All Encompassing Mortgage and Real Estate Thread

[UT_OB1 2224]

11 hours ago, Assman said:

Lumber is below $900 for the first time since March 19th.

 

Praise be!

[bonnieblue 542]

10 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

Yep, my realtor got us a great deal on our property in an ultra competitive bidding process (actually had us winning two bids, as I almost bought hornian’s house) and helped us get inspections (and even repairs after we closed) and negotiated an amazing deal that got us a property below list (unheard of now in this market, but I posted a screenshot a few pages back) in June 2020 when the market was starting this crazy run and then listed our old house and got the highest price per sq/ft in our area at that time.  She helped with staging, minor repairs, and most importantly accurate market analysis and pricing to maximize searchability, that had us 60 tours in 4 days and 20 offers with most of them being above list.  FSBO or a below average realtor would have cost us far more during these transitions.

Not to take away from any surly referrals, but just in case anyone is interested in Austin: https://moatsteam.com

Used someone with the Moats Team as well. Would highly highly recommend.

[Dbeasy 15078]

11 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

That’s the problem, there just aren’t a bunch of good, much less great, agents.  I have tons of respect for good/great realtors, but majority of people that have realtor’s licenses are just stealing equity for the cost of an MLS listing and a lockbox.

This is true. I got so mad at two previous realtors I went and got my license and now do transactions for myself, friends and family. I’m just the last month, acting as a buyer’s agent on several deals, I ran across sellers agents that lost their clients tens of thousands of dollars, either because of laziness, stupidity, or poor skills and training. It’s ridiculous. 

[troph 24904]

One of our cabinet makers just said enough, lead times now to December. No more trying to make it happen, situation is Uber-fucked, sorry, order now will deliver in December. 

[Assman 1830]

3 hours ago, Dbeasy said:

This is true. I got so mad at two previous realtors I went and got my license and now do transactions for myself, friends and family. I’m just the last month, acting as a buyer’s agent on several deals, I ran across sellers agents that lost their clients tens of thousands of dollars, either because of laziness, stupidity, or poor skills and training. It’s ridiculous. 

All this.

My wife was a transaction coordinator for several years in her early-mid 20s, then took 7 years off to raise kids, and just recently got her license.  For her only being a practicing agent for less than a year, she catches all kinds of mistakes from "veteran" agents.  She has a listing now that she got two offers on last night.  One of the offers had the down payment and amount financed flip-flopped, and the other had completely made up numbers on the appraisal addendum (or something like that, don't know the jargon well).  She had to call both of them to have them fix their mistakes.  One of the agents didn't believe he was wrong, so he called his broker who agreed with my wife.  He called my wife back and said "I've been an agent 7 years and I've been doing it wrong this whole time."  Just the stories I hear from her make me believe 90% of agents get their license because they're a) lazy and want to work from home or b) have nothing else to fall back on so all they need to do is take a few classes and a test and they have a job. 

[Hornlover 8830]

Real Estate is ripe for disruption, because the fee structure is somewhat ludicrous and supported by what is largely a monopoly.

A buyer's agent is paid a percentage of the sale price. Their incentive is for higher sales prices, which is often times not in their client's best interest. And why should the seller pay the buyer's agent? I understand 20 years ago a buyer's agent would find the houses and bring clients to the house. But with the internet, that just doesn't happen anymore. The real service a buyer's agent provides is walking their client through how to make an offer, explaining the buying process, and the like. A well run website can do much of that today.

As a home seller, @Gil Bang will tell you that marketing, staging, pricing, letting people into houses for sale, etc. are all vital services he provides, that could never be done by a website. I completely disagree. I could just pay somebody $500 to stage my house, pay a professional photographer $500 to take pictures. I could use recent sales prices (which are only available to realtors in Texas) to figure out the value of my house. A website could vet people and send them a code on their cell phone to access the house. There's really less than $2000 worth of services needed to sell a house, and instead for a $500k house they expect you to pay $30,000 .

