Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

NP.

Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal attorney business hours, unless something can't.

This isn't the majority of cases; but these cases exist and create a need for competitively priced competent agents.

Yes, agreed, and nothing in the settlement agreement will prevent that. It's just that those agents will have to make their case better and be prepared to negotiate over their rates.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

NP.

Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal attorney business hours, unless something can't.

This isn't the majority of cases; but these cases exist and create a need for competitively priced competent agents.

During a simple transaction can you name one thing that would make the agent worth 25k more than the attorney?

No.

But I was not referring to simple transactions. I was referring to edge-case transactions or the minority of transactions where the buyer needs an agent to do oil changes, reset the wifi, and unclog the drains.

Are these some sort of metaphor or something?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

The wedding photography industry has a scheme in place that sets a fee of X% the total cost of the wedding, no matter the skill or effort or services brought by the photographer. An amateur moron with no experience whatsoever gets paid the same as Annie Leibovitz. The fee is there whether you need the service or not. This makes complete economic sense for the industry! Who cares if buyers and sellers of real estate are paying inflated fees! Think about the morons!

What a terrible analogy.

What a terrible response to an apt analogy.

PP was right that it is a terrible analogy. But in any event, here's the bottom line: if you feel that you don't need a professional wedding photographer, you always have the choice to do without one. The current price-fixing scheme among agents effectively didn't allow you that same choice when buying a house -- this was what a jury found. So now, people will have a choice as to if and how they use a buyer's agent when buying a house.

The analogies are pointless, except to the extent they show that we had choices in every other professional we can choose to hire, and now we will have that same choice when buying a house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

NP.

Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal attorney business hours, unless something can't.

This isn't the majority of cases; but these cases exist and create a need for competitively priced competent agents.

During a simple transaction can you name one thing that would make the agent worth 25k more than the attorney?

No.

But I was not referring to simple transactions. I was referring to edge-case transactions or the minority of transactions where the buyer needs an agent to do oil changes, reset the wifi, and unclog the drains.

Are these some sort of metaphor or something?

I was a reference to earlier mentions in the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

The wedding photography industry has a scheme in place that sets a fee of X% the total cost of the wedding, no matter the skill or effort or services brought by the photographer. An amateur moron with no experience whatsoever gets paid the same as Annie Leibovitz. The fee is there whether you need the service or not. This makes complete economic sense for the industry! Who cares if buyers and sellers of real estate are paying inflated fees! Think about the morons!

What a terrible analogy.

What a terrible response to an apt analogy.

PP was right that it is a terrible analogy. But in any event, here's the bottom line: if you feel that you don't need a professional wedding photographer, you always have the choice to do without one. The current price-fixing scheme among agents effectively didn't allow you that same choice when buying a house -- this was what a jury found. So now, people will have a choice as to if and how they use a buyer's agent when buying a house.

Yeah I didn't originally make the analogy. I suspect "terrible analogy" poster did, which is probably why they didn't elaborate.

The analogies are pointless, except to the extent they show that we had choices in every other professional we can choose to hire, and now we will have that same choice when buying a house.

Have to disagree slightly here. Removing the commission field will not cure the inflated pricing problem, unfortunately.

Agents can advertise buyer broker commission using other means; which means they'll continue to persuade sellers to offer them to remain competitive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

Eh. That is assuming that you are the only person looking at the house.

I will just say that agents have less value when market conditions are stable and in balance. During the pandemic market if you didn't have an agent you would have been at a significant disadvantage. 99% chance you would be a person shopping for years and unable to close. Nobody knows where the market is in real time better than active agents.

Or, it could be the case that agents contribute to prices escalating more rapidly than they should by creating a false sense of urgency. If you don't have an agent encouraging you to use escalation clauses, bid up the prices of houses, and buy as quickly as possible, the market overall might behave very differently. Remember that the goal of a buyer's agent is partly to collect their commission check as quickly as possible.

[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.

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.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

THIS!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

+1 And there's still a seller's agent involved if a rare emergency occurs that can't wait until after hours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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!

The wedding photography industry has a scheme in place that sets a fee of X% the total cost of the wedding, no matter the skill or effort or services brought by the photographer. An amateur moron with no experience whatsoever gets paid the same as Annie Leibovitz. The fee is there whether you need the service or not. This makes complete economic sense for the industry! Who cares if buyers and sellers of real estate are paying inflated fees! Think about the morons!

What a terrible analogy.

What a terrible response to an apt analogy.

