I’m not an agent or a lawyer, just someone who has never signed a buyer agreement until after seeing a few houses with a realtor. This has been the case for me in a few states over the last decade or so.
I totally understand not wasting an agent’s time and I get why sellers want to know who is in their home. But with all the changes lately, why hasn’t anyone come up with a different type of buyer agreement?
For example, what if the buyer paid per showing? Then if they end up under contract with the buyer’s agent, the money they paid could be credited toward the commission. This way, agents are covered for their time, and serious buyers get something back. Thoughts?
You can hire an agent to represent you per showing or even by the hour. The downside to this is that buyers have to pay out of pocket. Also, a lot of the work that buyer agents do isn’t just about the actual showing. Agents are self-employed, so they need to charge enough to cover their business expenses, just like anyone else. Flat-rate or cut-rate services have existed for a long time, though.
Bao said: @Jin
Ummmm… buyer’s agents don’t do much work outside of the showings.
Well, if it’s that easy, why don’t you go get your license and make that ‘easy money’? You could even charge half the rate of other agents and still be rolling in cash while helping people avoid overpriced agents.
Nearly half of new agents give up within a few years. Why? Probably because they made so much money that they retired to a private island, right? Not quite.
@Jin
The hard part is getting clients and building a network. That’s why agents quit. The actual work of selling or buying a home isn’t that difficult. Filling out contracts, running comps, and following checklists? Not hard at all. Buyer agents don’t really add much value to home buyers.
@Bao
That’s just like any business though, right? You could say the same thing about any profession—client acquisition is a key part of it.
What you’re suggesting is silly. It’s like going into a grocery store and saying, ‘I don’t want to pay for marketing, insurance, or keeping the lights on, because it doesn’t benefit me directly.’ That’s how businesses work, agents included. If you don’t want to use one, you’re free to go FSBO. But there’s an entire industry that supports people who do see the value in using agents.
@Jin
Agents are just gatekeepers who don’t offer enough value to justify their fees. The career is dying, especially in residential real estate. People are waking up to the fact that agents don’t bring enough to the table to warrant paying $5k, $10k, or more per sale. In the future, fees will drop, and agents will have to handle way more transactions to make a decent living.
@Bao
People have been saying that for 20 years, but guess what? It hasn’t happened. Even companies like Redfin, which offer the lowest fees, barely make up 1% of the market. Why? Maybe it’s because you get what you pay for, and the cheapest option isn’t always the best.
You’re entitled to your opinion, but I think you misunderstand the business if you think it’s going to change that drastically.
Magdalina said: @Bao
I helped a client buy a lot for $20 and sell it for $65,000 two days after closing. That’s value right there.
Sure, sounds real believable, lol.
There was a typo in my post. We bought a lot next to a duplex they were buying. The listing agent said it was worthless. So we got it for $20 and sold it. It wasn’t worthless after all.