Benefits of Listing with Redfin

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In this day and age of the internet and open houses, you can easily view houses. If you are interested in a listing, why would you rely on someone else's opinion of the interior of a house anyway.

I don't go to open houses that I'm not interested in buying but that house still may wind up being a comp for one I do decide to purchase. And if you ever looked at a house IRL, you know that looking only at the listing online gives you about a quarter of the picture. You seem to have a very narrow view of what an agent can do. So, a redfin agent might be perfect for you.

Your argument is still faulty. Most houses that have open houses also have photos online and the IRL information can be accessed after a sell. Redfin can access that database. The point is, with an informed seller and a RedFin agent partnering together, why go the traditional route and pay thousands more.

I have interviewed a few traditional agents and from what they have spoken about, I cannot justify the increase in rate. Remember, I am selling and not buying from the agent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on the market. It our area, many properties sell before they hit the mls and redfin ($1million plus homes). For this reason, I wouldn't dream of relying on a redfin agent to buy, but I also wouldn't use 90 percent of the traditional agents in my area, there are only a select few that are really connected. I'd be more inclined to consider them for selling, but again, prefer my very well connected agent.

Ah, I bet you are a stock picker too?

See, a RedFin agent would be stupid enough to compare stocks with real estate. Please explain how transactions involving liquid and illiquid assets are comparable.

They're both investable assets with fluctuating values based on analyzable underlying fundamentals and the overall supply/demand balance in a particular market. They also have transaction fees and advisory fees attached, and most literature suggests that lowering fees is of more consistent economic value than advisory services. They're actually very similar ... but thanks for your snark, it's why I read DCUM.

They're not similar at all. But since you're fixating on it, discount stock brokers underperform full service ones anyway. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reveco/v17y2008i2p258-268.html

Bwahaahahaa at that attempt. You obviously don't have a clue what that study is saying. And I hardly think that a single response pointing out a number of similarities is fixating ... you asked a question, I answered. You were unsatisfied because the answer invalidated your premise so you scoured the internet to drudge up a horribly outdated and spurious paper and then you used its findings incorrectly. I think we have our verdict ... you are a realtor.

When the best you've got is to repeat an allegation already disproven (no, not a real estate agent, or a real estate professional), you've lost the argument spectacularly. Let's review: You compared buying and selling property to buying and selling stocks. That's just hilarious on its face. Do you even have a high school degree?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on the market. It our area, many properties sell before they hit the mls and redfin ($1million plus homes). For this reason, I wouldn't dream of relying on a redfin agent to buy, but I also wouldn't use 90 percent of the traditional agents in my area, there are only a select few that are really connected. I'd be more inclined to consider them for selling, but again, prefer my very well connected agent.

Ah, I bet you are a stock picker too?

See, a RedFin agent would be stupid enough to compare stocks with real estate. Please explain how transactions involving liquid and illiquid assets are comparable.

They're both investable assets with fluctuating values based on analyzable underlying fundamentals and the overall supply/demand balance in a particular market. They also have transaction fees and advisory fees attached, and most literature suggests that lowering fees is of more consistent economic value than advisory services. They're actually very similar ... but thanks for your snark, it's why I read DCUM.

They're not similar at all. But since you're fixating on it, discount stock brokers underperform full service ones anyway. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reveco/v17y2008i2p258-268.html

Bwahaahahaa at that attempt. You obviously don't have a clue what that study is saying. And I hardly think that a single response pointing out a number of similarities is fixating ... you asked a question, I answered. You were unsatisfied because the answer invalidated your premise so you scoured the internet to drudge up a horribly outdated and spurious paper and then you used its findings incorrectly. I think we have our verdict ... you are a realtor.

When the best you've got is to repeat an allegation already disproven (no, not a real estate agent, or a real estate professional), you've lost the argument spectacularly. Let's review: You compared buying and selling property to buying and selling stocks. That's just hilarious on its face. Do you even have a high school degree?

Now, back to the subject . . .

[Anonymous]

We listed with Redfin and bought with them. In both cases, the agents were very nice and professional. I don't think they were as good as the other agents we've used (bought and sold once before, so that's only two other agents, though). They weren't terrible by any stretch, but they didn't have quite the insight and level of knowledge as the other two. For instance, the other one we bought with was helpful at pointing out features of houses that would matter to us more than we realized (lack of storage space (we bought pre-kids, but knew we wanted them soon) and awesome Toto toilets, among other things). She was also better about realistically seeing renovation potential and costs. And I thought the inspection agent she rec'd was way better than the Redfin one. We also had some issues with Redfin sending different agents to us to see houses, who didn't know what we were looking for or hadn't already seen the house.

