cmay wrote:
I am in the process of looking for and buying my second house.

The first time around we used an agent, but they were totally useless.

Now before I get a bunch of replies from agents talking about all the
stuff they provide their clients like me clarify a few things:

1) I don't need an agent to help me find properites
2) I know that any agent I use is really just working to make the sale
happen, working to get me to buy a house, even if it is a bad deal (or
bad house).
3) An attorney will take care of all legal issues I have.
4) I am not willing to pay an agent to be my buyers agent just to get
them to actually represent me, and not the sale.


Ok, so now that thats out of the way...


The last time, the only thing the agent did was get us physical access
to the houses we were interested in.


Now if I were selling a house, I would not be thinking about using an
agent, but because I am BUYING a house, I am wondering if there is any
reason to NOT use an agent.

If I buy a 500k house, that means something around 15k is going to go
to my agent. If I don't have an agent, that 15k just goes back to the
sellers agent, so it isn't like I am going to be saving myself any
money.


Does anyone have a point of view on this?


I never saw a difference between a buying or selling agent. They both
take cuts and both push the sell.

If you have a lawyer and cand find your own properties then you dont
need an agent.

For me the agent was finding my houses while I was at work all day. And
when I got off there was a list of places for me to investigate.

Yes they take a fee, you just have to work em to ensure they earn it.
(and also make sure the fee is minimal up front)

--
Respectfully,


CL Gilbert