The MLS in most areas enforces a monopoly to try to keep out disrupters and prop up the current structure. If the MLS allowed companies like Redfin, Rex, or whomever to post and list houses without participating in the commission structure, a lot of the 6% fees would go away. To some extent, they are already having an effect - as people are now aware of the fees and aware that they can negotiate them. The real estate companies and realtors that benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep innovators out of the MLS.

When you ask people their opinions about companies trying to disrupt the Real Estate market, mostly you will find real estate agents/companies who will stand up and tell you what they do is important, hard, and that they are absolutely necessary to the home-buying process. It's about equivalent to asking a bunch of car salesmen their opinions on buying cars direct. 

Unfortunately, until one of the disrupter companies finds a way to break the MLS monopoly (through either legislation, lawsuit, or a suitable alternative), disrupting Real Estate companies like Rex are not going to gain near enough traction.

[jimmyjazz 46057]

3 hours ago, troph said:

One of our cabinet makers just said enough, lead times now to December. No more trying to make it happen, situation is Uber-fucked, sorry, order now will deliver in December. 

This kind of schedule risk will destroy novice house flippers.  I can't even imagine the shock of doubled or tripled carry costs, simply because of material and other shortages.

[Gil Bang 25990]

3 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Real Estate is ripe for disruption, because the fee structure is somewhat ludicrous and supported by what is largely a monopoly.

A buyer's agent is paid a percentage of the sale price. Their incentive is for higher sales prices, which is often times not in their client's best interest. And why should the seller pay the buyer's agent? I understand 20 years ago a buyer's agent would find the houses and bring clients to the house. But with the internet, that just doesn't happen anymore. The real service a buyer's agent provides is walking their client through how to make an offer, explaining the buying process, and the like. A well run website can do much of that today.

As a home seller, @Gil Bang will tell you that marketing, staging, pricing, letting people into houses for sale, etc. are all vital services he provides, that could never be done by a website. I completely disagree. I could just pay somebody $500 to stage my house, pay a professional photographer $500 to take pictures. I could use recent sales prices (which are only available to realtors in Texas) to figure out the value of my house. A website could vet people and send them a code on their cell phone to access the house. There's really less than $2000 worth of services needed to sell a house, and instead for a $500k house they expect you to pay $30,000 .

The MLS in most areas enforces a monopoly to try to keep out disrupters and prop up the current structure. If the MLS allowed companies like Redfin, Rex, or whomever to post and list houses without participating in the commission structure, a lot of the 6% fees would go away. To some extent, they are already having an effect - as people are now aware of the fees and aware that they can negotiate them. The real estate companies and realtors that benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep innovators out of the MLS.

When you ask people their opinions about companies trying to disrupt the Real Estate market, mostly you will find real estate agents/companies who will stand up and tell you what they do is important, hard, and that they are absolutely necessary to the home-buying process. It's about equivalent to asking a bunch of car salesmen their opinions on buying cars direct. 

Unfortunately, until one of the disrupter companies finds a way to break the MLS monopoly (through either legislation, lawsuit, or a suitable alternative), disrupting Real Estate companies like Rex are not going to gain near enough traction.

So much wrong here.  

For starters, redfin IS on the MLS, at least they are on mine (CRMLS, one of the largest in the country with over 100,000 members).  Same with Zillow (they are now buying and flipping houses).  Since your major premise just got shitcanned, the rest of the post pretty much went down the drain. 

But really...you want people entering your house unaccompanied?   Really?   I know some shady agents, but at least we're licensed, fingerprinted, and pass a background check.   

 

 

 

[Gil Bang 25990]

7 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This kind of schedule risk will destroy novice house flippers.  I can't even imagine the shock of doubled or tripled carry costs, simply because of material and other shortages.

It won't help.  Their only hope is that market appreciation covers some of the carrying costs.    And out here, for example, it does.   

