The Risks (and Benefits) of Being Stuck in the Past

We all cling on to the past in some way shape or form.  It's human nature.  It's comforting.  As I sit here writing this on Monday morning after a super busy weekend of appointments, showings, open houses, and, yes, even some elements of a social life...I eagerly anticipate what is as close to a day off as one gets to having as a real estate agent in April.  My big plan is to listen to the original pressing of Saves the Day's seminal record "Through Being Cool" that I just picked up while beating Donkey Kong Country on Super Nintendo.  Exciting stuff.  Well, probably not to you...but it sure is to me!  Because it is this stuff from my youth that brings me to my happy place, and feels like a legitimate break from the current state of the world.

This past week (amidst the CSOTW) I encountered one of the craziest situations of my career - one that was essentially predicated on the agent on the other side of the deal being stuck in the past.  I won't (and don't need to) go into all of the specifics to get my point across.  But the gist/in a nutshell/boiled down version/etc is that I was representing the buyers, she was representing the sellers.  She had told her sellers that they would only need to pay a certain amount to a buyer agent's brokerage.  This is a big "no-no" and not how real estate works in 2025.  You may recall me devoting thousands upon thousands of words in this here newsletter about this very subject and the, ya know, massive class action lawsuit that took place due to this practice.

Repeat after me: sellers shan't dictate how much the brokerage on the other side of the deal is to be paid.  It is not in anyone's best interest for them to do so.  And this situation is kinda the perfect example of why.

To back up a bit, if you have sold, are selling, or will sell with me, you know that my philosophy is this: if your goal (as it is for 99% of sellers) is to net the most money at the closing table, you need to evaluate an offer based on its overall merits.  It doesn't matter whether the buyer broker is asking for 2%, 3%, or 10%.  If you're netting the most at the closing table (e.g. the offer with the 3% going to the buyer broker is 4% higher than the next highest offer) that is the one you should go with.

What happened with my deal was that the sellers got extraordinarily bent out of shape that I was asking for more in commission than what they wanted to pay out, and more than what the discount broker they hired was to receive.  Apparently, it didn't matter that our offer was clearly the strongest overall (it was $20k over ask, and as of the time of writing, the property remains on the market).  It also certainly didn't help that the listing agent failed to inform me of her clients' staunch take until hours after our best and final offer was submitted (if she had communicated this to me upfront, our B&F would have included my buyers covering the portion of the commission the sellers did not want to pay).

And this, right here, is really the key takeaway.  The listing agent was used to the days of inputting %x into MLS, buyer agents knowing what was being offered, and negotiating from there.  Unfortunately for this agent and her sellers, those days are long gone (and IMHO the industry is far better off for it).  Because she failed to adjust and adapt, emotion, awkwardness, and resentment were introduced into the equation.  This is residential real estate after all...feelings are a thing.

If current best practices were adopted, everyone involved in this transaction would likely be happy right now, and working towards P&S.  Instead, my buyers' search continues...and so does the sellers'.  Everything does tend to work out in the end...but man, I sure can't help but wonder where not just this deal would be, but where this industry would be if agents and consumers alike were educated, informed, and brought up to speed.

As I sit on my couch, comforted by the music and games of the mid-90s, I long for real estate to accept that it's 2025.  Time to hold ourselves accountable and practice in a way that acknowledges why a $980M+ lawsuit happened.