Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The listing agent just wants to get the house sold. Listing agents are more helpful to me, the buyer, than buyer's agents. Because it's the LISTING agent who is going to try to convince the seller to accept my offer. Buyer's agents just want me to raise my offer to get the deal done.
Whenever possible, I try to deal with just the listing agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. This ain't my first rodeo.
Whenever possible, I try to deal with just the listing agent. I don't need a buyer's agent. This ain't my first rodeo.
Your Honor, I'm going to let the nice District Attorney lady there handle my defense. I know that she just wants to get this trial over with and she already knows the accusations against me, so, I don't need no defense attorney. You see, I'm a rodeo clown and I understand how this here court thang works. Let's get started.
Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. The listing agent can be the buyer's best friend. They just want to get the deal done in many cases, and will work hard to convince their client to accept.
If the DA's motivation was getting out of work by acquitting cases (and making the same salary) that would be a more apt comparison.
Comparing a criminal trial to buying a house is the sort of ridiculous hyperbole that I have come to expect from Realtors on internet fora. Buying a house is NOT HARD. Any reasonably bright person can navigate these waters -- if they'll take the time to learn a little about how a real estate transaction works. How does an undergraduate degree, the LSATs, law school, passing the bar exam and logging the thousands of hours necessary to be a successful criminal defense attorney compare to getting a real estate license? There are agents who have done that online in a matter of days.
Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. The listing agent can be the buyer's best friend. They just want to get the deal done in many cases, and will work hard to convince their client to accept.
If the DA's motivation was getting out of work by acquitting cases (and making the same salary) that would be a more apt comparison.
Comparing a criminal trial to buying a house is the sort of ridiculous hyperbole that I have come to expect from Realtors on internet fora. Buying a house is NOT HARD. Any reasonably bright person can navigate these waters -- if they'll take the time to learn a little about how a real estate transaction works. How does an undergraduate degree, the LSATs, law school, passing the bar exam and logging the thousands of hours necessary to be a successful criminal defense attorney compare to getting a real estate license? There are agents who have done that online in a matter of days.
BS, and compounded by intransigence and/or density.
Let me help you out. Working with Real Estate Agents is a good brochure from the North Carolina Real Estate Commission that will clarify the points you are misstating.
You should read it and learn from it to avoid further appearance of bizarre and wacky posting.
At the risk of being trolled for hyperbolizing for quoting a poster's hyperbolic inanity, I propose that buying a house is typically more complicated and more financially material than buying a car, furniture, or a pack of gum.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 08-04-2013 at 06:06 AM..
Status:
"48 years in MD, 18 in NC"
(set 11 days ago)
Location: Greenville, NC
2,309 posts, read 6,102,582 times
Reputation: 1430
Let me just start by saying that I have known a couple of honest, hard working, real estate agents over the years. I have also spoken with many that are little more than used car salesman.
In regards to the real estate bust of 2008 and the years leading up to it...
Time and again I speak with agents that did sell people homes that they couldn't afford. And it was apparent from the very beginning that a foreclosure was inevitable. There are always signs that someone can't afford something and there's no denying it. People that drive 15 year old cars with 3 bald tires and a minispare might be subject to a closer look. People with income so low that special financing was required might be subject to a closer look (You guys can do this). People with poor credit scores might be subject to a closer look.
And over and over again the RE agents say it wasn't their fault nor was it their responsibility. I have bad news for those RE agents. They are every bit as guilty as the buyers, appraisers, underwriters and mortgage companies are of perpetrating the disaster. In the chain of people who were involved in the sale of a home to an unqualified buyer, any one of those people could have stopped the process at any time. And yet, in millions of cases, no one did.
John should have gone with his first instinct and said NO. I've seen a couple of RE agents in this thread that said we don't know why John was hesitant. The reason John was hesitant is clear to everybody, including you lying RE agents.
Not the same thing. Not even close to the same thing. The listing agent can be the buyer's best friend...
Any reasonably bright person can navigate these waters -- if they'll take the time to learn a little about how a real estate transaction works. How does an undergraduate degree, the LSATs, law school, passing the bar exam and logging the thousands of hours necessary to be a successful criminal defense attorney compare to getting a real estate license? There are agents who have done that online in a matter of days.
First off, the listing agent may only be your "best friend" as long as it doesn't involve advocating in your best interest in the deal. You're not looking for a best friend here. You're looking for the best deal with the most protection during the process.
