Pay the broker a fee at closing, or let the lender pay them and take a higher rate?
This came up three times last month with people my team works with, and the room splits every time, so I want to see the actual count.
When you use a broker on a residential loan, their compensation can be arranged so you pay it directly at closing as a fee, or so the lender pays it, in which case the cost shows up in your rate instead. Same broker, same work, two places the money can come from.
Rough shape of the tradeoff on a $310,000 loan. Borrower-paid might be something like $4,500 to $6,000 out of pocket at the table, with the lowest rate the broker can find. Lender-paid means no line item for the broker on your closing costs and a rate maybe a quarter point higher, sometimes more, which on that balance is roughly $50 to $70 a month.
The case for paying cash: your rate is your rate for as long as you hold the loan, and if you keep it fifteen years you paid once instead of every month. The case for the higher rate: closing cash is the scarcest thing most buyers have, and if you refinance or sell in five years you never paid for the rate you gave up. Investors buying multiple properties in a year have a real argument for keeping cash in the pocket even at a worse rate, because that cash is the next down payment.
Against that, some people say a borrower-paid arrangement is cleaner because you can see exactly what you paid the broker and compare it to another broker's number, where lender-paid comp is harder to see and harder to shop.
I'm not telling anyone which side I'm on. Vote and argue.
On a residential loan, which way would you take broker compensation?
16 votes