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'm sorry if you don't like the truth or results published in an independent report not under the control of the Realtor organization. Same goes for the actual factual results from those who have posted their success here. No one can speak to every single specific transaction that occurs in the marketplace -- so this has to be a general discussion -- and the fact remains that all the hype and misleading marketing stating that Realtors can sell homes for more money is just that - misleading hype. If you want to talk about false statements and studies that are a joke - agents should look the mirror.
You once again ignore the majority of the truthful post and try to pick apart a single statement. However you want to spin it every situation is different. Nobody is guaranteed a higher a return for hiring an agent and not a single person on this thread said otherwise. Agents provide a valuable service for some and other sellers don't need an agent. To each their own but it's not my place nor yours to try to mandate to others how to run their lives or business. People are intelligent enough to make up their own minds on the Stanford study, they can click the link and review the facts.
The NAR just likes to post the "Highlites!" & Talking Points from the yearly Profile survey...
The ONLY places I've ever seen or been able to see the entire survey results/methodology ect. is if someone other than the NAR has it up on the web...the 2013 link is still active but the link I'd been using to the 2014 Profile (another Brokerage) is now not working
So I posted the 2013 link.....
"Remember this is a survey filled out by consumers that recently bought or sold."
I always remember that because I absolutely believe it speaks volumes as to the value of the %s and talking points some agents like to toss about during their social media forays
" In July 2013, NAR mailed out a 122 question survey using a random sample weighted to be representative of sales on a geographic basis to 148,011 recent home buyers. The recent home buyers had to have purchased a home between July of 2012 and June of 2013. A total of 8,767 responses were received. After accounting for undeliverable questionnaires, the survey had an adjusted response rate of 6.1 percent. "
The example of 8-12 is the sort of doesn't add up fact/claim calculation especially when it comes to exchanges about FSBOs...
It's already been expressed better than I can do it but I feel it's pretty much a duh people are beginning to understand they have service options..they need to know what options are available where they are...they have access to more info on the process so understanding that process helps understand what option wil best work for THEM..
I do not care if someone goes Full Service, pays 90000% or flat fee or flat rate or rebate or discount or or or or
I just push for knowing your options & market a bit so you can better understand and choose the option/service provider that will best help ya get from A to B...sometimes to see the options ya need to clear a bit of smoke from the room imo
Personally I've used every option....
Every purchase/sale is unique as is the seller/buyer as is the agent and the agent and the inspector and the bank and as are the laws/codes and and and
One size...One Price fits all is just a stupid position to take imo
One option is superior to the other all depends on that specific situation or moment or or or
Only one thing I'm sure is a FACT...
I am glad I'm a purchaser of RE Services and not a Seller of those Services trying to complete
Last edited by dunespeak; 03-31-2015 at 11:52 AM..
Reason: took out an OR...sometimes ya can just have to many OR's in the water
I skimmed the study and don't see any gaping holes in it. In fact the study parameters provide a perfect backdrop for agents to prove they can actually sell homes for more... which they couldn't in reality.
What generally happens with a FSBO who decides to go with an agent after they figure out that agents control the buyer pool? Usually they are told it's priced to high and then listed for less - making it easier to sell. You have a few real world examples from posters here who had luck selling and saved thousands and tens of thousands. FSBO's net more.
Agents get trapped into believing the marketing hype and become myopic for self preservation. That's only natural. Arguing an agent can sell a home for more money to make up a commission is ludicrous - but that's what many do.
The study clearly is a controlled market, with limited buyers in a tight network.
For a seller, that is the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting fish in a barrel doesn't make one a fisherman. Selling in an inbred market doesn't make those sellers models of achievement for the broader market, either.
The Stanford study is no more credible than NAR's talking points. Not at all. Actually, they are two peas in a pod, when it comes to credibility.
As I said before: "The study is as much a misdirection play as the NAR stuff is stupid marketing. I don't support either line of BS at all."
Agents CAN sell for more than FSBOs, often do, and sometimes a seller nets more or less than they would if they exercised the option to go with other alternatives.
Sellers choose to utilize services, pay a price, and often just getting it to closing is a great service by the agent.
I'm sorry if you don't like the truth or results published in an independent report not under the control of the Realtor organization. Same goes for the actual factual results from those who have posted their success here. No one can speak to every single specific transaction that occurs in the marketplace -- so this has to be a general discussion -- and the fact remains that all the hype and misleading marketing stating that Realtors can sell homes for more money is just that - misleading hype. If you want to talk about false statements and studies that are a joke - agents should look the mirror.
Please send me a DM when you get around to making a meaningful post. I know that I surely won't want to miss it!
The study clearly is a controlled market, with limited buyers in a tight network.
For a seller, that is the equivalent of shooting fish in a barrel. Shooting fish in a barrel doesn't make one a fisherman. Selling in an inbred market doesn't make those sellers models of achievement for the broader market, either.
So your argument is that brokers can't sell for more because FSBO's hold the advantage?
How is it shooting fish in a barrel if they are competing against professional Realtors that sell homes all the time - would not consumers be attracted to them and willing to pay more since agents can sell for more than FSBO's? The argument is not whether or not the homes sold - it's what each party was able to achieve in terms of price and net proceeds. Consumers take note that when Realtors don't control the buyer pool (which they do) - good things can happen as is evidenced by results throughout this thread.
Any broader market justification or conjecture is pure speculation and likely based on limited experience or guesstimates. Really. If you have hard numbers by independent sources - please present them. Specific real actual data. On a 300k home sale at 6%, that's 18k worth of "expertise" someone is paying for - surely there is data on this somewhere...
So your argument is that brokers can't sell for more because FSBO's hold the advantage?
How is it shooting fish in a barrel if they are competing against professional Realtors that sell homes all the time - would not consumers be attracted to them and willing to pay more since agents can sell for more than FSBO's? The argument is not whether or not the homes sold - it's what each party was able to achieve in terms of price and net proceeds. Consumers take note that when Realtors don't control the buyer pool (which they do) - good things can happen as is evidenced by results throughout this thread.
Any broader market justification or conjecture is pure speculation and likely based on limited experience or guesstimates. Really. If you have hard numbers by independent sources - please present them. Specific real actual data. On a 300k home sale at 6%, that's 18k worth of "expertise" someone is paying for - surely there is data on this somewhere...
Read. It is FUNdamental.
You ain't gonna DM Jack with this post, are you now?
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.
