they got caught

Wether the realtor are bad or great is irrelevant the fact is that legally there are not responsible for anything, there is no accountability here so why should they get those kind of fees.
Fees in Mexico ae negociable but not here.
You can get a facilitator to change your bills for a lot less money that what the realtor cost you.

Wether the realtor are bad or great is irrelevant the fact is that legally there are not responsible for anything, there is no accountability here so why should they get those kind of fees.
Fees in Mexico ae negociable but not here.
You can get a facilitator to change your bills for a lot less money that what the realtor cost you.

Viajero, same in Chiapas, you get a notario and fo foreigners you go to SRE to get the pemit the notario did not do that for us and saved us money that way too. By the way the notario there explained that since you do not own the house at 100% each but at 50% each you are better off having one permit for one person to own the house and cover the other person in a will and that is what we did.
Here in Ajiic the realtor and Notario took care of everything so we paid an extra fee to have the notario get two permits..no choice given..let´s milk everyone aliitle more if we can...
Down there it is common to give money to the person who finds you a buyer as well but certainly not 5 or 6% of the selling price..

We only found out what a rip off this place here is because we bought another house in a place with few foreigners and had to do everything ourselves, all these realestate firms and facilitators are crutches and hide reality to make life simpler for you and fill their pockets.

When I bought my place I didn't pay the realtor a dime. He got his commision from the seller.

brigitte wrote:Wether the realtor are bad or great is irrelevant the fact is that legally there are not responsible for anything, there is no accountability here so why should they get those kind of fees.
Fees in Mexico ae negociable but not here.
You can get a facilitator to change your bills for a lot less money that what the realtor cost you.

In the US, you can actually do everything without a realtor.
Is that the case here? it sounds like it.

And, if that's the case, then why not go directly to a notario?

If you found a house here that is 'listed', would the reality company 'sue' the owner if they 'unlisted' the house and sold it themselves?

If these things are possible, it is then also possible for us to make the changes here by us making different arrangements that what has been available.

brigitte wrote:

Viajero, same in Chiapas, you get a notario and fo foreigners you go to SRE to get the pemit the notario did not do that for us and saved us money that way too. By the way the notario there explained that since you do not own the house at 100% each but at 50% each you are better off having one permit for one person to own the house and cover the other person in a will and that is what we did.
Here in Ajiic the realtor and Notario took care of everything so we paid an extra fee to have the notario get two permits..no choice given..let´s milk everyone aliitle more if we can...
Down there it is common to give money to the person who finds you a buyer as well but certainly not 5 or 6% of the selling price..

I think that permit is no longer required,neither is the permit I paid for when I got married to a Mexican citizen which I thought was really out of line,pinches muertos de hambre...

Sherman wrote:

brigitte wrote:Wether the realtor are bad or great is irrelevant the fact is that legally there are not responsible for anything, there is no accountability here so why should they get those kind of fees.
Fees in Mexico ae negociable but not here.
You can get a facilitator to change your bills for a lot less money that what the realtor cost you.

In the US, you can actually do everything without a realtor.
Is that the case here?  it sounds like it.

And, if that's the case, then why not go directly to a notario?

If you found a house here that is 'listed', would the reality company 'sue' the owner if they 'unlisted' the house and sold it themselves?

If these things are possible, it is then also possible for us to make the changes here by us making different arrangements that what has been available.

Yes, they can sue you just like up north. When you list your place it is a contract for so many months. After the listing expires you are free to do whatever you please.

CanuckBob wrote:When I bought my place I didn't pay the realtor a dime. He got his commision from the seller.

Buyers are the only ones opening their wallets, sellers are putting money into their wallets. It is as simple as how much money the buyer takes out of their wallets and how much the sell gets to put into their wallets.

In other words, buyers pay everything and sellers collect what is left.

brigitte wrote:We only found out what a rip off this place here is because we bought another house in a place with few foreigners and had to do everything ourselves, all these realestate  firms and facilitators are crutches and hide reality to make life simpler for you and fill their pockets.

We found out about the realestate situation in Mexico by going down to the South of Baja one year, and renting for a month above a realeastate office in Jalisco another year.

Yes down here realtor can tell you any lies there is no disclosure regulations..Not everyone is as smart or as lucky
as cbob that is for sure..

CanuckBob wrote:When I bought my place I didn't pay the realtor a dime. He got his commision from the seller.

Actually, if you buy a house and have an agent, the two real estate companies split the commission and the agent's commission comes out of hit real estate company's portion. At least that is how it was 4 years ago. And all of that comes from the seller.

