Want to buy a house without an agent - the listing agent has cancelled the showing. Any ideas?

[Anonymous]

but you dont know why she cancelled the showing - why do you assume it is negative? it could be that there was an offer, or that one of her clients appointments ran over, or she had a family emergency, etc. so she TRIED to still act in her clients interests by having one of her colleages show you the property - that is still fulfilling her fiduciary responsibiltiy - but you didnt want to use someone else because you suddenly thought that would affect commission.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
OP here. Thanks, PP. The listing agent's attitude goes squarely against her fiduciary duties to the homeowner. I wonder if I should notify the Real Estate Commission.

That's what I was thikning too. Her job is to represent the interests of her clients. She's not doing so by cancelling the showing. Very unprofessional at least.

Disagree.

Yes, she has a responsibility to the sellers, but you don't know the situation. Given the current market my guess is they're getting a lot of interest and other viewings. If that's the case, it's totally kosher to not go out of the way to accommodate seemingly less serious buyers (which you appear OP, like it or not) in the interest in time.

[Anonymous]

OP you are a piece of work. You're a hotshot lawyer who is so smart that you think your expertise will entitle you to horn in on a commission situation between 2 parties, neither of which is you. The commission has nothing to do with you and you don't pay any of it, and when you don't get the answer you want from a listing agent WHO YOU ARE NOT PAYING ANYWAY, you want to report her. That. Is. Hilarious.

Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

At this point you've created more drama than you're worth.

As a lawyer, don't you hate when people harass you for free advice or somehow try to get out of paying your fees?

[Anonymous]

OP, we wanted to do the same thing. Real Estate is not rocket science, but they won't admit that. We got the brush off from some agents, others were more cooperative and a few openly offered us a "deal" if we bought. In the end we found a great house with no agent on either side. It was our friend's neighbor.

Unless you think this house is perfect, just move on. Not worth it.

[Anonymous]

I don't understand the PPs who say that the agent would rather sell to someone else (who has an agent) than to OP. If she sells to OP, she can either keep all 6% or at the very least negotiate 1% or 2% or 3% of this back to the buyer in one of several different ways (yes, this is done ALL THE TIME).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP you are a piece of work. You're a hotshot lawyer who is so smart that you think your expertise will entitle you to horn in on a commission situation between 2 parties, neither of which is you. The commission has nothing to do with you and you don't pay any of it, and when you don't get the answer you want from a listing agent WHO YOU ARE NOT PAYING ANYWAY, you want to report her. That. Is. Hilarious.

Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

At this point you've created more drama than you're worth.

As a lawyer, don't you hate when people harass you for free advice or somehow try to get out of paying your fees?

You are both right and wrong. You are right that the OP has no power to change a commission arrangement between two parties, neither of whom is she.

However, the agent absolutely does have a responsibility to convey to the seller all the offers that come her way. She may not like that idea, but she does in fact have to do that.

You are also wrong that the the buyer doesn't pay the listing agent. It may not happen directly, but the buyer is the only person that leaves money on the table in this transaction. So the buyer does in fact pay everyone's fees, listing agent, buying agent if there is one and whatever else.

OP, you may not need representation, but you do need an agent to give you access to the house. Whoever provides that access will be entitled to the commission - I don't care if you call them a buyer's agent or a listing agent. As for your idea to get a 3% rebate, you are free to suggest that, but the agent absolutely does not have to agree.

The reason agents dislike deals like this is that they prefer dealing with another agent on the other end, and perceive an agent-free buyer as more work. As in, she'll have to do the work normally done by your agent (make sure things are signed off on time, all the logistics etc. it may seem minor but someone still has to do it.)

[Anonymous]

OP from my limited understanding, I think what you are trying to do only works if you find a For Sale By Owner situation where you can negotiate directly and you both can benefit financially from not having agents involved.

[Anonymous]

Is this Washington fine properties? I called to ask if there was going to be an open house on a condo and they said no. But they offered to show it to me. Then they sent someone random person who was not the selling agent to show it to me. He acted like I had decided to hire him as my agent and said He would get three percent and the listing agent three percent. I was like whaaaa? I didn't hire you!

[Anonymous]

OP Knock on the seller's door, present the offer to them and have them sign it. You will have just earned a full commission for me and screwed over the seller. But that was your intention all along, wasn't it?

[Anonymous]

Real estate agents hav been attacked at showings. If I were an ageny, I'd be suspicious of someone claiming to represent themselves / who has no association with an agency wanting me to meet him/her in an empty house.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP you are a piece of work. You're a hotshot lawyer who is so smart that you think your expertise will entitle you to horn in on a commission situation between 2 parties, neither of which is you. The commission has nothing to do with you and you don't pay any of it, and when you don't get the answer you want from a listing agent WHO YOU ARE NOT PAYING ANYWAY, you want to report her. That. Is. Hilarious.

Agents do not have to work with anyone they don't want to, and so she doesn't have to deal with your bs phone calls and as the pp's mentioned, she deemed you as not serious and as such, doesn't have to do anything.

At this point you've created more drama than you're worth.

As a lawyer, don't you hate when people harass you for free advice or somehow try to get out of paying your fees?

You are both right and wrong. You are right that the OP has no power to change a commission arrangement between two parties, neither of whom is she.

However, the agent absolutely does have a responsibility to convey to the seller all the offers that come her way. She may not like that idea, but she does in fact have to do that.

