New rules: buying without an agent

[Anonymous]

The histrionics of agent haters is ironic, because this sort of erratic, emotional behavior is exactly why people need agents in huge transactions of this size.

-- Not an agent (since you will, I'm sure, accuse me of being one since that's your highly emotional reflexive reaction whenever someone disagrees with you).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:By the time you file a complaint with the state licensing board, the house will be sold. Why would you retain a lawyer when you can fill out a form on line to make the complaint.

Better way: if the listing agent refuses to show the house, explain to her that she is violating her fiduciary duties to the seller and you will contact the seller directly to explain his or her rights under the listing agreement including cancelling the listing. If agent still refuses, submit an offer contingent on you having access to the house.

In this market? no. rates have really slowed things down.

Maybe in some places, but not Arlington. I just ratified a sight unseen contract for a house that is "coming soon." I have a listing that is in "coming soon" and will be on the market on Friday. I already have two sight unseen offers on it and both with shock clocks expiring at 6 pm today and 12 noon tomorrow. There are 11 showings already scheduled. We are letting the shock clocks expire and telling them to re-submit when offers are due on Tuesday.

So someone calls and asks for a quick showing, sends you their pre-approval, and you say "I am going to be at the house at 6:30 tonight when a showing ends, why don't you come then" If a place is truly hot and being seen constantly, then why is it hard for an unrepresented buyer to tag onto the end of a string of showings?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

Before you went jumping around in histrionics, how is the agent going to verify proof-of finances? This is the coffee meet and greet and know your buyer first by meeting in the office. Then buyer decides whether to use that agent to see at their convenient time. You must be suffering from main character syndrome to think I am the only person that matters that wants to see the house and forget the dozens of other similarly qualified buyers who also want to see the house. Seller also has their own schedule so limited time maybe available for showing the house and hence open houses to accomodate all possible buyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

Before you went jumping around in histrionics, how is the agent going to verify proof-of finances? This is the coffee meet and greet and know your buyer first by meeting in the office. Then buyer decides whether to use that agent to see at their convenient time. You must be suffering from main character syndrome to think I am the only person that matters that wants to see the house and forget the dozens of other similarly qualified buyers who also want to see the house. Seller also has their own schedule so limited time maybe available for showing the house and hence open houses to accomodate all possible buyers.

Same way a buyer agent would. A pre-approval letter from a bank, for example.

I'm not discriminating qualified buyers. First come, first serve. Because unequal access for qualified buyers simply because they aren't represented by an agent does not benefit the interests of the seller. You have not provided any meaningful justification that benefits the seller.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What will probably happen is that the seller-agent agreement will spell out the conditions under which unrepresented buyers will be shown the home: either at the open house OR upon furnishing proof of funds/lender pre-approval letter.

Then the question is this: how many actual sellers would prevent a buyer with proof-of-finances from viewing their listing prior to an open house, simply because they cannot provide proof of agent representation?

Would you sign this disclosure:

"I understand that under no circumstances will unrepresented buyers be provided showings outside of an open house. It does not matter if they are qualified financially. It does not matter if they have legal representation. It does not matter if they have proof of closing real estate deals. It does not matter if they are already drafting an over-ask cash offer with no contingencies. They will not be given access to your listing unless there is an open house."

Before you went jumping around in histrionics, how is the agent going to verify proof-of finances? This is the coffee meet and greet and know your buyer first by meeting in the office. Then buyer decides whether to use that agent to see at their convenient time. You must be suffering from main character syndrome to think I am the only person that matters that wants to see the house and forget the dozens of other similarly qualified buyers who also want to see the house. Seller also has their own schedule so limited time maybe available for showing the house and hence open houses to accomodate all possible buyers.

DP here. Come on, the pp wasn't displaying any histrionics. The only histrionics are coming from realtors desperately trying to maintain price fixing.

And quit pretending that realtor safety is some new concern. Realtors can follow the same process they always have when showing a buyer a property. We've had many sellers agents show us homes and most of them just ask a few quick questions over the phone then show me and my husband the house.

Either the house is hot and you hold an open house for everyone or it's not and you provide showings to buyers. There's no real scheduling "problem."