Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

This. The seller's realtor has a fiduciary duty to the seller to do everything they can to sell the house.

This is true, but I can also see scenarios where sellers favor buyers with an agent (I’m not an agent, just have bought and sold a number of houses some easily, some with snafu’s). 2 reasons for this - first, home sales are emotional and so many times the seller gets offended even in an arms length transaction. My guess is buyers with attitudes similar to DCUM posters will not use agents and possibly piss of sellers. We have had sales where the seller gets offended over $5k and our agent was able to bridge the gap; I dont think they would have been able to deal with us directly, which is their own issue, but we got a house we love. Second - once the market settles, hopefully the remaining agents are the ones who are actually good at closing deals and experienced, so the odds of closing are better with the agent. If I were a sellers agent, I would consider adding a clause to the contract that if I have to help an unrepresented buyer navigate issues to get the house sold, I charge an hourly fee. Or maybe the buyer agrees in their offer to pay an hourly fee if they need the agent.

I think this is a good point. Real Estate transactions are inherently complex and there's a certain flow to when milestone events have to be scheduled and occur (financing, inspection, title search, closing, etc). A seller's agent having to deal with novice, disorganized, and/or emotional sellers would be a nightmare, and directly impact their profit. Handholding takes money, and I'm sure a seller's agent would prefer to deal with a professional on the other end rather than a novice buyer.

Looks like you are an agent that is supporting this. Agents are no more than an admin person that is forwarding emails or calling people and don't deserve to be paid this much with no accountability. Rest of the other developed countries have 1-2% commission so it baffles me to see such a high commission rate here.

+1 The two pp's you're responding to sure sound like agents.

The gig is up. No buyer is paying an hourly rate for this bs that the seller is already paying their agent to do and no seller is going to pay even more for their agent to do their damn job.

And realtors aren't the ones meeting milestones like financing, title search, closing etc. The title company does that. Hallmark sign of a realtor to lie to try to inflate what they do because it's embarrassingly little.

Aaaand another thing: if your seller didn't have to pay TWO realtor commissions, then they would have saved a lot more than that $5K.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a seller of a home, I would not want to deal with a buyer directly unless they were just going to wire me the amount in cash and done deal no inspection, etc.

Then you...hire a sellers agent to represent you? We bought a house without a buyers agent, and I only talked to the sellers agent. Never talked with the sellers, only trace of them was their signatures on the closing docs. When we went to pick up the keys and take possession, the agent was there to do the handover.

Not sure why you as seller would have any interaction with the buyer, if you have your own agent .

Exactly. I did the same and everything was handled by the closing company. The listing agent gave me credit for using him and it was also reported on the HUD document.

Things are much easier than these agents claim them to be. In addition, they are not responsible for anything so why does it matter if you are taking their help or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."[b]

Ha, so true!
Commissions have been insane for so long. Even 1% is outrageous.

1% of a 2.5M property is $25K and that's a lot of money. Imagine paying $25K retainer to a lawyer and he will get some real work done.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a seller of a home, I would not want to deal with a buyer directly unless they were just going to wire me the amount in cash and done deal no inspection, etc.

I don't mind at all if it is saving me 2-3% on the commission. It's your money and if you want to pay agents such high $s for useless, low level work then it is upto you. There is a reason commission has come down.

People are posting about buyer's agents being useless. I am saying that they are not to me. I am not commenting on the pay structure.

PP, you are blowing smoke and pushing people in paying for something that they could do themselves. No need to push expensive service on someone that has no value.

It doesn't have to be expensive.

It is not even needed. I see closing companies hiring an employee to do what buyer agents do after a contract is signed and handle most of the work themselves.

[Anonymous]

very soon, this job is going to be obsolete and lawyers will handle everything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:very soon, this job is going to be obsolete and lawyers will handle everything.

Getting rid of buyer realtors doesn't leave a gap to fill. The seller realtor unlocks the doors for showings, inspections, and appraisals and can help write the offer. Then the title company takes over once the contract is ratified. No need to insert another leech looking to squeeze money from the transaction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:very soon, this job is going to be obsolete and lawyers will handle everything.

That sounds even worse. Some states do not involves lawyers at all in residential real estate transactions. Texas does not.

[Anonymous]

agents are going to be out of picture soon and the commission is going to shrunk a lot. You could see a lot of real estate firms closing down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

The days of the unrepresented Buyer are over. Finished. The Listing Agent (Seller's Agent) will show the house. You just have to sign a Buyer agency agreement first. No more free-agent Buyers EXCEPT at Open Houses. No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hourly fees won't be this high and buyers will get smart about using them. They will do more of their own HW before reaching out to agents. I don't see any value in them getting even 1%.

Well, of course you think that, because you're one of these internet people who fancy yourself an expert on something and don't think they bring value. But they do. I have no idea what hourly fees will be -- my guess is there will be a range and you'll get what you pay for.

No, I'm not an agent or in any way connected to the industry. It's just annoying when people so rudely assume they know more than people who do something for a living.

Real talk. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

This. The seller's realtor has a fiduciary duty to the seller to do everything they can to sell the house.