[Hornlover 8830]

6 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

So much wrong here.  

For starters, redfin IS on the MLS, at least they are on mine (CRMLS, one of the largest in the country with over 100,000 members).  Same with Zillow (they are now buying and flipping houses).  Since your major premise just got shitcanned, the rest of the post pretty much went down the drain. 

But really...you want people entering your house unaccompanied?   Really?   I know some shady agents, but at least we're licensed, fingerprinted, and pass a background check.   

 

 

 

Yes, Redfin joined the MLS and agreed to the MLS terms, because that's the only way they can exist in the market today. Without the MLS enforcing their rules on companies like Redfin, ZIllow, Trulia, etc.  you'd see a much different landscape. 

And yeah, I could easily figure out a way to let legitimate, verified homebuyers access to houses. Virtual walkthroughs, cameras in my house, escrow money, etc. are all viable options. Hell, somebody could figure out a way to do smart contracts on a blockchain (like Ethereum) to do verifications.

[jimmyjazz 46057]

9 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

But really...you want people entering your house unaccompanied?   Really?   I know some shady agents, but at least we're licensed, fingerprinted, and pass a background check.   

True, but I don't think it would be a big stretch to create a "home show-er" business model.  Seller pays the legit "show-er" of a vetted potential buyer $150 for an hour's worth of work.  It would take a helluva lot of showings to add up to the typical buyer's agent commission.

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

24 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Real Estate is ripe for disruption, because the fee structure is somewhat ludicrous and supported by what is largely a monopoly.

A buyer's agent is paid a percentage of the sale price. Their incentive is for higher sales prices, which is often times not in their client's best interest. And why should the seller pay the buyer's agent? I understand 20 years ago a buyer's agent would find the houses and bring clients to the house. But with the internet, that just doesn't happen anymore. The real service a buyer's agent provides is walking their client through how to make an offer, explaining the buying process, and the like. A well run website can do much of that today.

As a home seller, @Gil Bang will tell you that marketing, staging, pricing, letting people into houses for sale, etc. are all vital services he provides, that could never be done by a website. I completely disagree. I could just pay somebody $500 to stage my house, pay a professional photographer $500 to take pictures. I could use recent sales prices (which are only available to realtors in Texas) to figure out the value of my house. A website could vet people and send them a code on their cell phone to access the house. There's really less than $2000 worth of services needed to sell a house, and instead for a $500k house they expect you to pay $30,000 .

The MLS in most areas enforces a monopoly to try to keep out disrupters and prop up the current structure. If the MLS allowed companies like Redfin, Rex, or whomever to post and list houses without participating in the commission structure, a lot of the 6% fees would go away. To some extent, they are already having an effect - as people are now aware of the fees and aware that they can negotiate them. The real estate companies and realtors that benefit from the status quo will fight tooth and nail to keep innovators out of the MLS.

When you ask people their opinions about companies trying to disrupt the Real Estate market, mostly you will find real estate agents/companies who will stand up and tell you what they do is important, hard, and that they are absolutely necessary to the home-buying process. It's about equivalent to asking a bunch of car salesmen their opinions on buying cars direct. 

Unfortunately, until one of the disrupter companies finds a way to break the MLS monopoly (through either legislation, lawsuit, or a suitable alternative), disrupting Real Estate companies like Rex are not going to gain near enough traction.

Do you know where the Texas Association of Realtors office is, in relation to the Capitol?  And why it is where it is?

Edited June 19, 2021 by Pato del Muerto

[jimmyjazz 46057]

14 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

It won't help.  Their only hope is that market appreciation covers some of the carrying costs.    And out here, for example, it does.   

Right.  Until it doesn't.  The truth is, longer turns equate to higher cost risk.  At some point, a flipper's current project will lose them multiple prior profits when the market heads south (and the market always finds a way to eventually head south, usually not by much, but sometimes, by a lot).

