Real estate discussion

Yeah, but I think in a way it could be better for agents too…the new/clueless/uneducated will actually need a buyer’s agent and they SHOULD pay agents more upfront for all the hand holding they will need.

2 Likes

Give it a couple of years and there will be a surge in flat fee full service buyer’s agent companies. It’ll be like ordering off a menu, the package would include a defined list of services, up to X number of showings with additional $Y per showing, etc. There are already many buyer’s agents and companies that offer 1.5% commission rebate on a standard 2.5% buyer’s commission.

And I bet you can get lenders to finance these like they do broker fees currently.

1 Like

I think they’ll be more upfront payments of RE agents going forward which would be great.

1 Like

Me too mainly because I think it will greatly decrease the dreaded ‘looky loos’!

1 Like

For homes under 500k, I’m all for the equivalent of a Schwab “robo-advisor” for realtors. When you start approaching 7 figures, you need an agent worth their salt for everything after the accepted offer to closing. They balance emotions and act as a good mediator between parties who all have big egos and make quite a bit of money.

Its weird to see how Agency relationships have gone. Feels like we’re going back to the 80’s again.

Let’s keep things cordial here folks. I like getting fired up to prove a point as much as the next person, but this ain’t the place for it

3 Likes

I can confirm, TX Home insurance is pretty high, but I was under the impression that FL was higher than TX on average

Not sure what you mean?

So basically from the birth of realtors and MLS to around the 80’s and 90’s, everyone worked for the seller. Buyer’s agents didn’t exist until the 90’s. Basically, it was like car sales. Nobody looked out for the buyer’s interest. For example, a house (or car) had some major defect about the house (or car).They never told the buyer because they didn’t work for them. Like legally, every agent involved had to screw buyers the best they can lol. So what ended up happening was, the courts (Bokusky v. Edina Realty) and the FTC mandated that agents who weren’t the listing agent had to work for the buyer.
So now, if I know something about a house that my client wants to look at, I have to tell them. It’s ironic that people who created buyer’s agents to protect buyers are now screwing them to protect sellers.

1 Like

Buyers are always going to get screwed, it’s simply what happens when you have a group of people with experience in buying a product against a group who doesn’t. The people doing the screwing wasn’t the govt or the FTC, it was sellers who brought the case. There was a jury who agreed with the sellers, the plaintiffs.

I agree this is going to screw over buyers but the govt aren’t the ones to blame here.

1 Like

Ehh I’m going to blame the government’s competing interests lol. DOJ and the FTC did file lawsuits. Objectively speaking, having sellers pay for the realtor equivalent of opposing council is complete and utter bullshit. That being said, the government does want the maximum homeownership so, it’s a good way to help facilitate that. You could bring around 3% to closing under the current models. You’ll be bringing a lot more than that now.

So hire an agent to be your guide throughout the buying process after an offer is made. Pay that agent a set fee for the service, $1000 or whatever to give you advice on what needs to be done.

That’s a few hours of work and doesn’t command 3% of the sales price as payment.

3 Likes

This is exactly what happens with states that require an attorney for RE transactions. The attorney gets paid regardless of whether the sale goes through and the cost is often divided among the seller/buyer.

You wanna know why Housing is going to the moon? It’s cause of idiotic cities like this. But it’s probably by design cause, you know, homeowners vote more than than homebuyers.

Why San Francisco Has Only Granted 16 New Home Permits This Year

2 Likes

The more progressive the city the more restrictions on land use. And at the same time the people in these cities are the most vocal about providing “affordable housing”.

It’s almost as if…

2 Likes

Trust me, so many cities (including heavily Democratic ones) give lip service to “affordable” housing but the second someone wants to build some? It’s “we don’t want to change the character of our neighborhood”, “we don’t have enough capacity”, etc. I’ve personally been told by cities and towns in NJ that “we don’t want poor people, if you wanna build, build luxury or gtfo!”

1 Like

Not that I disagree with that. I don’t want Section 8 in my neighborhood either. But at least I don’t pretend to want to help the poors. I’m an honest asshole. Progressives are dishonest assholes.

My city did some re zoning to allow multi family units in SFH nabes. But there was so much opposition they made it very restrictive. Which led to almost no building. And the little that was built was high end luxury apartments. Which went totally against the stated goal of building affordable housing.

I hate the notion that somehow nice neighborhoods can’t stay nice. I worked hard to make money to live here. I don’t want some welfare recipient moving in next door and destroying the value of my house.

Want low income housing? Put it in the shit part of town. And leave me alone.

5 Likes

California homelessness: Solutions from Texas?.

Interesting article I came across a while ago…

But basically – relaxed (or in the case of most of Houston, nonexistent) zoning regulations = more affordable housing options

It’s the pretending to care that grinds my gears. At least you’re honest. But here’s the other thing. We need more buildings in the right place now. So even luxury housing is needed. We need more housing period.