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.
I don't quite understand your reasoning. If there were no buyer's agents, it would be seller's agents selling the homes. There would be no commission savings.
Again, I don't get the reasoning. One party represents each side. It's like lawyers. Each has the duty to try to get the best possible outcome for his client..
C'mon, Scott. I've read your other posts. For some reason you seem to wish that all agents would disappear.[/quote]
there would be a commission savings, the same way installing car alarms saves the insurance indusrty 8.2 billion dollars a year, or how if we recycle a soda can, we can light a city for 2 seconds.
In other words, it would be one more hand out of the money pot, which would benefit buyers and sellers.
With the amount of info available to everyone, a buyers agent cannot get a better deal for you. Sorry, they can't. Any buyer can ask the sellers agent to justify the asking price of any house. It is that simple.
As for my other posts, you can try to spin them any way you like. I state my opinion, just like everyone else. I seem to recall you agreeing with at least one of them (Was that my one and only lucid post?). I completely understand why the RE industry wants buyers agents. You put a lot of time and energy (And money) into doing your job. As a buying agent, YOU REDUCE YOUR CHANCES OF DOING WORK AND NOT GETTING PAID FOR IT (Or having another agent swoop in and steal your commission).
You can throw stones but I find it difficult to believe you do not have an ulterior motive for extoling the virtues of using buyers agents.
On a personal level, I like reading your posts. I often take away some good info from them. I get it though; you disagree with me, so i'm the worst person ever in history! That's the internet.
Scott, I think that you may misunderstand how I am using "Buyer's Agent" and "Seller's Agent".
Under the MLS rules, any agent from any member firm can show a property. That agent may be acting as a Buyer Agent or as a Seller Agent.
So, if you eliminated Buyer's Agents, as you suggest, the home would still be shown by an agent other then the Listing Agent. It's just that that agent would be acting as a Seller's Agent.
There would still be the same number of agents involved in the transaction, resulting in no commission savings.
The only one who would lose would be the buyer, because they would have nobody representing their interests.
Scott, I think that you may misunderstand how I am using "Buyer's Agent" and "Seller's Agent".
Under the MLS rules, any agent from any member firm can show a property. That agent may be acting as a Buyer Agent or as a Seller Agent.
So, if you eliminated Buyer's Agents, as you suggest, the home would still be shown by an agent other then the Listing Agent. It's just that that agent would be acting as a Seller's Agent.
There would still be the same number of agents involved in the transaction, resulting in no commission savings.
The only one who would lose would be the buyer, because they would have nobody representing their interests.
I see what you are saying, and didn't look at it this way. However, I still have my opinion about not needing a buyers agent and I haven't found any compelling evidence to change my mind.
Edited to add: To be more specific, I don't agree with the concept that the buyer and seller need to be "Represented" by a RE agent. Your lawyer represents you. I've discussed my reasoning for this a few times and don't feel the need to repeat it here. It doesn't matter really; we both agree a buyers agent is not needed for the OP.
Last edited by scottzilla; 07-22-2009 at 02:40 PM..
I see what you are saying, and didn't look at it this way. However, I still have my opinion about not needing a buyers agent and I haven't found any compelling evidence to change my mind.
I see what you are saying, and didn't look at it this way. However, I still have my opinion about not needing a buyers agent and I haven't found any compelling evidence to change my mind.
Edited to add: To be more specific, I don't agree with the concept that the buyer and seller need to be "Represented" by a RE agent. Your lawyer represents you. I've discussed my reasoning for this a few times and don't feel the need to repeat it here. It doesn't matter really; we both agree a buyers agent is not needed for the OP.
Scott,
I agree with you and I'm telling you right now I was able save money and beat out other potential buyers by working with the seller agent directly on more than one occasion.
There are situations that call for buying agents and people who just like the the luxury of having them. If you did your homework on the area and have a shred of negotiating skills, then roll up your sleeves, go to the open houses, drive around a lot and contact those listing agents/owners. Use the fact that you are a direct buyer with your ducks ina row (credit scores, downpayment, commitment letter) as leverage to get a better deal and position yourself as the best buyer.
Be sure to drive a hard bargain though, if you fit the critera I listed above. You are a taking all the risk in this environment, and cash is king!
I don't agree with the concept that the buyer and seller need to be "Represented" by a RE agent. Your lawyer represents you.
But the lawyers don't represent their clients during the part of the purchase where the realtors are most active: The showing, offering, and negotiating phases.
Lawyers ONLY get involved AFTER there has been an accepted offer and a satisfactory inspection (and any selling-price adjustments as a result of that inspection, if applicable). In other words, the lawyers aren't in the picture at all until the Contract phase and by that time 90% of the realtors' work is done. If there are mortgage issues, the buyer (or their mortgage broker if they have one) handles them; not the realtor. If there are contract-related issues, the lawyers handle them.
Realtor representation and Attorney representation are "apples and oranges".
Btw, buyer agency is not some kind of evil new concept; it's just new to the LI area. It's been the norm in most other states for years and years (and not just in Flyover USA either; CT, MA, and NJ have had it for ages). We have been way behind the curve. The seller sub-agency system that people here are used to, was absolutely archaic and contained NO benefit whatsoever to buyers. On the contrary, as Tom pointed out earlier, it was always detrimental.
I would also like to point out that I have spent countless hours with buying agents, and have not had any great experiences with them. My wife would agree to look at properties with them and drag me along.
I'm not exaggerating when I say 99% of the time, we knew more about the property than the buying agent. Some are better than others, but none of them are going to look out for you better than YOURSELF! All you need is acess to "Listing book" and it is all at your fingertips. You can get access to everything they have. And the fact is Buying agents want you to buy because how much time and gas $ are they going to spend dragging you around? I say, do your homework, take your time, and sieze a good opportunity when it comes. The less people involved the better.
Then again, (because I am fair), If you are not sure what you want, familiar with the area, or if you are not sure of your negotiating skills, then by all means contact one and go with someone you can trust.
we showed up at an open house last weekend. not sure if there was a checkbox "are you working with an agent" on the seller's sign in sheet, but we chatted about how flexible the seller's were, she asked us our income and i blurted it out without thinking (iknow, dummy), and we said thanks for the show.
we just found out on the internet they're having another open house this weekend, and we're bringing my in laws to check it out too. after this, we plan to make our offer.
we do like an agent who we've met at a couple of open houses we were thinking of using simply because she sounds knowledgeable and is really nice. only thing is, not sure if she's familiar with this particular area.
and i'm not sure i see the value fully yet of having a buyer's agent other than making some final appointments.
Was this 'sign-in' sheet simply a Guest Sheet for attendance, or did you sign the Disclosure Sheet explaining Sellers Agency? Any agent doing an open house MUST have you sign the Disclosure Sheet, not just a Guest List with name, address, phone, email, etc. And the agent should have explained that she will show you the home, but she represents the seller. AND you should have received a copy of the Disclosure (never sign something without getting a copy).
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.
That's the internet.
buyer agency