[Gil Bang 25990]

3 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Yes, Redfin joined the MLS and agreed to the MLS terms, because that's the only way they can exist in the market today. Without the MLS enforcing their rules on companies like Redfin, ZIllow, Trulia, etc.  you'd see a much different landscape. 

And yeah, I could easily figure out a way to let legitimate, verified homebuyers access to houses. Virtual walkthroughs, cameras in my house, escrow money, etc. are all viable options. Hell, somebody could figure out a way to do smart contracts on a blockchain (like Ethereum) to do verifications.

How did you get from "The MLS in most areas enforces a monopoly to try to keep out disrupters and prop up the current structure. If the MLS allowed companies like Redfin, Rex, or whomever to post and list houses without participating in the commission structure, a lot of the 6% fees would go away" to "Yes, Redfin joined the MLS and agreed to the MLS terms, because that's the only way they can exist in the market today"???

 

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

2 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

Do you know where the Texas Association of Realtors office is, in relation to the Capitol?  And why it is where it is?

Actually I’ll go one step further

 

[Gil Bang 25990]

I mean, dude, you may have a valid point or two, but you've really got your cock in your hand here. 

[CHIEF 5094]

7 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I mean, dude, you may have a valid point or two, but you've really got your cock in your hand here. 

Not to mention the litigation a homeowner could be exposed to for not disclosing something, or it doesn't get caught by an inspector. Encroachments, easements, verified square footage, the list just goes on. Do you think an 85 year old widow that is downsizing could keep herself out of court?

CHIEF

[TKthunder2 4997]

45 minutes ago, Gil Bang said:

I know some shady agents, but at least we're licensed, fingerprinted, and pass a background check.   

Thank goodness, now I know you won’t rape me. /Austin logic 

[troph 24904]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

This kind of schedule risk will destroy novice house flippers.  I can't even imagine the shock of doubled or tripled carry costs, simply because of material and other shortages.

We are finishing a house in 04 and are in the middle of ours. If we can get out of these without losing our shirts (we will) then we are not starting another project until this crap subsides even though we have land to develop.  We will simply let the land appreciate and bide our time. Folks who think this is an opportunity have no idea what risk is.

[troph 24904]

1 hour ago, jimmyjazz said:

Right.  Until it doesn't.  The truth is, longer turns equate to higher cost risk.  At some point, a flipper's current project will lose them multiple prior profits when the market heads south (and the market always finds a way to eventually head south, usually not by much, but sometimes, by a lot).

Yep. Land cost, material and labor costs and sales prices aren’t always aligned.  This can go sideways on folks fast.  And It’s not so much that at this very moment as it is the delays and running out of cash to finish and hold to the sell. Capital calls from banks, cost over runs. This is a capital intense business and you might have profit on paper but you’ll go belly up without the cash to get there.  We’ve not had one capital call from a bank or had to ask investors yet and we don’t plan to ever. We can handle some cost overruns and delays out of our funds but this market? It’s dicey on the build side right now.

Edited June 19, 2021 by troph

[Guest Lobo]

44 minutes ago, troph said:

We are finishing a house in 04 and are in the middle of ours. If we can get out of these without losing our shirts (we will) then we are not starting another project until this crap subsides even though we have land to develop.  We will simply let the land appreciate and bide our time. Folks who think this is an opportunity have no idea what risk is.

where's your undeveloped land?  I mean, general area you're comfortable sharing here.   And what's it zoned for? 

Edited June 19, 2021 by Lobo

[troph 24904]

16 minutes ago, Lobo said:

where's your undeveloped land?  I mean, general area you're comfortable sharing here.   And what's it zoned for? 

Lake Travis / substantial lake views, we have 3 one acre lots on south shore side.   Very much residential. Just lost out on 2 more and we would just sit on those too. We have some 78704 commercial land (underutilized) but we will probably sell it. We are too old to learn commercial in the Austin environment.

Edited June 19, 2021 by troph

[Guest Lobo]

how big is the '04 tract?  

