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.
Would I save if I didnt have a realtor and just used the listing agent?
Probably not.
The listing agent is COMMITTED to work for the best interest of the seller. Their job is to make the sale at the best price & terms to the SELLER. While the listing agent can certainly provide you with any publicly available information, and will likely be happy to help you fill out forms & the like, they will NEVER help you negotiate for a better price. If you are completely confident of your ability to negotiate (and that means do all the associated research & fact finding,) and do not want a real estate agent to REPRESENT your interests, and IF you can convince the seller to accept a lower offer, then perhaps you might save some money by working with the sellers agent. But you'll never know for sure that you saved any money.
school is starting, I am in a 1700 sq rental, I want to be in a home by the holidays. My realtor found one in Arapahoe lakes, I go in the morning to look. No idea how I missed it, that's why I have him I guess.
Agents are paid commission only from a seller, usually a certain percentage agreed upon with the listing agent here in CA. The listing agent will then market the property including on the MLS (multiple listing service). Other agents, or "buyer's agents" see a "cooperating fee" meaning how much commission is given to that agent to bring a qualified buyer to purchase the property. I am unsure on how it can save you money going by yourself.
Agents are usually better able to negotiate with each other, and act as a go between with their clients. The fiduciary responsibility to the listing agent is to their client, and buyer's agent to theirs respectively.
Certainly possible that things may have changed since I was a real estate agent in NY during the 90's...but back then you would have a very hard time dumping an agent and making an offer on a house that said agent showed you. As it should be, unless the agent was truly not up to the task.
Now if the house you are putting in an offer for, is one that you found on your own - well that's different.
But since you posted your question on an open forum; plz allow me my two cents. You've been allowing an agent to spend his or her time, resources, experience, & quite often gasoline and other expenditures to show you what's out there compatible with your laundry list of must haves. To up and decide that you will now pursue this endeavor on your own is, at best, a crummy thing to do. At worst, it's doing a major disservice to yourself. The worst is more likely in your case because quite frankly, you seem a bit...well...inexperienced lets 'just say. (I dont mean that at all as a snipe - just have read your other posts/threads)
When the "buyer's broker" finally gained footing here, it was met with controversy. Now it's accepted here and even expected. Personally I feel anyone not 100% savvy in today's market is foolish to not have an agent. There is no way I would make a real estate transaction without one.
Not necessarily. And if you proceed without an agent, don't make the mistake of thinking it's the listing agent's responsibility to help you, because it probably won't be. The money you think you're saving by not hiring your own agent will be spent paying for things you thought you'd save on by not hiring an agent.
I did use my agent, I didn't sign a contract because I told him I wouldn't, but in the end I still ended up using him.
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.