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 You were unsatisfied because the answer invalidated your premise so you scoured the internet to drudge up a horribly outdated and spurious paper and then you used its findings incorrectly.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?
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!
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 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.
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 . . .
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?
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.
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.