This is true, but I can also see scenarios where sellers favor buyers with an agent (I’m not an agent, just have bought and sold a number of houses some easily, some with snafu’s). 2 reasons for this - first, home sales are emotional and so many times the seller gets offended even in an arms length transaction. My guess is buyers with attitudes similar to DCUM posters will not use agents and possibly piss of sellers. We have had sales where the seller gets offended over $5k and our agent was able to bridge the gap; I dont think they would have been able to deal with us directly, which is their own issue, but we got a house we love. Second - once the market settles, hopefully the remaining agents are the ones who are actually good at closing deals and experienced, so the odds of closing are better with the agent. If I were a sellers agent, I would consider adding a clause to the contract that if I have to help an unrepresented buyer navigate issues to get the house sold, I charge an hourly fee. Or maybe the buyer agrees in their offer to pay an hourly fee if they need the agent.

Yep. I know an agent who just asked an investor buyer to call back with an agent. the buyer was just too difficult. the buyer was offering 1% commission, so it was very easy for that agent to pass that buyer along to an agent who could be unemotional, reasonable, professional and arms length. and they immediately got an agent. and all the drama of the transaction disappeared. and it was easy for the seller to simply REJECT their offer to that agent. bye. Bye.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."

Well that is what most plumbers, electricians, and other tradespeople charge these days. With that said, all of those people perform services that I cannot perform on my own. Not so for real estate agents.

Numerous specialties among agents...short sales, investors, foreclosures, first-time buyers, FHA, probates, navigating programs for first time buyers, negotiations to keep everyone out of court etc. Its not 1 size fits all. Most of the posters here appear to be conventional and high-end buyers and sellers. Coastal elites. Maybe you don't need an agent. But navigating some of the specialty areas and more nuanced aspects of getting a property closed when emotions are HIGH is certainly well served by a good agent. And lawyers don't hand hold at all. You just try calling a lawyer on a Saturday or Sunday or after hours or a holiday about your transaction. Likely they will be MIA. Unlike an agent. In addition to nuances and specialties, don't underestimate the value of the "24/7 on call" accessibility factor one gets with an agent to having a smooth closing. That alone should be considered "time and a half." No agents aren't always needed by the elites, but they are often needed to help protect others.

[Anonymous]

I was recently pricing wedding photographers. They want $5,000 or more. Which is ridiculous! They don't add any value! I can get the minister to take photos or my Aunt Sarah! Or maybe I can get second cousin's nieces's son, who's working for a newspaper in Ohio! Hell, we can put those disposable cameras on the tables!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is reasonable on a buyers side? Folks have been saying use a RE attorney, but if not that route, a flat fee more so than a percentage correct?

Just ask the seller's agent to show you the house. The seller is already paying them to sell the house. I've done this many times and never had a realtor refuse to show me the house.

I bought a house about a month ago, and the seller's agent refused to show me the house. Not my first house purchase. So, I found an agent to open the door and submit the offer for me. For that she made 2%. Ridiculous.

If the response to the settlement that sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers, that will be the next lawsuit.

This. The seller's realtor has a fiduciary duty to the seller to do everything they can to sell the house.

This is true, but I can also see scenarios where sellers favor buyers with an agent (I’m not an agent, just have bought and sold a number of houses some easily, some with snafu’s). 2 reasons for this - first, home sales are emotional and so many times the seller gets offended even in an arms length transaction. My guess is buyers with attitudes similar to DCUM posters will not use agents and possibly piss of sellers. We have had sales where the seller gets offended over $5k and our agent was able to bridge the gap; I dont think they would have been able to deal with us directly, which is their own issue, but we got a house we love. Second - once the market settles, hopefully the remaining agents are the ones who are actually good at closing deals and experienced, so the odds of closing are better with the agent. If I were a sellers agent, I would consider adding a clause to the contract that if I have to help an unrepresented buyer navigate issues to get the house sold, I charge an hourly fee. Or maybe the buyer agrees in their offer to pay an hourly fee if they need the agent.

I think this is a good point. Real Estate transactions are inherently complex and there's a certain flow to when milestone events have to be scheduled and occur (financing, inspection, title search, closing, etc). A seller's agent having to deal with novice, disorganized, and/or emotional sellers would be a nightmare, and directly impact their profit. Handholding takes money, and I'm sure a seller's agent would prefer to deal with a professional on the other end rather than a novice buyer.

Looks like you are an agent that is supporting this. Agents are no more than an admin person that is forwarding emails or calling people and don't deserve to be paid this much with no accountability. Rest of the other developed countries have 1-2% commission so it baffles me to see such a high commission rate here.

+1 The two pp's you're responding to sure sound like agents.

The gig is up. No buyer is paying an hourly rate for this bs that the seller is already paying their agent to do and no seller is going to pay even more for their agent to do their damn job.

And realtors aren't the ones meeting milestones like financing, title search, closing etc. The title company does that. Hallmark sign of a realtor to lie to try to inflate what they do because it's embarrassingly little.

Aaaand another thing: if your seller didn't have to pay TWO realtor commissions, then they would have saved a lot more than that $5K.

This "someone disagrees with my boneheaded analysis about commissions is obviously an agent" retort/ trope is so tiresome. But I guess it's consistent with the shallow level of analytical thinking already on display.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I was recently pricing wedding photographers. They want $5,000 or more. Which is ridiculous! They don't add any value! I can get the minister to take photos or my Aunt Sarah! Or maybe I can get second cousin's nieces's son, who's working for a newspaper in Ohio! Hell, we can put those disposable cameras on the tables!

Let me know when a cartel of wedding photographers fixes prices for generations, to the point where they lose massive federal lawsuits and have to pay out billions and completely reshape their industry