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.
Did you ever consider that maybe it was the BUYER'S who didn't want to consider FSBO? I know I wouldn't--went through it once and the sellers were a hassle. Rescheduled showings, inspections, delayed paperwork, rescheduled closing. After that, I will only look at someone who has a professional holding the seller's feet to the fire.
My sisters daughter talked her out of selling and she's happy with her decision. They are renting the smaller home down the street at a good profit because rental single family homes in the area are rare. They bought the small home that needed a lot of updating and did it. BIL helped the owner out a lot mowing, snow removal cutting down trees and offered sale to him at a big discount when moving to assisted care apartment.
Regarding the agent that harassed and threatened her, her real estate attorney said he would probably loose his license for doing what he did if she reported him also would write a letter to him, for a fee. She opted to ignore the guy but it really upset her. She did look online at reviews on him afterwards and he had a lot of complaints regarding over aggressiveness.
Last edited by Izzie1213; 09-04-2017 at 06:57 PM..
Actually in a good deal there is often a good bit of cooperation between the agents. But there is also clear hostility. There are places where we cooperate and places where we deliberately screw each other up. Just Recently had my client accept the repairs on a home he is buying. But I also added a little note that we would further check out the water softener and if it was not working properly we would hang the deal on the walk through. That is somewhat hostile and gives the other agent the task of getting the problem fixed or having the closing held at the last minute. Give you 95% odds that the water softener will work fine before closing. And I agree that the water softener problem is a minor one. But it can be big and very hostile. We are not on the same side when it comes to making sure our clients get the best deal reasonably available.
Your point is similar to jackmichigan's.
I know there is open hostility between the buyer's and seller's agent but they are both incentivized to get that deal done and they are incentivized the same way. Neither gets paid if it doesn't work. Sure the listing agent can find a new buyer and the buyer's agent can take the buyer to a different house but your job is to close deals or you don't have a job. In any collaborative selling arrangement you will have disputes. This does not mean that the roles are fundamentally adversarial. Yes, competitors in all businesses sometimes collaborate as partners but within those initiatives, they agree to collaborate and they carefully define the bounds of collaboration. Anyway, it's simply not possible to have business relationships that are both fundamentally collaborative and fundamentally adversarial at the same time and nobody in their right mind would try to define a business relationship as such. That's a law of nature. If their incentives are aligned, they will act collaboratively to solve issues that stand in the way of their mutual interest, even if they shout at each other in the process. If that damn water softener is important to your client and it might scupper the deal or delay things, your job is to be on the phone with the seller's agent and get it done or see if it's really that big an issue or solve it some other way. Just as if a car sale close was being held up by the service area. You bet the sales guy would be on the phone to get it sorted.
She found out that this type of blacklist is common. Agents are strongly discouraged to bring to or point out FSBO homes to pressure owner to go with a realtor, even have specific agents to hard sell FSBO into signing up, apparently even to the point of harassment and threats.
Just on this point.... There really is no secret database of homes we tell everyone to boycot because we're trying to pressure owners into listing with us. And if we did... other agents wouldn't listen.
Sounds like she listed the house with a limited service agency.... she got some lookers... she got some agents harassing her, and then nothing... no activity, right?
The house is on all the same sites everyone else is looking on. I would say either the pictures and marketing are no good, or price is too high. Buyers have looked, they didn't want to buy, or they'd have called, they'd have found a way. If agents don't obey imagined blacklists, eager buyers looking on their phones, all the time, 24-7, certainly don't obey them either.
Exactly...those were very close to my words and sentiment.
Systemic problems are:
1. Buyer's are enticed to work with a buyer's agent because it is often presented to the buyer as "free" to him. Buyer also does not understand that the whole market is really not part of the buyer's agent 'inventory'. Or at least he does not understand that his buyer's agent will use amount of commission offered as a strong motivator for which houses are shown and 'sold'. Buyer is told that agent is working in their interest (legally he has to) but at the same time he has a strong financial interest in the advice he gives and the actions he takes. He's not giving independent advice. But at least partly because of these misunderstanding, buyer's agents have strong control and influence over the pool of buyers out in the market.
2. FSBOs not wanting to pay 2-3% or whatever do not have good access to this massive pool of buyers in the market because buyer's are motivated toward homes that pay commission (they don't work for free and need to earn commission). If they try to break out of the traditional agent fees, agents will not be motivated to work with them.
It's just the way it works. But perhaps the government will address the protective nature of this system as it doesn't foster the right level of competition. Best way would be to abolish the buyer's agents being paid with sales commission.
Works both ways. You want to sell something and not pay anyone the agents are letting you do it.
All on your own.
EVEN if I sold FSBO I would simply offer 3% to buyers agent. I'm still saving 3%. I would simply hire a agent on a one time fee to oversee the transaction. But truthfully it's false savings. It requires a lot of time to show, meet and open doors. I'm 30-40 miles away so that's 69-80 mikes in traffic. Days off work. Money lost add all that up I'm not saving anything. Let sineinesomeone rise deal with the headache.
I've been an agent since 2005 and worked for three different agencies. I have never been directed to avoid FSBO or limited service broker properties and I've never heard of any other agent being so directed. I can believe that your sister had a bad interaction with a jerk agent but it doesn't make sense to me that an agent would pressure her to list with him if she was already listed with a limited service brokerage which, based on your post, I assume she was since she had her property on the MLS. Even with a limited service brokerage, there are stiff penalties for trying to "steal" a listing....as there should be.