It's not about the time necessary to get a RE license. It's about having an advocate on your side. You're right that the listing agent wants to get the deal done but she is prohibited from advocating on your behalf. Not so with your buyer's agent. If I know it, I can tell you that the price you just offered is more than the amount of the contract that fell apart last month. She can't. In my small town, I am often aware of all kinds of things about a property and it's history that she can't share with you. I may know that the next sale of a unit in this condo complex may jeopardize any future mortgages in the complex. That doesn't have to be disclosed.
I won't let you put your escrow in an escrow account that doesn't have a free dispute mediation process. She might. We may be able to use to your advantage the "defer to a higher power" negotiating tactic that you as a principle dealing directly with a common middleman can't. I will protect you in every reasonable way possible in the contract language. She can't if it's to the detriment of her first client, the seller and she has no incentive to anyway. I will probably know if she is a liar (from past dealings) and not to be trusted or if her word is good. Small town advantage again. If it's the first time you've dealt with her, you may fall for her sincere delivery and believe something that ultimately damages you.
I have value as a buyer's agent. I could have gone to law school five times in the time it took me to accumulate what I know about my town, it's properties and the real estate business in it. The process for getting my license was a joke. The knowledge I've gained since isn't. I respect your decision to go it alone but don't tell me I don't provide value to my clients. I know better. It's far more than filling in the blanks on a contract.
...
John should have gone with his first instinct and said NO. I've seen a couple of RE agents in this thread that said we don't know why John was hesitant. The reason John was hesitant is clear to everybody, including you lying RE agents.
I may need more coffee. Take me to school and clarify the video.
Why is John hesitant?
He never answers the wife's "What? What?" So, we don't know why. We have no clue at all.
So, what is the unfounded assumption all the genius agent hater/baiters apply to his hesitation?
Does John want to be in a neighborhood with a swim and tennis club, and there is none?
Is John about to lose his job, and hasn't told his wife?
Is he a racist, and there is a black family next door?
Did he want a basement, no basement, three car garage, larger lot, smaller lot, the other side of town, a shorter commute, a home office?
Is the wife always a pushy shrew, putting her man on the spot and shaming him in front of the agent, or is she stuck in a two bedroom walk up apartment with no easy parking and a toddler and a baby and he is just being anal?
Or, does the wife work from home and wants a home office?
Is she the one qualifying for the mortgage, and John's male ego is bruised, so he is being hesitant?
What did overly-unctuous, eavesdropping Suzanne "research?" What point did she put at ease? Will the new school open on time? Is the freeway going in that will shorten his commute?
I hate the ad. It is stupid and banal and easy fodder for agent trolls on CD, where it has been posted and trolled before.
The agent should not have been involved with that conversation between husband and wife. I cannot imagine how marketing people at C21 could EVER have thought the ad brought value to their brand in any fashion.
I also dislike blatantly ignorant assumptions cast about, and being called a liar by people who offer nothing of value to the conversation.
Last edited by MikeJaquish; 08-04-2013 at 06:14 AM..
This is inaccurate to the point of bizarre.
So the buyer goes to the listing agent, and does not enter into a fiduciary-type relationship with an agent who has a fiduciary duty to the seller, and the agent is working for the buyer who is technically unrepresented?
Nope!
Where does this stuff come from?
I'm working under the assumption that the listing agent stands to earn a portion of both the buying (3%) and the selling (3%, if negotiated that high) commission. This would be sufficiently motivating for the listing agent to work hard to secure that deal (a deal in which they earn both sides of the commission). Heck, if the deal is close then listing agent might even have the brokerage kick in a few bucks to close the deal? Why not? It is better to earn 4.5% instead of just 3%. As a result, it behooves the buyer to deal directly with the listing agent, particularly in a hot market, because it could mean the difference in securing or loosing a home.
This financial incentive will inspire the dual agent to work hard for the buyer who came directly to the listing agent because it is in the listing agent's best interests.
This is inaccurate to the point of bizarre.
So the buyer goes to the listing agent, and does not enter into a fiduciary-type relationship with an agent who has a fiduciary duty to the seller, and the agent is working for the buyer who is technically unrepresented?
Nope!
Where does this stuff come from?
UNrepresented?
What if the buyer is savvy and smart enough to represent his own interests? GASP!
Realtors act as if they have proprietary arcane knowledge unfathomable to mere mortals. Not every buyer is new to town!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
