No more double dipping?


I've learned to just say no

I’ve learned to just say no

Realtor/blogger George Crossman points out that landlords are no longer offering to pay a second commission on lease renewals and sends along 7 or 8 new listings to prove it. I handle rentals pretty much just as an accommodation to clients who can’t find what they want to buy, so I’ve never looked to rental commissions as a significant source of income. It’s been easy, therefore, to toss in the unearned renewal commission as part of my client’s offer: what was I supposed to have done to earn one? You find a place, your clients move in, you get paid, period. The tenant decides to re-up, I had nothing to do with that.

For those agents for whom rental commissions are keeping them afloat, I suppose this is a big deal. I see it as fair, and long overdue.


Filed under Uncategorized

10 responses to “No more double dipping?

  1. Mickster

    George hasn’t looked that good in years….many years!!! and I like George…lol

  2. Anonymous

    And do away with the commish when a renter buys from landlord…no value added.

    • That’s not necessarily true – if an agent brings in a tenant who is also willing to buy the house that the landlord/owner has been unable to sell until then, then the agent’s provided value.

  3. Real Torme

    And where did that landlord find the tenant who rents for x years and then buys? Through the efforts of a broker not, as Betty Moger used to say, “in a cabbage patch.” Pay up, dude. No free lunch.

  4. Anonymous

    Isn’t Greenwich one of the only towns in CT where a renewal/extension commission is charged? In Stamford it’s usually one month flat fee on the 1st year, then no renewal commission for subsequent years. What is the norm in other communities? How/why did Greenwich establish a multi-year fee structure?

    • Anonymous

      I pay commish to re-up. its value-added by broker. short term expense, long term relationship. if future vacancy, i get moved to front of showing line for my properties as a result. so yes, it is done.

      • Ok, that makes sense, and not a reason that had occurred to me. If someone has an investment property it makes perfect sense (to me) to keep a good relationship going with the person who’s keeping your investment going. And it also true that it’s often the agent who handles all the late night calls from the tenant, especially if the landlord is overseas or living in on the other side of the country. In that case, the agent is providing an ongoing service and deserves to be compensated for services rendered.

  5. Anonymous

    in flush rental times, it sucks to pay for re-up. in bad times (as has been the case on a few occasions the past handful of years), it’s been a blessing, believe me.

    when an agent has 40-50+ aged rental listings, and mine gets top priority if i have something coming on mkt, it matters. one month of vacancy, which can easily happen in blink of an eye, and poof! now you’re doubling down on expense, and still sitting on a vacancy.

    for example, a pal is trying to rent a house for ~$6k. he squeezed the agent for commission reduction numerous times in years past on one of his rentals. think he’s getting top priority?

  6. Just_looking

    Not sure what the re-up rate is, but if the realtor brings in a tenant that stays for years, then the landlord does not have any vacant days between tennants, does not incur the expense of replacing a tennant (cleaning, painting, advertising) nor the new commis on the next tennant. If I were a landlord I would accept a modest re-up rate.