Hello,
I have been reading about how important buyers agents are to the whole
process of home buying and how they will help you find a home that you
want.
My problem is that I have no problem finding homes that I want, I just
drive around and there they all are. My needs are limited. Everything
else is up-in-the-air.
Now here comes the problem: Most of the houses listed in the MLS have
the owners paying a listing agent for listing it. That is fine by me,
but I dont necessarily want to use a buyers agent, because I already
have an idea of what I can live with in a house and what I cannot. An
inspection should take care of the structural issues and an appraisal
should take care of the actual value of the house, give or take a small
margin. I am quite sure of how much I want to pay for a house when I
see it and the appraisal will make it easier. Besides I can give up
more to the seller if I am not worried about the seller having to pay
the buyers agent the commission and there by have an inflated listing
price...
Also most important; I'd get an attorney to look at the paperwork right
from the start, definitely better versed in lreal-estate law than an
real-estate broker/agent. No ?

So WHY should I use a buyers agent ? For Negotiation- is what I've read
from this group? How is that an argument, I will have a 3% leeway in my
negotiation if I DONT use a buyers agent because I wont have to pay
their commission. Especially if there is no work involved for the agent
at all. It feels like really easy money for a buyers agent, in a
sellers market. They have plenty of buyers to choose from and if not me
another of their clients will bite, so they dont have much by the way
of incentive to fight for ME versus their OTHER clients who want the
same house.

I am more comfortable at the thought of a real-estate attorney helping
me through the process.
Any arguments to the contrary are welcome.
Thanks

"an" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello,
I have been reading about how important buyers agents are to the whole
process of home buying and how they will help you find a home that you
want.
My problem is that I have no problem finding homes that I want, I just
drive around and there they all are. My needs are limited. Everything
else is up-in-the-air.
Now here comes the problem: Most of the houses listed in the MLS have
the owners paying a listing agent for listing it. That is fine by me,
but I dont necessarily want to use a buyers agent, because I already
have an idea of what I can live with in a house and what I cannot. An
inspection should take care of the structural issues and an appraisal
should take care of the actual value of the house, give or take a small
margin. I am quite sure of how much I want to pay for a house when I
see it and the appraisal will make it easier. Besides I can give up
more to the seller if I am not worried about the seller having to pay
the buyers agent the commission and there by have an inflated listing
price...
Also most important; I'd get an attorney to look at the paperwork right
from the start, definitely better versed in lreal-estate law than an
real-estate broker/agent. No ?

So WHY should I use a buyers agent ? For Negotiation- is what I've read
from this group? How is that an argument, I will have a 3% leeway in my
negotiation if I DONT use a buyers agent because I wont have to pay
their commission. Especially if there is no work involved for the agent
at all. It feels like really easy money for a buyers agent, in a
sellers market. They have plenty of buyers to choose from and if not me
another of their clients will bite, so they dont have much by the way
of incentive to fight for ME versus their OTHER clients who want the
same house.

I am more comfortable at the thought of a real-estate attorney helping
me through the process.
Any arguments to the contrary are welcome.
Thanks


You would get better results posting this in misc.invest.real-estate . The
main flaw in your logic is that the seller of the house has an agreement
with and pays the commission to the listing agent. If you don't have your
own agent to split the predefined fee, the listing agent keeps 100% of the
commission.

There is a difference between a buyer's agent and seller's agent. Talking
to a seller's agent is like talking directly to the seller. Do NOT discuss
a fair market comparison, your upper limits on price, your enthusiasm about
a particular house. A buyer's agent has a fiduciary responsibility NOT to
discuss subjects with the seller's agent about how high you will go or your
enthusiasm for a house. There's a lot more to it, but you get the idea.

"dane" wrote in message
news:1106372146.cd9f89ecdbb4f0c9f3e1c837e855463c@b ubbanews...
"an" wrote in message
oups.com...
Hello,
I have been reading about how important buyers agents are to the whole
process of home buying and how they will help you find a home that you
want.
My problem is that I have no problem finding homes that I want, I just
drive around and there they all are. My needs are limited. Everything
else is up-in-the-air.
Now here comes the problem: Most of the houses listed in the MLS have
the owners paying a listing agent for listing it. That is fine by me,
but I dont necessarily want to use a buyers agent, because I already
have an idea of what I can live with in a house and what I cannot. An
inspection should take care of the structural issues and an appraisal
should take care of the actual value of the house, give or take a small
margin. I am quite sure of how much I want to pay for a house when I
see it and the appraisal will make it easier. Besides I can give up
more to the seller if I am not worried about the seller having to pay
the buyers agent the commission and there by have an inflated listing
price...
Also most important; I'd get an attorney to look at the paperwork right
from the start, definitely better versed in lreal-estate law than an
real-estate broker/agent. No ?

So WHY should I use a buyers agent ? For Negotiation- is what I've read
from this group? How is that an argument, I will have a 3% leeway in my
negotiation if I DONT use a buyers agent because I wont have to pay
their commission. Especially if there is no work involved for the agent
at all. It feels like really easy money for a buyers agent, in a
sellers market. They have plenty of buyers to choose from and if not me
another of their clients will bite, so they dont have much by the way
of incentive to fight for ME versus their OTHER clients who want the
same house.

I am more comfortable at the thought of a real-estate attorney helping
me through the process.
Any arguments to the contrary are welcome.
Thanks


You would get better results posting this in misc.invest.real-estate . The
main flaw in your logic is that the seller of the house has an agreement
with and pays the commission to the listing agent. If you don't have your
own agent to split the predefined fee, the listing agent keeps 100% of the
commission.

