Buyer's agent or not? (special circumstances) (appraisal, agreement, comparables, prices)
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.
Thanks, everyone. If I were seriously looking at other houses (instead of "looking" at them online), i.e. if I definitely needed to move, I would definitely get an agent to help me in my search. But I don't NEED to move -- I just sometimes look at listings online to see what's out there in moments when I wish I had more land, a bigger house, or whatever. And so I found this house that intrigued me (location, size, land, etc.) and pursued it. I saw it, I liked it, but I am not at the point of making an offer -- yet. (I may very well decide to just stay where I am.) It was ONLY the fact that I found out the seller is an agent/broker himself, that made me ask about the agent's fee.
I had been thinking of the job of the buyer's agent as being mostly to help me FIND a house to buy, but in this case, I've already found it (if I decide to proceed). So let me ask another question: is the buyer's agent's job more about negotiating after a house is found? Is that why some of you think I'd still be better off with an agent?
I think most of the people on here are looking at this the wrong way. No, we don't know what the sellers bottom line is. That isn't the point. Say for example, the buyers commission, is $6000. No matter what this buyer offers, the seller does not have that $6000 cost. That offer whatever it is, is $6000 better than if the buyer had an agent. Seems simple to me. What seller in this case would forget to keep this in mind when negotiating? It know it would matter to me. I think that buyer would get a better deal if I were the seller.
Right. But if the offer is $6000 above what the seller would have accepted in the first place the buyer has gained nothing and lost the benefit of having an agent.
I had been thinking of the job of the buyer's agent as being mostly to help me FIND a house to buy, but in this case, I've already found it (if I decide to proceed). So let me ask another question: is the buyer's agent's job more about negotiating after a house is found? Is that why some of you think I'd still be better off with an agent?
Hollytree summed it up nicely, however, you need an agent because it seems you are unsure of what to do and how to proceed.
Thanks, everyone. If I were seriously looking at other houses (instead of "looking" at them online), i.e. if I definitely needed to move, I would definitely get an agent to help me in my search. But I don't NEED to move -- I just sometimes look at listings online to see what's out there in moments when I wish I had more land, a bigger house, or whatever. And so I found this house that intrigued me (location, size, land, etc.) and pursued it. I saw it, I liked it, but I am not at the point of making an offer -- yet. (I may very well decide to just stay where I am.) It was ONLY the fact that I found out the seller is an agent/broker himself, that made me ask about the agent's fee.
I had been thinking of the job of the buyer's agent as being mostly to help me FIND a house to buy, but in this case, I've already found it (if I decide to proceed). So let me ask another question: is the buyer's agent's job more about negotiating after a house is found? Is that why some of you think I'd still be better off with an agent?
A buyers agent does both. I'm sure you can see how having representation is different than sitting down with the owner representing both sides and doing it that way. In states where dual agency is legal it is a choice that is up to you.
The most common scenario for a property that is listed on the MLS is as follows: the seller contracts with a broker's agent through a listing contract to sell the property for, let's say, 6%. That means that the seller agrees to pay 6% of the selling price to the broker and the broker will pay his/her agent their commission out of that sum. In the broker's listing contract, there is (at least here in FL) a section where the seller agrees to allow the listing broker to cooperate with other brokers (via the MLS) by offering other brokers (through their agents) usually (but not always) half of the listing commission (i.e. 3% in this example) if they bring a buyer.
So, as you can see, the seller has already agreed to pay the listing broker 6% (or whatever they agreed upon) so legally it won't matter to the seller if you have another broker/agent involved or not. Now, in a real world scenario, if you were to try to negotiate with the listing broker/agent to get them to reduce their already agreed upon rate, you may or may not have some success but they certainly are not obligated to do so. After all, what's the use of a contract if you can't rely on it?
I think I read this wrong the first time. Iv' always been with a 100% company and have never had to do things this way. If someone has an agreement like this with their broker, you may be right depending.
Here is the question. How do you know how low the seller was willing to go in the first place? Let's say the house is listed for 325K. Are you going to offer 10K off of that number? Or 10K off of...
Back to my post. The selling price "could" be lower. But how would you ever really know? The downside is you may end up paying just as much (or even more) without an agent as with one and lose out on having the benefits of an agent.
How does the buyer with *representation* know how low a seller will go? Or anyone at all except the seller?
As someone who has intimate knowledge of the negotiation process, I can certainly identify with the OP's situation. And let's be honest, the representation more times than not are looking to see how they benefit from the transaction first before the real reason they are involved to begin with which is to facilitate the sale of a home from a seller to a buyer. Agent compensation happens *after* the close not during house price negotiation.
It's certainly possible to determine an informed number to offer without buyer representation after researching sold comps, purchase price history for that property and similar properties which can be found easily by anyone whether a real estate agent or not.
After researching, the buyer could then make her offer with respect to not having an additional party involved. The seller can accept or counter. Buyer representation does not make a seller more willing to negotiate.
How does the buyer with *representation* know how low a seller will go? Or anyone at all except the seller?
That is exactly my point. To go without an agent you give up the services of that agent. There is no question about that. On the flip side you have no idea if you are paying any less than you would have with an agent.
I'm also not sure your statement about any buyer being able to get the same sales data an agent can is accurate. I know some states do not publicly disclose real estate transactions.
That is exactly my point. To go without an agent you give up the services of that agent. There is no question about that. On the flip side you have no idea if you are paying any less than you would have with an agent.
I'm also not sure your statement about any buyer being able to get the same sales data an agent can is accurate. I know some states do not publicly disclose real estate transactions.
We can agree that whether with or without representation it is unknown what a seller will accept, but it *is* known without a shadow of a doubt no matter what other variables are in the equation, compensation for a buyer's agent won't be.
While some states don't disclose transactions publicly, a lot do publicly and privately. In most cases, it isn't difficult to find out.
Another thing to consider is that price is one thing and what's considered a good deal is another and is highly subjective. Even without representation, a buyer could make an offer that she feels is worth it to her, which is the only thing that matters. Not even a buyer's agents opinions matter. If this is the last house she intends to buy, the price needs to be acceptable only to her and the seller.
We can agree that whether with or without representation it is unknown what a seller will accept, but it *is* known without a shadow of a doubt no matter what other variables are in the equation, compensation for a buyer's agent won't be.
While some states don't disclose transactions publicly, a lot do publicly and privately. In most cases, it isn't difficult to find out.
Another thing to consider is that price is one thing and what's considered a good deal is another and is highly subjective. Even without representation, a buyer could make an offer that she feels is worth it to her, which is the only thing that matters. Not even a buyer's agents opinions matter. If this is the last house she intends to buy, the price needs to be acceptable only to her and the seller.
Cash Deal?
Or does the price/leverage have to be acceptable also to a lender?
To the OP: my buyer's agent scheduled the inspections, worked with title company, after showing me comparables on pricing. I think the attorney's fees might come close to what you would save on commission. Oh, and she stayed on top of the lender's progress.
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.