[troph 24904]

1 minute ago, Lobo said:

how big is the '04 tract?  

About an acre.  

[Guest Lobo]

If you can, PM me the address.  I have a colleague looking at options of .5-1.0 in that area for something interesting from January-May, project lease.  It's a pain in the ass, but when you hear their budget...you'll sit up.  

[Hornlover 8830]

2 hours ago, Gil Bang said:

How did you get from "The MLS in most areas enforces a monopoly to try to keep out disrupters and prop up the current structure. If the MLS allowed companies like Redfin, Rex, or whomever to post and list houses without participating in the commission structure, a lot of the 6% fees would go away" to "Yes, Redfin joined the MLS and agreed to the MLS terms, because that's the only way they can exist in the market today"???

 

It's not hard to understand. Redfin, Trulia, Rex, Zillow, whomever would love to be able to access a universal database of homes, use their own rules about listing fees, and use their own procedures for everything from open houses, mortgage applications, changing buyer and seller workflows, fee structures, etc. 

They attempted this in Austin by licensing MLS data from a third party, but the MLS org here sued them and told them that they weren't allowed to show data from the MLS or any other disruptive activity, because while it would be profitable for Redfin and be better for consumers, it was a threat to the MLS and the local realtors. (that's the part where they used their monopoly). 

So the online realtors are continuing to provide a small portion of what they would really like to, because their hands are tied. Right now, if they ventured out without the MLS, they would cease to be useful because people aren't going to use a site that doesn't have the majority of the properties they are interested in. 

The disruption will eventually happen, it's just a question of how it happens. 

[jimmyjazz 46057]

Wait . . . if one "joins" Redfin, they show recent closing prices, presumably using MLS data.  Is that not true?  Are they being handcuffed in some way?

[Guest Lobo]

Isn't REX the one suing Zillow/Nat'l Assocation of Realtors (not sure their acronym) for obfuscating that information?  Basically they hide behind Zillow's portal and jump on leads without disclosing how they're driving traffic/collecting data or some shit like that?  It's in Western District of Washington federal court already. 

[Hornlover 8830]

2 hours ago, CHIEF said:

Not to mention the litigation a homeowner could be exposed to for not disclosing something, or it doesn't get caught by an inspector. Encroachments, easements, verified square footage, the list just goes on. Do you think an 85 year old widow that is downsizing could keep herself out of court?

CHIEF

Oh no, poor granny. How could she ever possibly keep from being sued for selling her house, if a heroic super-realtor weren't there to save her from certain financial doom? 

I'm not in the business, but I imagine the frequency home sale lawsuits is not appreciably different for FSBOs vs. traditional realtors. But an online form asking "Are you aware of lead paint? Asbestos? Termites? etc." would cover as much if not more than what most realtors would ask their clients. And almost all the shit you list is stuff that should be covered by a Title policy or the buyer's inspector should catch it. Even so, for an extra $1000 Granny could buy an indemnity policy from the online realtor. I'm sure they could find a way to monetize that, and Granny is still saving $20,000 or more. 

[Gil Bang 25990]

2 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

Oh no, poor granny. How could she ever possibly keep from being sued for selling her house, if a heroic super-realtor weren't there to save her from certain financial doom? 

I'm not in the business, but I imagine the frequency home sale lawsuits is not appreciably different for FSBOs vs. traditional realtors. But an online form asking "Are you aware of lead paint? Asbestos? Termites? etc." would cover as much if not more than what most realtors would ask their clients. And almost all the shit you list is stuff that should be covered by a Title policy or the buyer's inspector should catch it. Even so, for an extra $1000 Granny could buy an indemnity policy from the online realtor. I'm sure they could find a way to monetize that, and Granny is still saving $20,000 or more. 

For some reason, I had figured that part out. 

[Hornlover 8830]

10 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Wait . . . if one "joins" Redfin, they show recent closing prices, presumably using MLS data.  Is that not true?  Are they being handcuffed in some way?