You are also wrong that the the buyer doesn't pay the listing agent. It may not happen directly, but the buyer is the only person that leaves money on the table in this transaction. So the buyer does in fact pay everyone's fees, listing agent, buying agent if there is one and whatever else.

OP, you may not need representation, but you do need an agent to give you access to the house. Whoever provides that access will be entitled to the commission - I don't care if you call them a buyer's agent or a listing agent. As for your idea to get a 3% rebate, you are free to suggest that, but the agent absolutely does not have to agree.

The reason agents dislike deals like this is that they prefer dealing with another agent on the other end, and perceive an agent-free buyer as more work. As in, she'll have to do the work normally done by your agent (make sure things are signed off on time, all the logistics etc. it may seem minor but someone still has to do it.)

the thing is that OP did not make an offer, otherwise I would agree with you. an agent who does not convey an offer does betray her fiduciary duty. OP just wants the agent to show the house to him. in a market like this, where a house goes on the marlket and there are multiple offers within days, I would consider somebody like OP not a serious buyer (he is not serious, or not very smart). it depends on the area obviously,. but I have a friend who has been looking to buy since last year with an agent, she has put 6 offers on homes, all within days of listing, all of them for tens of thousands more than the asking price, two without any contingencies and lost all of them to other buyers who had no contingencies and higher offers or even cash offers . the market is very competitive for buyers. as the sellers' agent, I would consider OP not a serious buyer in a market like this simply becauise I think serious buyer with a even limited understandign of the market would know that he would never get a house going without an agent, having to wait for open houses and so on. an a seller, somebody like OP would not look like a serious buyer either, or a buyer more likely than others to come to closing, somebody who comes to the table already looking to save 1% or% of the price of the house cannot compete with other buyers in a strong seller market (plus,. as a seller, I would think if somebody is going to save 1% or 2% of the commission, that would be me, not hte buyer in this market - if my agent agreed to give money back to a buyer who is not an agent I would be pissed off, in a market with tons of buyers like this - this is something that was done years ago when it was a buyer's market, so sellers and their agents were more inclined to give concessions to the few buyers out there to get the house sold, but the market now is very different, at least in some parts of our area)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is this Washington fine properties? I called to ask if there was going to be an open house on a condo and they said no. But they offered to show it to me. Then they sent someone random person who was not the selling agent to show it to me. He acted like I had decided to hire him as my agent and said He would get three percent and the listing agent three percent. I was like whaaaa? I didn't hire you!

So what would you have done if you wanted to put an offer on the condo on the spot?

[Anonymous]

OP - we did this and got a 2% rebate at closing. Everyone was happy. The listing agent made more than she otherwise would have, and we paid less because of the rebate. We had a friend with a license "represent" us, but in reality, I did everything. I am a lawyer and this stuff is not even close to rocket science. Seriously. If you know how to review a contract, you will be fine. I think the traditional 6% fee will eventually get replaced with lower fee arrangements (like Redfin). The thought of paying so much on a $1M+ house was crazy to me.

[Anonymous]

99 percent of realtors are morons that have gone into the business because they have realized they truly have no marketable skills; their only option to feed themselves is to join the NAR gestapo. On the high end of the market around here where the buyers and sellers are both well educated (and oftentimes attorneys), realtors truly serve no purpose other than unlocking the door. My 8 year old could put together better marketing material than what you see on most MLS listings, and when a house goes under contract in 3 days, what work has the realtor actually done. All you need to buy/sell a home is a set of comparable sales (which, with a lag, are public record), an inspector, an attorney, and a bank. Anyone else involved in the transaction is simply a parasite. I just hope I live to see the day when the traditional real estate brokerage is killed off for good. Another antitrust suit from the FTC against the MLS might do the trick.

I encourage the OP to contact the seller directly; if the agent did not fulfill her fiduciary duty to the seller to the letter of the contract, go after her license. Until buyers and sellers start holding these idiots responsible for their behavior, this bullshit will continue. Best of luck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:99 percent of realtors are morons that have gone into the business because they have realized they truly have no marketable skills; their only option to feed themselves is to join the NAR gestapo. On the high end of the market around here where the buyers and sellers are both well educated (and oftentimes attorneys), realtors truly serve no purpose other than unlocking the door. My 8 year old could put together better marketing material than what you see on most MLS listings, and when a house goes under contract in 3 days, what work has the realtor actually done. All you need to buy/sell a home is a set of comparable sales (which, with a lag, are public record), an inspector, an attorney, and a bank. Anyone else involved in the transaction is simply a parasite. I just hope I live to see the day when the traditional real estate brokerage is killed off for good. Another antitrust suit from the FTC against the MLS might do the trick.

I encourage the OP to contact the seller directly; if the agent did not fulfill her fiduciary duty to the seller to the letter of the contract, go after her license. Until buyers and sellers start holding these idiots responsible for their behavior, this bullshit will continue. Best of luck.

Yes, but I make a lot more money than you do and did not have to settle for a job at the antitrust division of DOJ or FTC. Unlike you I deal with partners at big law who respect and trust me and who have first year assocaites easily answer your silly pleadings. You deal at your level, I will deal at mine. And I don't do it from my piss poor quality "million" dollar home in wherever it is government lawyers can afford to live. I don't deal with the likes of you, so I wouldn't know.