Letters to the Editor

Re: 'Should seller pay buyer's closing costs?' (Jan. 8)

Dear Editor:

I offer two responses concerning the question poised by the reader.

First, the question about whether the listing agent was overstepping his bounds by suggesting that some or all of the buyer's closing costs is paid as an incentive: If the listing agent fully informed the seller during the listing presentation, he could have revealed the presence of "seller concessions" in today's market, and that it is viewed as reasonable and prudent. You're right that concessions do tend to elevate the "average" home on the market to the "Honey, let's look at this one" category.

Another approach might be to educate the seller by stating that FHA/VA and conventional investors allow a percentage of the sale price to be used as cash concessions. So from a marketing perspective, this may not only be a smart approach to consider, but it's allowed -- plus it takes the heat off the listing agent!

Finally, including a cash bonus to the selling agent really doesn't ensure a showing or viewing of a particular home (in my humble opinion). The reason is twofold: If the purchaser doesn't like a bi-level home in a particular location, no amount of bonus is going to allow me to get him or her to look at the home. Second, the bonus offered to the agent by the seller can be given to the selling agent only with the purchaser's consent (in Colorado). Now, most of the time the purchaser agrees, but if the transaction is financially tight the selling agent usually offers to rebate the bonus to the purchaser to help with curtains, cleaning, a new stove, etc. This makes the buyer's agent look great, and the stove works fine!

John Mitchell
Mitchell Realty Services
Centennial, Colo.

***

What's your opinion? Send your Letter to the Editor to opinion@inman.com.

All rights reserved. This article may not be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever, in part or in whole, without written permission of Inman News. Use of this article without permission is a violation of federal copyright law.