In Texas - home sales are not required to be disclosed to the state. In California, and other states, they are. So access to prior sales is easier to get in some states.

The MLS rules differ from area to are, but usually they require members (real estate companies/websites) to disclose all sale prices back to the MLS. They also prohibit websites from showing sales prices some number of days after the sale finalizes, and there are rules about showing listings to non-logged in users, and all kinds of other stuff. So Zillow can show estimated sales prices on homes and estimated values, but not display the ACTUAL sales price, as that's against the rules.

[Hornlover 8830]

1 minute ago, Gil Bang said:

For some reason, I had figured that part out. 

Because I'm not clinging to the antiquated, monopolistic business practice and pretending that it's best for consumers? 

I'll quote myself again here:

Quote

you will find real estate agents/companies who will stand up and tell you what they do is important, hard, and that they are absolutely necessary to the home-buying process.

 

If you don't believe me, just look at the Justice Department lawsuit, or Massachusetts MLS lawsuit, or the REX lawsuit against Zillow/MLS. 

[jimmyjazz 46057]

4 minutes ago, Hornlover said:

In Texas - home sales are not required to be disclosed to the state. In California, and other states, they are. So access to prior sales is easier to get in some states.

The MLS rules differ from area to are, but usually they require members (real estate companies/websites) to disclose all sale prices back to the MLS. They also prohibit websites from showing sales prices some number of days after the sale finalizes, and there are rules about showing listings to non-logged in users, and all kinds of other stuff. So Zillow can show estimated sales prices on homes and estimated values, but not display the ACTUAL sales price, as that's against the rules.

So . . . the "closing" prices shown by Redfin in Austin, are they estimates?

[Hornlover 8830]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

So . . . the "closing" prices shown by Redfin in Austin, are they estimates?

I'm not 100% sure. They might be, but I know they are only allowed to show them for a limited window.

[Guest Lobo]

I have always been curious why 6% in so many industries?  Front-loaded mutual funds, residential real estate, medical device sales, and dozens of others...including money launderers.  Everybody charges 6% when there's no disruptive competition.  Why is that?  I';m in the wrong business.

[Gil Bang 25990]

1 hour ago, Lobo said:

I have always been curious why 6% in so many industries?  Front-loaded mutual funds, residential real estate, medical device sales, and dozens of others...including money launderers.  Everybody charges 6% when there's no disruptive competition.  Why is that?  I';m in the wrong business.

I don't know a motherfucker that still charges 6%.  Well, to be more accurate, I don't know a motherfucker that's giving a 3% split on the buyer side. 

[Guest Lobo]

I realize that...now.  But the historical model was, and in many markets still is, 6% with the split.  That pot of money still comes out of something.  It comes from the asset, just split between 4 parties.  But nobody's coughing up dough out of pocket, it's spinning off from the asset.  Same thing with the 6% in all those other models.  Not judging, I already chimed in above.  Just wondering why it's been settled at 6% in so many industries for a whole century already.  

[tokamak 6433]

As someone who has bought and sold a house in the last 6 months, I wholeheartedly agree that standard realtor fees are pretty painful for the consumer. I liked our realtor. I thought he did a fine job. I'd use him again or recommend him. But I'm also not really confident that he did almost $10k worth of work in selling my mid-range 1800sf house.

That being said, "disruption" as I understand it sounds a lot like "fragmentation". If you want to see what houses are for sale right now in any given area, you go to the MLS. Period, end of story. It's a monopoly, sure, but that setup does have its benefits for the consumer. Is a world in which buyers need to track down listings separately on an MLS, Zillow, Redfin, Trulia, etc going to be better somehow? I have my doubts. Oh, realtor X only has a deal to show only houses listed on Zillow and Trulia. Realtor Y on the other hand works with the official MLS. And so on. Zillow and the like aren't heroes out there fighting valiantly for the little guy. They're not running a charity. Ultimately every "disruption" is just someone else trying to carve out a piece of the pie for themselves.

