Tired buyer's agent

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The market will settle eventually. Agents are trying to find the new normal. They don’t want a pay cut, same as you.

Buyer's agents will have to demonstrate their value to clients. If an agent can't demonstrate their value, I'd prefer to pay them an hourly wage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?

Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!

Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.

This will also reduce the casual shopping.

Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.

Why would I pay a realtor by the hour to show me a house? I can call the seller's agent to open the door for me. I'll then pay a lawyer to draft the offer and review the contract.

[Anonymous]

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.

I can perform electrical and plumbing services in my own house but still pay others to do it. Similarly, I could change my own oil on my car but pay someone else to do it. Heck, most automotive services can be done at home, but we pay mechanics to do them.

That was a bad analogy. You probably could not get a real estate transaction to settlement easily. I realize you THINK you could. But you probably couldn't, especially if anything out of the ordinary happened.

This is such a weak argument. If anything truly out of the ordinary happens, you need to get a real estate attorney. I'm a lawyer, although not a real estate lawyer, and I knew was bad "legal" advice from realtors more than once. What happens when someone posts on here about something "out of the ordinary?" A dozen responses that "you need to get a good real estate attorney."

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

I can perform electrical and plumbing services in my own house but still pay others to do it. Similarly, I could change my own oil on my car but pay someone else to do it. Heck, most automotive services can be done at home, but we pay mechanics to do them.

That was a bad analogy. You probably could not get a real estate transaction to settlement easily. I realize you THINK you could. But you probably couldn't, especially if anything out of the ordinary happened.

This is such a weak argument. If anything truly out of the ordinary happens, you need to get a real estate attorney. I'm a lawyer, although not a real estate lawyer, and I knew was bad "legal" advice from realtors more than once. What happens when someone posts on here about something "out of the ordinary?" A dozen responses that "you need to get a good real estate attorney."

*I knew I was given bad "legal" advice from realtors*

[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.

If sellers agents refuse to show houses to unrepresented buyers then I'd think some sellers would also balk. Their agent is delaying a timely sale. Time is money...

[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.

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

[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.

+1. I would encourage all buyers to preserve evidence concerning things like this -- emails, voice messages, etc. They may come in handy in the event of a new lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?

Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!

Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.

This will also reduce the casual shopping.

Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.

I can't see individual families are agreeing to this. Houses fall through, offers don't get accepted, buyers discover they house is no good after inspection, etc. Buyers with a set amount of money they can afford to spend don't want to see it pissed away during the home search process. Yeah, i'd rather go with the seller's agent and get a RE attorney who I can top into to help me along the way if needed.

+1 I'm not spending a dime on a realtor when I'm looking to buy. Buyers agents are going the way of the buggy whip.

Then you stand to be screwed in the transaction. Just understand that.

The reason agents exist is to make the transaction arm’s length. All these people who think they can negotiate their own transaction from start to finish and arrange all the inspections and so forth and so on typically can’t if there’s any sort of hiccup.

Any person with common sense can arrange an inspection are you kidding me. Realtors must think people are that dumb. There is literally nothing to do but call someone like you're making a doctors appointment.

+1 I've arranged my own inspection for all four homes I've bought. It's a conflict of interest to use the inspector the realtor recommends anyway so I've never done it.

This happened with me and we found out that the inspector intentionally missed a few things. Had to sue both the agent and the inspector and ended up getting our commission back. Agents are responsible for the money they could get from you so sue them if anything shady is going on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I was not in a contract to buy a property with my RE agent but the demand for money just keeps on going up. We decided to put an offer on a property that we really like. We verbally spoke before about the fees and commissions and she agreed that there won't be any additional charges. When I saw her contract, there were about $2700 worth of additional fees on top of she getting her commission of 2%(for $1.3M property). She disclosed that additional charges are for documentation, administrative and travel fees to the closing office, etc. I asked her to take it off and she refused so I decided to not use her and found someone who gives some credit back from his commission. I don't understand why these agents need to start charging additional fees when commission is already healthy?

Good for you! I'm doing the same. Turned down two agents who refused to budge on 2% fee. Interviewed 3 others, one offered 1%, one offered hourly rate, and still waiting to hear from the last one. Not sure if this was a coincidence but the two who insisted on 2% were older (60+), the kind of realtors who don't really need the money or worry about building a career, just coasting on established reputation/monopoly in a certain neighborhood. Most younger, mid-profession realtors will negotiate if they dont want to be competed out.

CHANGE IS COMING. THANK GOD!!!

Smart agents will charge the hourly fee without having it contingent on closing. So, if they're charging $200 an hour and they spend 10 hours with them, you will owe them $2,000 whether or not you ever put an offer on a property. That's where I see this settling: Hourly billing like a lawyer, likely with a retainer collected up front.

This will also reduce the casual shopping.

Keep in mind a lot of them will collect that hourly fee from companies relocating employees, etc.

I can't see individual families are agreeing to this. Houses fall through, offers don't get accepted, buyers discover they house is no good after inspection, etc. Buyers with a set amount of money they can afford to spend don't want to see it pissed away during the home search process. Yeah, i'd rather go with the seller's agent and get a RE attorney who I can top into to help me along the way if needed.

+1 I'm not spending a dime on a realtor when I'm looking to buy. Buyers agents are going the way of the buggy whip.

Then you stand to be screwed in the transaction. Just understand that.

The reason agents exist is to make the transaction arm’s length. All these people who think they can negotiate their own transaction from start to finish and arrange all the inspections and so forth and so on typically can’t if there’s any sort of hiccup.

Any person with common sense can arrange an inspection are you kidding me. Realtors must think people are that dumb. There is literally nothing to do but call someone like you're making a doctors appointment.

+1 I've arranged my own inspection for all four homes I've bought. It's a conflict of interest to use the inspector the realtor recommends anyway so I've never done it.

This happened with me and we found out that the inspector intentionally missed a few things. Had to sue both the agent and the inspector and ended up getting our commission back. Agents are responsible for the money they could get from you so sue them if anything shady is going on.

This is good. People need to be accountable for what they are doing. I can't understand RE agents profession who gets paid top $s but not responsible for anything. Must be nice!

[Anonymous]

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.

[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.

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.

[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.

if this happens then they will get sued by the seller. I have done it before and they settle quickly because they don't want a lot of shady stuff to come out.

[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.

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.

[Anonymous]

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.