Assignment Fee Calculator

No, and treating it as one is the commonest error on this arithmetic. The deposit is credited to the purchase price at closing, so it comes back to you in the settlement — it is capital you have committed for the length of the contract, not money you have spent. That is why it sits in its own section here rather than in the list of costs, and why the figure beside it is a multiple and a number of days rather than a subtraction. It becomes a real loss only if the contract terminates in circumstances where it is forfeited, which depends entirely on what your contract says and on whether a contingency was validly exercised in time. This page does not model that and cannot: it has not read your contract.

Both arrangements are in use and they pay differently, which is why it is a control on this page rather than a decision the calculator makes for you. Taken on the whole fee, each side carries its own costs, so the partner's share is unaffected by what you spent on marketing. Taken on what is left, the costs come out first and your partner effectively shares them with you. On the figures as they load, a fifty per cent share pays the partner more on the first basis than on the second — enter both and look. Whichever it is, it is worth being written down with the other side before anything is marketed rather than worked out afterwards from a screen.

This calculator will not tell you, and it is worth being clear about why rather than pretending it is an oversight. What a contract is worth to resell depends on the metro, on the month, on how deep the buyer list is for that price band and condition, and on what the property actually is — none of which is on this page or anywhere else in this tool. Any number offered here would be a valuation opinion wearing the clothes of arithmetic, and it would be wrong somewhere the first day it shipped. What the page can do honestly is take the two prices you enter, show you the fee they imply, and show you how much of it is still there after everything that comes out.

Because the buyer's all-in number is the one that is actually decided, and the fee is what falls out of it. That is also the order the conversation happens in: you are in at one number, you are marketing at another, and the difference is yours. Entering the fee directly instead would put two of the three figures under your hand and let them drift out of agreement with the third, which is the kind of error nothing on a screen catches. The all-in figure is the contract price plus your fee, which is what your buyer brings to the table in total, however the paperwork splits it.

The ones on this page are the ones that recur: whatever your title company charges your side of the settlement, the marketing that this particular address consumed, any fee for listing it, and anything you paid to extend the contract. The marketing line is the one people leave blank, and it is usually the largest of the four — a monthly spend divided by the contracts it actually produced is a real per-deal cost even though no invoice arrives with the address on it. Extension fees are the other quiet one. Both are already spent by the time you are looking at a settlement statement, which is exactly why they get left out of the mental version of this sum.

Because it would be a true statement of a formula and a false statement about the world. Annualising a large return over a three-week hold assumes you can repeat it seventeen times a year with the same capital, which nobody does — the deposit is not the constraint on how many contracts you can work, and the number that comes out has more digits than it has meaning. What the page shows instead is the multiple on the deposit and the number of days it was committed for, side by side, with no compounding claimed. If you want to compare two deals on capital efficiency, those two figures do it without the arithmetic making a promise on your behalf.