I see parallels with the transition from cable to streaming. We all hated cable and for good reason. But now we've just ended up with 5 different streaming services, paying roughly the same bill per month, and never knowing wtf show is on what service. Maybe we're slightly better off at the moment, but in the long run, someone clever is going to figure out how to wring every possible dollar out of the consumer.

[Pato del Muerto 52557]

My guess on the comp structure is that there’s a lot of realtors out there and most of them only sell 10-20 houses a year for a while until they quit or start doing some volume from referrals etc. so you split that 6% in half for buyer and seller, and then you split it again on each side between realtor and broker, and you end up with just enough to keep your new/average realtor with a livable income while the brokers clean up (assuming they do their own book of business on top of having a set of agents, such that their additional costs are way more than offset. )

[Gil Bang 25990]

1 hour ago, Pato del Muerto said:

My guess on the comp structure is that there’s a lot of realtors out there and most of them only sell 10-20 houses a year for a while until they quit or start doing some volume from referrals etc. so you split that 6% in half for buyer and seller, and then you split it again on each side between realtor and broker, and you end up with just enough to keep your new/average realtor with a livable income while the brokers clean up (assuming they do their own book of business on top of having a set of agents, such that their additional costs are way more than offset. )

I don't know about Texas, but out here, there's no such thing as a 50% broker split, except maybe for brand new agents getting mentored for the first few deals. 

I give my broker 8%.  I've been offered "better" deals, but I believe that I work for the best outfit in SoCal, and the resources and technology are well worth the point or two that I'm giving up. 

[Gil Bang 25990]

Just now, Gil Bang said:

I don't know about Texas, but out here, there's no such thing as a 50% broker split, except maybe for brand new agents getting mentored for the first few deals. 

I give my broker 8%.  I've been offered "better" deals, but I believe that I work for the best outfit in SoCal, and the resources and technology are well worth the point or two that I'm giving up. 

And BTW, anybody that's selling 10-20 houses a year is a fucking superstar.  I doubt that the average agent does 4 deals a year.  

[Neonmoon 38130]

The average joe doesn’t know shit about real estate and will need a real estate agent for a long time. Redfin exists, but their not overtaking the industry at 1% fees. Why is that? People like the familiar. Most people use a real estate agent they know or through someone they know. Yes, it will cost you more, but everyone has a friend in real estate. 

To the opposing point, yes, it will become easier to do it yourself. I once used an app to see a house. It was empty. And the app unlocks the house. All automated. It was cool. As a seller, I would never sign up for that shit. But I think even though you can buy/sell without a realtor, many will still choose to use one. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

On 6/19/2021 at 10:51 PM, Gil Bang said:

And BTW, anybody that's selling 10-20 houses a year is a fucking superstar.  I doubt that the average agent does 4 deals a year.  

Shit, we have a realtor in our neighborhood who lived here at the very beginning like me so she has become the "realtor of choice" for the neighborhood.  She does lots of stuff like sponsoring hot chocolate during Xmas or shit for the spring festival in my hood.  Sounds like a great person, right?  That being said, my hood is now thousands of homes versus the 10 homes back when I moved in 13 years ago and she sells 5-6 homes a month out here many that are over a million in sale price or close to it.  She also does that "pocket listing" thing where she barely lets her homes go live on the MLS because she already has someone ready to buy it.  Other realtors in the neighborhood tell me she is doing that so she guarantees she gets both ends of the 6% as opposed to having another realtor get it by bringing a buyer to one of her houses.  I will give you an example from just last week.  A house on my street that was her listing went live on a Saturday and was listed as pending before the open house started at noon.  She took $40K over asking and she had the buyer in her pocket.  I am not sure that was in the best interest of the seller as they could have waited 24 hours and gotten a dozen offers in this market (like other neighbors have gotten) possibly for more money and yes I get that the seller has to agree to this but something just seems wrong about the situation where the realtor represents both the buyer and seller.  There is zero way they can do what is best for both parties as one should want the most money for their house and the other should want to buy the house for the lowest price possible.