PP was right that it is a terrible analogy. But in any event, here's the bottom line: if you feel that you don't need a professional wedding photographer, you always have the choice to do without one. The current price-fixing scheme among agents effectively didn't allow you that same choice when buying a house -- this was what a jury found. So now, people will have a choice as to if and how they use a buyer's agent when buying a house.

The analogies are pointless, except to the extent they show that we had choices in every other professional we can choose to hire, and now we will have that same choice when buying a house.

+1 This is the crux of the matter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

Eh. That is assuming that you are the only person looking at the house.

I will just say that agents have less value when market conditions are stable and in balance. During the pandemic market if you didn't have an agent you would have been at a significant disadvantage. 99% chance you would be a person shopping for years and unable to close. Nobody knows where the market is in real time better than active agents.

Or, it could be the case that agents contribute to prices escalating more rapidly than they should by creating a false sense of urgency. If you don't have an agent encouraging you to use escalation clauses, bid up the prices of houses, and buy as quickly as possible, the market overall might behave very differently. Remember that the goal of a buyer's agent is partly to collect their commission check as quickly as possible.

+1 It would actually be an improvement to have only one realtor (the seller's) involved. They could communicate deadlines to all the interested buyers. It's a good thing if there's no more rush to put it your offer within hours of the house hitting the market.

BTW it was still possible to have competitive offers during the pandemic. The terms mattered more than representation, and sellers agents would salivate at the thought of keeping all the commission to themselves if the buyer was unrepresented. It's always been that way.

[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.

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.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
24/7 availability is overrated. Almost every aspect of a sale can be handled during normal business hours. Just to make numbers simple, if I'm bidding 1M on a property, and I find it myself on zillow or redfin, the agent has to unlock the door for a view, call it two just so I can be sure, draft and present and offer and maybe a counter offer, unlock the door for an inspection, and show up for closing. Is that really 10k worth of work? Right now it's more like 20k.

Eh. That is assuming that you are the only person looking at the house.

I will just say that agents have less value when market conditions are stable and in balance. During the pandemic market if you didn't have an agent you would have been at a significant disadvantage. 99% chance you would be a person shopping for years and unable to close. Nobody knows where the market is in real time better than active agents.

Or, it could be the case that agents contribute to prices escalating more rapidly than they should by creating a false sense of urgency. If you don't have an agent encouraging you to use escalation clauses, bid up the prices of houses, and buy as quickly as possible, the market overall might behave very differently. Remember that the goal of a buyer's agent is partly to collect their commission check as quickly as possible.

+1 It would actually be an improvement to have only one realtor (the seller's) involved. They could communicate deadlines to all the interested buyers. It's a good thing if there's no more rush to put it your offer within hours of the house hitting the market.

BTW it was still possible to have competitive offers during the pandemic. The terms mattered more than representation, and sellers agents would salivate at the thought of keeping all the commission to themselves if the buyer was unrepresented. It's always been that way.

DP. Good points buy why should the listing agent get any portion of the money the seller set aside for the buyer agent? Absent a buyer agent, the seller should keep that portion. The listing agent can't perform any work on behalf of the buyer.

The common retort is "the transactions will be more difficult".

Ok. All professions entail easy-money transactions and hard-money transactions. If this is a problem for listing agents, then develop an elastic pricing structure that compensates appropriately. This fixed, immovable commission scheme screws everyone.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

yet redfin still has the request a tour button

[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.

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.

That sounds like the foundation of another lawsuit. The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty

Not sure what this further lawsuit talk is about. The prior lawsuit has led to the creation of the new rule that NO BUYER can be shown a property by any National Association of Realtors agent without a Buyer Agency Agreement. Because of that prior lawsuit even a listing agent/seller agent MUST have a Buyer agency agreement to show anyone a property UNLESS it's at an open house.

DP

"No one's showing anything to anyone without an exclusive agreement."

I thought PP explain this well:

"The sellers agent has a fiduciary duty to the seller. Refusing to present an offer or even show a house to an unrepresented buyer is a pretty clear breach of that duty."


If 5 unrepresented buyers want to see the house, under your "No one's showing anything to anyone" rule, the listing agent is preventing the seller from engaging with 5 potential buyers. I thought this was pretty clear.

To add to that, the current seller is not a party to or bound by the settlement agreement. If they find out that their agent refused to show a house to or present an offer from an unrepresented buyer, they can sue the agent for breaching their fiduciary duty. Holding up the settlement agreement in a state court as a justification would get them laughed at