You would get better results posting this in misc.invest.real-estate
.. The
main flaw in your logic is that the seller of the house has an
agreement
with and pays the commission to the listing agent. If you don't have
your
own agent to split the predefined fee, the listing agent keeps 100%
of the
commission.

Ah. That seems very strange to me that the listing agent gets 6%
commission if I find the house myself, but if I go through a buyers
agent my agent gets to keep 3%. Why should that be the case ? Why would
any seller sign such a contract with a listing agent which would make
buyers like myself unavailable to them. It seems only fair that I get
the 3% if I am doing all the work myself. I mean nothing MANDATES that
I have to use an agent. I am given to understand that it is in my best
interest to do so, but I also know that a lawyer is much cheaper and
more knowledeable than a real-estate agent.
The value-add of an agent for me is only in the case I dont know what I
want to buy and to help me find homes, negotiate etc., but if I can do
all that- why on earth should I go with an agent.
Really fishy.

"an" wrote in message
oups.com...
You would get better results posting this in misc.invest.real-estate
. The
main flaw in your logic is that the seller of the house has an
agreement
with and pays the commission to the listing agent. If you don't have
your
own agent to split the predefined fee, the listing agent keeps 100%
of the
commission.

Ah. That seems very strange to me that the listing agent gets 6%
commission if I find the house myself, but if I go through a buyers
agent my agent gets to keep 3%. Why should that be the case ? Why would
any seller sign such a contract with a listing agent which would make
buyers like myself unavailable to them. It seems only fair that I get
the 3% if I am doing all the work myself. I mean nothing MANDATES that
I have to use an agent. I am given to understand that it is in my best
interest to do so, but I also know that a lawyer is much cheaper and
more knowledeable than a real-estate agent.
The value-add of an agent for me is only in the case I dont know what I
want to buy and to help me find homes, negotiate etc., but if I can do
all that- why on earth should I go with an agent.
Really fishy.


I understand your point of view, but that is not how the real estate market
works. The real estate market is an illiquid market and is set up for
sellers to sell their houses, not for buyers to buy houses. The real estate
industry makes it look like they are helping people buy houses, but they are
in reality helping owners to sell houses. The listing agent is contracted to
work for the seller for a commission. If you are a licensed real estate
agent then you would be able to split the commission with the listing agent,
otherwise a zero. The only way to do it your way is to skip the MLS and only
deal with FSBOs.

The way things are done in real estate are not uniform from state to state
or even within a state. In Northern New Jersey almost everyone uses a
lawyer at closing, while in Southern New Jersey almost no one does. You need
to determine your local practices.

In general lawyers know more about the law and contracts than real estate
agents, but real estate agents know more about the business of selling and
buying houses. Using an experienced buyers agent could possibly save you
from making an expensive mistake. If you deal with the listing agent
directly you are putting yourself at a distinct disadavntage and not saving
any money. Only FSBOs present a money savings opportunity.

I'll recommend again that you should also post your questions in
misc.invest.real-estate for more responses. I have no connection to any part
of the real esate business.

In article .com,
an wrote:
Ah. That seems very strange to me that the listing agent gets 6%
commission if I find the house myself, but if I go through a buyers
agent my agent gets to keep 3%.

Strange but that is how it works. Since the vast majority of residential
transactions involve 2 agents that is how the contracts are setup.

As an unrepresented buyer, you should just lower your offer by 3%, make
sure they are aware that you have no agent, and assume that the seller
and their agent will mutually agree on a reduced commission in order to
facilitate the sale. Since each of them will end up with the same amount
of money at the end this isn't an unreasonable assumption.

Note that the worst thing for a seller is to have an offer that falls
apart. By not doing things the "normal" way your offer might be viewed
as slightly shakier. Solid financing and a seller friendly tilt on
the other contingencies may be useful.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

I don't see that: it surely can't be that unusual for the listing agent
to sell the house him/herself without having to split the commission
with a buyer's agent. That extra 3% (or whatever) is the reward for
going out and finding a buyer rather than merely waiting for another
agent to bring a buyer.

Are you prepared to buy a house that you've seen only from the outside?
If not, then who's going to show you the inside? Who's going to answer
any questions you have? Answer: The listing agent, who, although not
obligated to tell you what's wrong with the house, can't (legally) lie
when you ask questions. Even if you went to the owner directly and got a
look at the inside and get your questions answered, the contract with
the listing agent probably specifies that, if the house is sold within a
certain period, the listing agent still gets the commission.

Whether a flat 6% is a fair rate is another story. When I sold real
estate in South Australia 40 years ago, the rate was 5% on the first
"chunk" (probably equivalent to one fourth or one third of the price of
a typical house) and tapering off from there (perhaps 3% of the next
"chunk", down to 1.25% of the amount over 100,000 pounds -- a huge
transaction). And the title transfer fee was peanuts, since lawyers
didn't do conveyancing the it was done by "licensed land brokers," if
I remember the term correctly).

Perce


On 01/24/05 07:06 pm Jim Prescott tossed the following ingredients into
the ever-growing pot of cybersoup:

Ah. That seems very strange to me that the listing agent gets 6%
commission if I find the house myself, but if I go through a buyers
agent my agent gets to keep 3%.

Strange but that is how it works. Since the vast majority of residential
transactions involve 2 agents that is how the contracts are setup.

As an unrepresented buyer, you should just lower your offer by 3%, make
sure they are aware that you have no agent, and assume that the seller
and their agent will mutually agree on a reduced commission in order to
facilitate the sale. Since each of them will end up with the same amount
of money at the end this isn't an unreasonable assumption.

Note that the worst thing for a seller is to have an offer that falls
apart. By not doing things the "normal" way your offer might be viewed
as slightly shakier. Solid financing and a seller friendly tilt on
the other contingencies may be useful.