[Catpfish 618]

That's why dual agency is illegal in Texas.

[jimmyjazz 46057]

I haven't lived in 78704 for 15 years, but there is a realtor there who always seemed to get her sellers to list lower than they needed to, and they'd sell quickly.  It was obviously in her best interests to do so, but against the best interests of the seller.  3% of 90% home value in a week is probably better from the realtor's perspective than 3% of 100% home value in 6 weeks.  Sell it, move on, rinse, repeat.  Drove me nuts.

[Dbeasy 15078]

Just now, Catpfish said:

That's why dual agency is illegal in Texas.

Correct, but if a buyer comes in without an agent and signs paperwork advising them that they can and should have an agent but they elect not to, you can close the deal and receive whatever the commission is on the contract with the seller. 

[Dbeasy 15078]

1 minute ago, jimmyjazz said:

I haven't lived in 78704 for 15 years, but there is a realtor there who always seemed to get her sellers to list lower than they needed to, and they'd sell quickly.  It was obviously in her best interests to do so, but against the best interests of the seller.  3% of 90% home value in a week is probably better from the realtor's perspective than 3% of 100% home value in 6 weeks.  Sell it, move on, rinse, repeat.  Drove me nuts.

In my previous neighborhood, the agent did the exact same thing. Everybody loved her and used her, because she sold their houses so quickly. Idiots didn’t even realize she was fleecing them for $15-25k by pricing it that much below market.

And she got so dominant that she probably had half the listings or more, and that meant she was personally pulling down the value of the entire neighborhood because of her pricing. 

[Beantown Express 2.0 6559]

 

24 minutes ago, Dbeasy said:

In my previous neighborhood, the agent did the exact same thing. Everybody loved her and used her, because she sold their houses so quickly. Idiots didn’t even realize she was fleecing them for $15-25k by pricing it that much below market.

And she got so dominant that she probably had half the listings or more, and that meant she was personally pulling down the value of the entire neighborhood because of her pricing. 

This is exactly what this realtor does in my neighborhood.  We have a lot of people in my neighborhood that move from a cheaper home to a more expensive home within the neighborhood so they just want to get out of their house quick so they can get the nicer house and she flips em quick which helps her but hurts the home values of everyone still living here.  A lot of people are pissed at her about this and others don't realize what she does.  At the end of the day in ten years she went from a new realtor to worth millions with multiple agents on her team.  I wonder if she uses the agents on her team to get around that dual agency rule.  

Edited June 21, 2021 by Beantown Express 2.0

[CooterBrown 18022]

I haven't lived in 78704 for 15 years, but there is a realtor there who always seemed to get her sellers to list lower than they needed to, and they'd sell quickly.  It was obviously in her best interests to do so, but against the best interests of the seller.  3% of 90% home value in a week is probably better from the realtor's perspective than 3% of 100% home value in 6 weeks.  Sell it, move on, rinse, repeat.  Drove me nuts.

I think this exact scenario is a chapter in the original Freakanomics book.

[Dbeasy 15078]

2 hours ago, Beantown Express 2.0 said:

 

This is exactly what this realtor does in my neighborhood.  We have a lot of people in my neighborhood that move from a cheaper home to a more expensive home within the neighborhood so they just want to get out of their house quick so they can get the nicer house and she flips em quick which helps her but hurts the home values of everyone still living here.  A lot of people are pissed at her about this and others don't realize what she does.  At the end of the day in ten years she went from a new realtor to worth millions with multiple agents on her team.  I wonder if she uses the agents on her team to get around that dual agency rule.  

I need to check on what the policies in my agency are when an intermediary agent is assigned to a deal when there is no buyers agent. I have no idea what they do on the commission split.