Lawsuits against real-estate agents may reshape how we buy, sell homes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

How do buyers ever have power?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

How do buyers ever have power?

They have the check.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

How do buyers ever have power?

Not all markets are DC. In a dead market buyers have all of the power

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

I really thought that by now someone would create a business that does the paperwork side of realtors work (the only reason that any buyer should ever use one) for a flat fee. I don't need an agent to find a house or to decide how much to bid. They are useful for getting the paper work correct, making sure the forms that the seller sends back are standard, and setting up closing. That's not five figure value, but it is something.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

I really thought that by now someone would create a business that does the paperwork side of realtors work (the only reason that any buyer should ever use one) for a flat fee. I don't need an agent to find a house or to decide how much to bid. They are useful for getting the paper work correct, making sure the forms that the seller sends back are standard, and setting up closing. That's not five figure value, but it is something.

it exists. Title companies for example have in-house real estate lawyers who can do that for you. That's almost what we did. But even that was too expensive for our friendly sale to neighbors. We grabbed the template online, filled the paperwork ourselves and only paid the RE lawyer to review for both parties and make sure everything was standard. Had we hired the lawyer to do the paperwork, each party should have hired theirs. Still less expensive than RE agent though and would probably have done that if it was not a sale to people we highly trusted

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

We’ve bought and sold several homes and I’ve never heard anyone throwing shade at FSBO homes. As long as it’s priced correctly and meets the buyer’s needs, people won’t care if the buyer has an agent they’re paying 2.5% to. It seems like it’s always the same person on these realtor threads chirping about how people will stay away from FSBO homes. Maybe that was the case 30 years ago, but people today are savvy enough to know that realtors aren’t worth what they’re paid and aren’t turned off by FSBO.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

I really thought that by now someone would create a business that does the paperwork side of realtors work (the only reason that any buyer should ever use one) for a flat fee. I don't need an agent to find a house or to decide how much to bid. They are useful for getting the paper work correct, making sure the forms that the seller sends back are standard, and setting up closing. That's not five figure value, but it is something.

The flat fee MLS agents will handle paper work for you. Some offer different levels of service, which might include the paperwork.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We have sold out last 4 hones using flat fee mls, the biggest cost was paying the buying agent a 2.5% fee. There is no reason to have agents involved at all unless you are boomer and don't know how to use a smartphone.

My boomer parents sold their last home themselves and only paid the buyer’s agent fee. They took pictures on their smartphone and made small edits using the photo editor on their computer. It turned out to be one of the few sales in their neighborhood during that time. Bottom line: no excuses to not FSBO even if you’re a boomer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

I really thought that by now someone would create a business that does the paperwork side of realtors work (the only reason that any buyer should ever use one) for a flat fee. I don't need an agent to find a house or to decide how much to bid. They are useful for getting the paper work correct, making sure the forms that the seller sends back are standard, and setting up closing. That's not five figure value, but it is something.

Just download the standard form and check the boxes you want to check. Realtors just use the standard form and ask you which boxes to check. The process couldn't be more simple.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

NP. Nonsense. With everybody able to see all the houses on the market, if somebody is interested in your house then they'll make an offer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I agree. I say that as I did two FSBOs and both times people approached me with “buyers agents”

I said I am fine with buyers agents as long as buyer pays commission. They were like no you have to pay my buyers agent commission.

One was just a condo with a million identical comps in building. Turns out the “buyers agent” was buyers mother.



Buyers agents are not truly representing buyer unless buyer pays them

So this means you meaningfully reduced the competition for your sales. It’s very reasonable to guess this cost you 4% in sales price.

I’m not an agent, but I think people miss that obvious fact in this whole debate. A significant portion of people won’t look at FSBO at all, or won’t agree to pay their own agent, or will demand an even steeper discount if it’s FSBO. It creates enough FSBO market distortions that I don’t think it’s the win the FSBO folks think it is.

Now mind you I don’t think agents provide any 5 figure services to justify their involvement inherently. But as the market currently stands, I don’t think you’re actually coming out ahead.

Why can't the seller just pay the sellers agent $5K or whatever to sell their home? The sellers agent would show prospective buyers the house. It doesn't have to be 2 realtors involved vs. FSBO.

Because then the buyer has no representation. That’s where we were 20-30 years ago and the sellers had all of the power.

You sound like a realtor. It's not like the realtors provide legal advice. If buyers want representation then they should hire a lawyer. Plus if a buyer wants to pay a realtor to represent them (really just coddle them because there's no legal representation), then they can pay a realtor to do that. This would work out best for everyone involved except for realtors.

I really thought that by now someone would create a business that does the paperwork side of realtors work (the only reason that any buyer should ever use one) for a flat fee. I don't need an agent to find a house or to decide how much to bid. They are useful for getting the paper work correct, making sure the forms that the seller sends back are standard, and setting up closing. That's not five figure value, but it is something.

The flat fee MLS agents will handle paper work for you. Some offer different levels of service, which might include the paperwork.

Isn't this what Redfin agents do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Poorly written article. I wouldn't put your hopes on any changes coming out of this.

REALTORS® have entered the chat