I can't speak for other locations but I don't believe there is any sort of blacklisting going on. However, if she was offering a lower co-broke commission and/or made it difficult to show and/or wasn't priced right and/or the photos were amateurish and/or the description indicated a seller who had unrealistic expectations or demands....or anything along those lines...that might explain the lack of showings more than a perceived "blacklist" would. Mostly, though, I think agents working with buyers prefer the path of least resistance and prefer whenever possible to deal with another professional on the other side because, between the two agents, there is a much greater likelihood that the deal will close and the buyer will be happy. It's not really rocket science.
Same here.
I will avoid some flat fee mls type sales, or ones that are similar, as they get no help from the real estate agency that posts them, and it usually ends up that the sellers are difficult to deal with, don't want to pay customary fees that most normal (realtor listed ) property owners pay, like title policy, and end up not being able to complete forms, so the buyers agent has to do all paperwork for both sides, plus explain what the contract terms are.
As an example, sold a flat fee mls home. Had to do contract for both sides, seller didn't want to pay for title policy. During inspection seller stayed there and wanted to dispute inspectors findings as he inspected. Did up repair request anendment, and gave to seller. Instead of him going to atty or co that put it in mls, he wanted me to explain every thing and try to negotate with me, instead of him just returning a counter proposal.
Then 3 days before closing the seller decided he wanted to try to get me to cut my commission, because he hoped to net more than what the closing disclosure showed, due to prorated property taxes.
Overall it was more of a headache than it was worth. It's much better to deal with another professional that represents the seller
We tried FSBO. 6 months with only a couple of viewing and no offers at $170K in the SF Bay Area. We took it off the market for a few years, then sold it (with an agent) in 1 week flat for $540K. Very different market, of course, not just the agent.
Did you ever consider that maybe it was the BUYER'S who didn't want to consider FSBO?
Yep. It could be just our area but it seemed to me like none of the FSBO sellers were actually serious. Also viewed one property with our agent (it was listed on MLS but apparently the sellers had no agent) and had a very odd experience. The house was on the market for a year, the sellers put in granite countertops and raised the price by 20k. But the granite actually looked horrible (like someone vomited all over, I'm kidding you not). There was also the 80s bathroom etc. Made what seemed like a fair offer but the sellers got so "offended" that would not even counter or anything, just ceased any communication. Out of curiosity I was watching that property for some time - it never sold.
Just on this point.... There really is no secret database of homes we tell everyone to boycot because we're trying to pressure owners into listing with us. And if we did... other agents wouldn't listen.
Sounds like she listed the house with a limited service agency.... she got some lookers... she got some agents harassing her, and then nothing... no activity, right?
The house is on all the same sites everyone else is looking on. I would say either the pictures and marketing are no good, or price is too high. Buyers have looked, they didn't want to buy, or they'd have called, they'd have found a way. If agents don't obey imagined blacklists, eager buyers looking on their phones, all the time, 24-7, certainly don't obey them either.
My two cents.
This ignores the strong influence that buyer's agents have over the pool of buyers in the market. If a buyer sees the home on a site and insists to their agent that they want to see it, then they keep insisting that they want it, a good agent will do what their client wants in the end. Nobody is saying otherwise.
But this home is at a big disadvantage. It might be bad pics or a stupid description or it's poorly priced but it also very likely might be because it's at the back of the pile with the people (agents) who have a lot of control and influence on the pool of buyers in the market. They are positioned as 'trusted advisors' to buyers so of course they have great influence.
I think we all agree that agents would be insane to not focus on selling the homes that make them money and working to how they are incentivized. Sales people who don't focus on producing according to their incentive plan are not sales people very long (and no, that does not mean screwing people for every last dollar and always putting your $ first which some seem to like to think I mean by this).
There are different ways of looking at things and while it might make perfect business sense and be legal according to the current rules, I don't think regulators would consider a system as OK when, for whatever reason, a seller is effectively locked out (or at least at a big disadvantage) unless he ponies up and pays around 3% to get buyers' agents to not ignore their house. Whatever the reasons are for it are, the rules of this game and the result for the consumer smells of an unhealthy market from a competition standpoint. My opinion and I hope that the DOJ and FTC apply more pressure to change this system, perhaps by abolishing the current system of buyer's agents compensation coming from sellers agent commission splits.
The house is on all the same sites everyone else is looking on. I would say either the pictures and marketing are no good, or price is too high. Buyers have looked, they didn't want to buy, or they'd have called, they'd have found a way. If agents don't obey imagined blacklists, eager buyers looking on their phones, all the time, 24-7, certainly don't obey them either.
My two cents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rakin
From your previous posts it sounds like your SIL got offers she did not like. Her house must have been overpriced. A beautiful home in a highly desirable area priced right would have sold.
This. Agents may not prefer to show it, but these days many buyers are picking the homes they want to see. An agent may warn a potential buyer that it is "FSBO" and the additional issues that may come with that, but if a buyer wants to see it then any decent agent is going to show it to them.
If it was actually in a desirable area and priced reasonably, it would have sold.
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.