The "seller" pays the commission whether you have a second agent involved or not. If they have to split it then so be it. The buyer doesn't pay any of the commission. Is it built into the sale price? Maybe but that is just silly semantics. Perhaps brigitte will tell you it is different in Chiapas......

Since the sellers agent receives the commission/at least 50% part of the service he provides should include transfer of service to the new owners.   Maybe write into the contract that X% will be with held until this is completed.   Agents owe that to their clients to make sure there isn't a hassle because service wasn't transferred, IMHO.

CanuckBob wrote:The "seller" pays the commission whether you have a second agent involved or not. If they have to split it then so be it. The buyer doesn't pay any of the commission. Is it built into the sale price? Maybe but that is just silly semantics.  

"Is  it built into the sales price?"
That kind of depends on if it is a "buyers or sellers market", or how motivated the buyer...... or seller is.

In a co-brokered sale, the listing or selling office determines the commission and what that split will be with  the other office.  Could be 50/50 or some other pct.  Then  each office determines what the split between the office and the agent will be.  Could be 50/50 or some other pct. Either the listing office or the selling office or both might have to pay a referral fee of  10 to 25 pct. to another real estate office (like a Remax office in Canada) or an individual locally (cab driver, bar tender, B&B operator, someone in the same church as the buyer or seller, etc., etc., etc.)
So when you get all done there usually is a lot of fingers in the pie.
Take for example a 200K USD sale:.....at 7% with IVA it becomes .0812% = 16240 USD
then start cutting up the pie......
2,240. USD to SAT (the government)
then assuming 50/50 splits which are fairly normal...
7,000 USD to the listing office (minus any referral fee) with 50% to the agent.
7,000 USD to the selling office (minus any referral fee) with 50% to the agent.

Is this all profit or money in  their pockets?  Well there is the matter of rent, utilities, equipment (computers and their spawn), advertising, automobiles (and maintenance...you know, local streets), gasoline, MLS fees for that service, and on and on; but most of all their time....floor time, time at events or organizations trying to make contacts, and so forth.
It is not exactly like Snow White's seven dwarfs with a gold mine within walking distance of the front door.

You really know how to move the discussion along. Kudos and saludos.

Statement by the GIL from TOB:

THE HONEST AND COMPLETE FACTS CONCERNING COFECO AND THE GIL
In October, 2007, the Government agency COFECO started an investigation looking into many different boards of realtors in Mexico, including our local GIL and AMPI. Shortly thereafter, they decided GIL and AMPI, along with others, were “guilty” and issued fines. COFECO is not a court of law. They are an agency that started in Mexico approximately 10 years ago. Their purpose is to look into what they consider monopolies. GIL filed an appeal with the Courts in Mexico City and in April, 2011, the Courts ruled in our favor. COFECO appealed this ruling and in December, 2011, the Court again found in our favor. GIL and AMPI members were cleared of all charges and fines.
In December, 2012, COFECO re-opened another investigation using the same information available to them in the original one. In May, 2014, they issued fines for basically the same reasons as before. Again, GIL and AMPI members have filed an appeal with the Courts. I want to make clear that none of the members of the GIL or AMPI have ever been found “guilty” in any court of law for any investigation started by this agency. A court is the only legal authority in Mexico that can find an individual or company guilty.

Respectfully,
Michael Kavanaugh
President,
GIL

I missed the part where he said they most certainly did not have a monopoly, did not fix commissions and they never kept Realtors out of the MLS if they did not play their game. Huh, maybe it is in the fine print.

Just noticed that on TOB, the statement was posted and the thread locked so no one could comment on it. Once again, thank you to CBob for this forum.

Lady Otter Latté wrote:I missed the part where he said they most certainly did not have a monopoly, did not fix commissions and they never kept Realtors out of the MLS if they did not play their game. Huh, maybe it is in the fine print.  

Yeah, me too. I'm sure those were inadvertently left out.

That's probably because they aren't denying it. They are just saying they haven't been found guilty in a "court of law"........yet.

Kind of like the same way Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.........jaja.

All those acquittals don't bide well for getting convicted in court.

He didn't Bob, you just don't understand the meaning of the word "is."

[quote="Mainecoons"]All those acquittals don't bide well for getting convicted in court.

He didn't Bob, you just don't understand the meaning of the word "is."

Not necessarily. Could be the attorney made a technical error and it is a do over.

CanuckBob wrote:

Kind of like the same way Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.........jaja.

Bob,you know the rules,No Politics!!

viajero wrote:

CanuckBob wrote:

Kind of like the same way Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Lewinsky.........jaja.

Bob,you know the rules,No Politics!!

Chris, Since when is ORAL sex politics?  LMAO.......All they did " IS "  Talk about it!

Maybe it's political in Chris's casa........jajajajaja.