Brokers are dumb? Or just us...

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by aboatman

Why should a broker reduce his fee so you could have your boat? Will he enjoy it once you purchase it?

It's called negotiation.

[billdomb]

[Q
I tell the broker I don't want this boat. He argues with me for a half an hour but finally gives up. Back home I get the survey report and it doesn't mention the alarm. I ask for my $300 back, and I can get it, but by contract I have to get another surveyor to verify that THIS survey was in error (and pay him $300 for his work).

They're all bast*rds, and in collusion with each other.[/QUOTE]

That'd sure piss me off. What about small claims court? Or even just a lawyer letter?

And is there a licensing board for the surveyors where you are? Think I'd file a BIG complaint.

[Sir_Crabs_A_Lot]

billdomb, it was 2001, 17 years ago. Also I mentioned we had a written contract and that would stand up in court in HIS favor. Judges like things written down.

[valhalla360]

I've found most brokers to be less than useful...

But in this case, you are asking for something unreasonable. No they don't want to set the precedent that they are willing to give up a large chunk of the commission. It really doesn't cost them much to leave it on the books and good chance they get full commission next time.

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by valhalla360

I've found most brokers to be less than useful...

But in this case, you are asking for something unreasonable. No they don't want to set the precedent that they are willing to give up a large chunk of the commission. It really doesn't cost them much to leave it on the books and good chance they get full commission next time.

I can't find much common ground here. They give up a large chunk of the commission more often than not, since -- best I know -- most deals include a buyer broker in addition to the listing broker.

As for next time, there will likely be a buyer broker who takes half; and in this case, there won't be a next time for a good, long while I think. Any decent surveyor will find that delamination, and the seller seems to have no price flexibility, so "next time" might be a couple of years away.

But sure, it costs the broker little more than an unhappy client and the price of a Yachtworld listing to keep the boat unsold and on the market.

[hamburking]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

But sure, it costs the broker little more than an unhappy client and the price of a Yachtworld listing to keep the boat unsold and on the market.

Brokers (and their cousins, real estate agents) will keep an overpriced boat in the listings to aid in the sale of other boats. The overpriced boat listings become the "comparables".

[Caribbeachbum]

Originally Posted by aboatman

Why should a broker reduce his fee so you could have your boat? Will he enjoy it once you purchase it? Did he enjoy it while the seller had it? Also by reducing his fee as a contribution to the repairs he is in effect creating a position of responsibility in the repair. Should the repair not be effective in the future he has put himself in the position of still being responsible for the repair, will you then go back to him and ask for more money for a corrected repair?
The purchase is between buyer and seller not the broker. Brokers work for either the buyer or seller and in such cases where they are in dual capacity they must remain objective. By "cutting his fee" he would be favoring the seller by enticing you to purchase a vessel with defects and therefore not be a neutral party. Just suppose he gave up a portion of his commission and then the repairs were more extensive would you then go back and ask for more money? If the repairs were less would you then refund him some of the money he gave up? Seems to me a typical financial overreach scenario, so blame the broker.

Well, half of his fee was pure windfall, a gift from me in not bringing a buyer-broker to the deal. His buyer and his seller were at loggerheads, and it would have cost him only the money that he probably won't get on the next offer because there will be a buyer-broker involved. So yes, I think it would have been a good move to put it into the deal (just as he would if I had a buyer-broker) and make his seller happy with a sold boat, while getting a typical and very nice commission for doing so.

I'd try to answer the rest of your questions, but they seem to really be just be a rant.

[valhalla360]

Originally Posted by Caribbeachbum

I can't find much common ground here. They give up a large chunk of the commission more often than not, since -- best I know -- most deals include a buyer broker in addition to the listing broker.

As for next time, there will likely be a buyer broker who takes half; and in this case, there won't be a next time for a good, long while I think. Any decent surveyor will find that delamination, and the seller seems to have no price flexibility, so "next time" might be a couple of years away.

But sure, it costs the broker little more than an unhappy client and the price of a Yachtworld listing to keep the boat unsold and on the market.

Good luck with that...expect to be disappointed. You aren't a buyer's broker. I'll give you 1000-1 odds, this broker plays both roles at various times...if he's smart he isn't going to undercut half his business.

If the seller eventually lowers his price to account for the damage is irrelevant.

[cyan]

While brokers for boats vs houses are much different, I’ve met examples of both that are looking more long term. These are the good ones. My first real estate broker paid to replace my roof before listing because the curb appeal would be much higher. Two houses later, he made 10x that commission because we kept buying up and using him (never mind the referrals he gained from me.) A few rare boat buyer’s brokers have a similar long term view. Some of us $30K boat buyers will drop much more than 10x that one day when the retirement bell rings. Trust is a big factor- definitely gonna use “my guy” again for the big one if the little one went well.

[Jim Cate]

Brokers, like most other folks, vary in aptitude, application, honesty and energy for the job. We've known several personally and they have been "good guys" IMO. We then dealt with one as a selling broker. He was still a good guy, but we learned that he wasn't an aggressive salesman...the sale was slow, but done in good faith and friendship.

But earlier, back in the San Francisco days, we had a yottie friend who lost his business in a divorce, and subsequently went to work in a large east Bay brokerage with several other salesmen, all more experienced than our friend who was a novice. This was during a downturn, and sales were hard to come by. At the end of the first quarter of his employment, the brokerage had sold (IIRC) 27 boats. He had sold all but three of these... an incredible performance. So, I asked him how the hell he did so well? And the answer... well, he just listened to what the customers said they wanted and then found it for them. Didn't waste time trying to upsell them, or get rid of the dogs clogging the brokerage docks... just got them what they wanted. When they didn't really know what they wanted, he'd spend time educating them a bit. He worked a lot of hours, both in the office and on the docks and it paid off for him and the brokerage as well.

Perhaps there is a lesson there...

Jim

[Island Time O25]

Please explain why if the seller can't or won't captain the boat during the sea trial why would paying for captain be the buyer's responsibility?

To OP. Yes' this broker was not only dumb but too greedy and ultimately not a good broker. In my days as an active RE broker those busy closing deals were the ones who would routinely cut their commissions to save the deal. This not only makes the sides happy but brings much appreciated repeat business from both sides.

IMO this monopolistic attitude to a set % for commission should've expired long time ago. And common sense says that 5% of something is way better than 10% of nothing.

[john61ct]

Buyer is responsible for all inspection costs.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by john61ct

Buyer is responsible for all inspection costs.

It's not that straight forward. The seller is required to present the boat for inspection. If a boat is on the hard it is up to the seller to make it ready for a sea trial if he agreed to a seatrial. Very few sellers are going to give a boat they own to a potential buyer to sea trial without a representative of the seller in charge.

[boatpoker]

Originally Posted by Paul L

It's not that straight forward. The seller is required to present the boat for inspection. If a boat is on the hard it is up to the seller to make it ready for a sea trial if he agreed to a seatrial. Very few sellers are going to give a boat they own to a potential buyer to sea trial without a representative of the seller in charge.

I disagree with both of you. The entire deal is a process of negotiation. Everything involved is on the table. Who pays for what depends on the mindset and skill of the negotiators.

[Paul L]

Originally Posted by boatpoker

I disagree with both of you. The entire deal is a process of negotiation. Everything involved is on the table. Who pays for what depends on the mindset and skill of the negotiators.

Of course everything is negotiable, but in general what I said is typical.