As for selling with Redfin, it was a similar issue. The agent was very nice and professional, but just not quite at the same level of the regular realtor we used. The materials they put together were really good (the photographer was professional and great). We lived in a pretty hot, close-in market with a lot of similarly built houses, and our house sat (other houses went within days, often over list price). And our house was in excellent shape. We ended up going with a different realtor and the house sold within 5 days with competing bids. It's hard to say exactly what the difference was and hey, maybe it was just a coincidence. Frankly, it doesn't really make sense to me how it could really matter, but it certainly felt like it did.

If I had to do it again, I would buy, but not sell, with Redfin. Well, I might interview the Redfin agent and consider it, but I'd be hesitant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on the market. It our area, many properties sell before they hit the mls and redfin ($1million plus homes). For this reason, I wouldn't dream of relying on a redfin agent to buy, but I also wouldn't use 90 percent of the traditional agents in my area, there are only a select few that are really connected. I'd be more inclined to consider them for selling, but again, prefer my very well connected agent.

Ah, I bet you are a stock picker too?

See, a RedFin agent would be stupid enough to compare stocks with real estate. Please explain how transactions involving liquid and illiquid assets are comparable.

They're both investable assets with fluctuating values based on analyzable underlying fundamentals and the overall supply/demand balance in a particular market. They also have transaction fees and advisory fees attached, and most literature suggests that lowering fees is of more consistent economic value than advisory services. They're actually very similar ... but thanks for your snark, it's why I read DCUM.

They're not similar at all. But since you're fixating on it, discount stock brokers underperform full service ones anyway. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reveco/v17y2008i2p258-268.html

Bwahaahahaa at that attempt. You obviously don't have a clue what that study is saying. And I hardly think that a single response pointing out a number of similarities is fixating ... you asked a question, I answered. You were unsatisfied because the answer invalidated your premise so you scoured the internet to drudge up a horribly outdated and spurious paper and then you used its findings incorrectly. I think we have our verdict ... you are a realtor.

When the best you've got is to repeat an allegation already disproven (no, not a real estate agent, or a real estate professional), you've lost the argument spectacularly. Let's review: You compared buying and selling property to buying and selling stocks. That's just hilarious on its face. Do you even have a high school degree?

Now, back to the subject . . .

It's germane to the subject. Redfin fans and Redfin agents generally seem to have the same competencies (or lack thereof).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We bought and sold with Redfin (sold this spring). We LOVE them. The commission thing is great but they are great overall. One thing that I noticed that I feel made a HUGE difference was their photography service (which is included, no extra fee). The photographers with Redfin are fantastic. They made our townhouse look gorgeous. I didn't even realize what a difference it made until I looked at a friend's listing... two similar places but ours looked so much better. And just an FYI we worked with Betty Desourdis and she is absolutely wonderful. Seriously, she will NOT be outclassed (as another pp stated).

Link to the house you sold. I smell stale socks.

http://www.redfin.com/VA/Springfield/9118-Galbreth-Ct-22153/home/9770691

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
In this day and age of the internet and open houses, you can easily view houses. If you are interested in a listing, why would you rely on someone else's opinion of the interior of a house anyway.

I don't go to open houses that I'm not interested in buying but that house still may wind up being a comp for one I do decide to purchase. And if you ever looked at a house IRL, you know that looking only at the listing online gives you about a quarter of the picture. You seem to have a very narrow view of what an agent can do. So, a redfin agent might be perfect for you.

Your argument is still faulty. Most houses that have open houses also have photos online and the IRL information can be accessed after a sell. Redfin can access that database. The point is, with an informed seller and a RedFin agent partnering together, why go the traditional route and pay thousands more.

I have interviewed a few traditional agents and from what they have spoken about, I cannot justify the increase in rate. Remember, I am selling and not buying from the agent.

Then don't. We bought our first house from a guy who thought he didn't need an agent and got for about $75000 less than it was worth, at a time when the market was rising. Of course, price too high and it sits. If your house is a cookie cutter development model, you're probably fine with redfin. If it's more high end or unique, I'd go with someone more seasoned.

