enow.com Web Search

Search results

1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network

2. How do real estate agent fees and commissions work? - AOL

   www.aol.com/finance/real-estate-agent-fees...

   Real estate brokerages may get a cut of the commission as well. The brokerage RE/MAX, for example, has a split commission setup by which its agents receive 95 percent of the full commission from ...

3. How to successfully negotiate real estate commissions - AOL

   www.aol.com/finance/successfully-negotiate-real...

   But the average real estate commission rate has gone down in recent years to just under 5 percent of a home’s sale price, according to Real Trends, a real estate research and consulting firm ...

4. The future of real estate commissions - AOL

   www.aol.com/finance/future-real-estate...

   How real estate commissions are changing: A ‘price war’? ... RE/MAX and HomeServices of America. Anywhere and RE/MAX settled before trial — paying $83.5 million and $55 million in damages ...

5. RE/MAX - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RE/MAX

   RE/MAX was founded in January 1973 by Dave Liniger and Gail Main (who later married Liniger and became Gail Liniger) in Denver, Colorado. [5] [6] [7]The company was established with a maximum commission concept, meaning that agents would keep nearly all of their commissions and pay their broker a share of the office expenses, rather than paying their broker a share of the commission of each ...

6. Real estate agent - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_estate_agent

   Flat-fee real estate agents charge a seller of a property a flat fee, $500 for example, [11] as opposed to a traditional or full-service real estate agent who charges a percentage of the sale price. In exchange, the seller's property will appear in the multiple listing service (MLS), but the seller will represent him or herself when showing the ...

7. Burnett v. National Association of Realtors - Wikipedia

   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National...

   Anywhere Real Estate, Inc. RE/MAX, LLC; Jurors found that all the defendants in the case "knowingly and voluntarily" engaged in a conspiracy with the goal of "raising, inflating, or stabilizing broker commission rates paid by home sellers" by following and enforcing NAR's cooperative compensation rule.