Anonymous wrote:I was recently pricing wedding photographers. They want $5,000 or more. Which is ridiculous! They don't add any value! I can get the minister to take photos or my Aunt Sarah! Or maybe I can get second cousin's nieces's son, who's working for a newspaper in Ohio! Hell, we can put those disposable cameras on the tables!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

+1 The two pp's you're responding to sure sound like agents.

The gig is up. No buyer is paying an hourly rate for this bs that the seller is already paying their agent to do and no seller is going to pay even more for their agent to do their damn job.

And realtors aren't the ones meeting milestones like financing, title search, closing etc. The title company does that. Hallmark sign of a realtor to lie to try to inflate what they do because it's embarrassingly little.

Aaaand another thing: if your seller didn't have to pay TWO realtor commissions, then they would have saved a lot more than that $5K.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hourly fees won't be this high and buyers will get smart about using them. They will do more of their own HW before reaching out to agents. I don't see any value in them getting even 1%.

Well, of course you think that, because you're one of these internet people who fancy yourself an expert on something and don't think they bring value. But they do. I have no idea what hourly fees will be -- my guess is there will be a range and you'll get what you pay for.

No, I'm not an agent or in any way connected to the industry. It's just annoying when people so rudely assume they know more than people who do something for a living.

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.

Anonymous wrote:very soon, this job is going to be obsolete and lawyers will handle everything.

Anonymous wrote:very soon, this job is going to be obsolete and lawyers will handle everything.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

I don't mind at all if it is saving me 2-3% on the commission. It's your money and if you want to pay agents such high $s for useless, low level work then it is upto you. There is a reason commission has come down.

People are posting about buyer's agents being useless. I am saying that they are not to me. I am not commenting on the pay structure.

PP, you are blowing smoke and pushing people in paying for something that they could do themselves. No need to push expensive service on someone that has no value.

It doesn't have to be expensive.

Anonymous wrote:
If I'm paying someone $200/hour, they better have a lot more letters after their name than "B.A."[b]

Ha, so true!
Commissions have been insane for so long. Even 1% is outrageous.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Then you...hire a sellers agent to represent you? We bought a house without a buyers agent, and I only talked to the sellers agent. Never talked with the sellers, only trace of them was their signatures on the closing docs. When we went to pick up the keys and take possession, the agent was there to do the handover.

Not sure why you as seller would have any interaction with the buyer, if you have your own agent .

Anonymous wrote:

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.