[Anonymous]

Let's look at Redfin's sales stats thus far in 2014 for ALL of DC:

CLOSED SALES LISTING SIDES: 28 Ranging in price from $229,000 - $940,000

Low price $229,000

High $940,000

Median $428,000

Average $443,511

CLOSED SALES BUYER SIDES: 117 Ranging in price from $216,000 - $1,270,000

Low price $216,000

High $1,270,000

Median $515,000

Average $531,694

Sorry, but I am not impressed. If you want to entrust one of your most valuable assets to someone who works part time and whose company as a whole produces dismal numbers like this for the first half of the year then best of luck. Different strokes for different folks!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Let's look at Redfin's sales stats thus far in 2014 for ALL of DC:

CLOSED SALES LISTING SIDES: 28 Ranging in price from $229,000 - $940,000

Low price $229,000

High $940,000

Median $428,000

Average $443,511

CLOSED SALES BUYER SIDES: 117 Ranging in price from $216,000 - $1,270,000

Low price $216,000

High $1,270,000

Median $515,000

Average $531,694

Sorry, but I am not impressed. If you want to entrust one of your most valuable assets to someone who works part time and whose company as a whole produces dismal numbers like this for the first half of the year then best of luck. Different strokes for different folks!

You mad bro

[Anonymous]

You dumb bro

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I guess it depends on the market. It our area, many properties sell before they hit the mls and redfin ($1million plus homes). For this reason, I wouldn't dream of relying on a redfin agent to buy, but I also wouldn't use 90 percent of the traditional agents in my area, there are only a select few that are really connected. I'd be more inclined to consider them for selling, but again, prefer my very well connected agent.

Ah, I bet you are a stock picker too?

See, a RedFin agent would be stupid enough to compare stocks with real estate. Please explain how transactions involving liquid and illiquid assets are comparable.

They're both investable assets with fluctuating values based on analyzable underlying fundamentals and the overall supply/demand balance in a particular market. They also have transaction fees and advisory fees attached, and most literature suggests that lowering fees is of more consistent economic value than advisory services. They're actually very similar ... but thanks for your snark, it's why I read DCUM.

They're not similar at all. But since you're fixating on it, discount stock brokers underperform full service ones anyway. http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/reveco/v17y2008i2p258-268.html

Bwahaahahaa at that attempt. You obviously don't have a clue what that study is saying. And I hardly think that a single response pointing out a number of similarities is fixating ... you asked a question, I answered. You were unsatisfied because the answer invalidated your premise so you scoured the internet to drudge up a horribly outdated and spurious paper and then you used its findings incorrectly. I think we have our verdict ... you are a realtor.

When the best you've got is to repeat an allegation already disproven (no, not a real estate agent, or a real estate professional), you've lost the argument spectacularly. Let's review: You compared buying and selling property to buying and selling stocks. That's just hilarious on its face. Do you even have a high school degree?

1) when was the fact that you're an agent "disproven"? Do you know what the word "proven" means?
2) incidentally, I have a high school degree, and a top 25 undergrad degree, and an MBA from a top 5 global school, and a CFA, and I buy and sell stocks EVERY day, and I've advised on and/or participated in close to $2 billion (with a b) in real estate transactions over the last decade.
3) I cannot prove you are a real estate agent, though you have a strangely passionate aversion to Redfin for someone that's not threatened by it,
4) I can fortunately prove that you are a moron (see your previous posts and illogical arguments).
5) I maintain without hesitation that the similarities between the purchase and sale of public equities and residential real estate are unassailable.
6) I invite you to address any specific argument herein, but I suspect that you will retort with another non sequitur ad hominem.

Ps - I have only used traditional agents for my numerous prior transactions. I will likely do so again. It is solely your idiocy - not the Redfin vs traditional debate - that has interested me in this thread.

[Anonymous]

If you are selling a condo in Fairfax or Gaithersburg. Call Redfin and GET YOUR REBATE! If you are selling a luxury home in upper NW DC? Do you want a REDFIN sign on your front lawn? Redfin is for low end consumers/brokers/agents. Let them have at it.

[Anonymous]

Let's face the facts - there are bottom feeders from the suburbs who want a discount and think they know how to decorate with their chintz and plug-ins and 2.5% coop commission will sell their down trodden, lackluster townhouse in the God-forsaken suburbs. There are educated people in the city who leave selling real estate to the professionals. Try doing it yourself at 2.5% (or less) , see what results you get and then come crying to us.

[Anonymous]

I would be comfortable (maybe even prefer) listing my house with Redfin if it's under $800,000. Above that I tend to still earn towards traditional, solely because that's still the dominant source of buyers and the conflicts of interest in the agent game are still so great that I think you will have so e agents (not all) that find reasons to deter their buyers from looking at or offering on Redfin listings.

I think this will change over time, or at least agents will begin accepting lower commissions, but today I believe higher end buyers still tend to use traditional agents and I'd want my listing to be appealing/supported by the largest. Umber of potential buyers possible.

[Anonymous]

^^^"lean" not "earn"