers who flat out won't show a listing under 5% (unless it's a $20mm place, of course). The better buyer financially willing to pay more money, possibly, might not even be told of your property by their broker. So, you save maybe $7500-$15k on $1.5mm property? Much less if property is lower price. The savings you're talking about is pennies in comparison to what some buyer might pay. Lets's say it's a $600k apartment. You rather pay a lower fee for a buyer who offers you $575k or pay a whopping (2.5%) to a big broker buyer's agent) and their buyer might pay you $635k for your apartment? Sure you might save $7500 bucks, but you might also be taking $35k additional out of your pocket.

I can't remember the last time I saw a 4% listing with a big broker. I've always found this to be faulty logic on the part of seller and usually an indication of something not being right. Your arrangement with the seller is one thing, but short changing a buyers agent is a very bad idea to your bottom line. Weird that your listing agent might not have had this exact discussion with you and the importance of buyers agents and their buyers.

I agree w/ Nah that you do yourself a disservice not paying a full 3% co-broke. I think the better fee arrangement would be 6% if there's a co-broker involved and 4% if there's no buyer's broker, if your broker is willing. A lot of brokers won't notify their clients of listings that don't pay the standard 3% co-broker's fee.

So Remom....what you are saying is you are happy to screw over your clients for the sake of 1% .....

nice idea of client service. Sure I can understand if there were two identical properties you would prefer they took the one you got 3% on instead of 2% but we always know there is always some difference one way or the other that influences buyers one way or the other.

10% is also what my company normally charges in the case of a default - not likely. Please keep in mind that everything in a listing agreement is negotiable until it's signed by all parties.

>everything in a listing agreement is negotiable until it's signed by all parties.

And many things are negotiable after the fact too if you have the balls to do it and enough real or fake justification, and the other guy doesn't the balls to stand up for himself.

2% brokerage fee in the UK. And you can negotiate lower. CRAZY you guy pay 6%. Must be amazing being a broker!

deanc, I am not a broker, so I don't have anything in this game. I just wanted to warn people that when they're looking, if they have a buyer's broker, unless they're scouring the listings, too, they won't know what the broker's NOT showing them. There are definitely brokers who won't take their clients to places not paying the full co-broke fee. Those places sometimes trade at a discount because there is less traffic and less competition.