Comment by existencebox | Hacker News Reader

Comment by existencebox | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

We got, unfortunately, MULTIPLE realtors through redfin; some on our own request, some when they simply would disappear from the company/stop answering our emails. There was neither quality nor consistency, and we had marginal ability to impact that choice on our own, whereas with a personal realtor we went with someone highly recommended from work peers.

I absolutely agree the individual realtor impacts the experience, that's pretty much the crux of my whole issue :) My conclusion was that Redfin doesn't offer as much control/guarantee to ensure this, and in a hot market, this matters quite a bit.

(To be fair, I'd say the same thing about my experience with mortgage lenders, BoA did an abysmal job and very nearly left me in the lurch, whereas a smaller local lender picked up the slack and pulled our asses out of the fire. Perhaps my overarching statement should be to wonder if we (businesses) suck at scaling customer support? (I'm pretty much saying "well duh" to myself as I write this statement, frankly))

I've never used a buyer's agent and always written into my offers that the 3% buyers agent fee is to go back to the seller (and of course adjust the top-line offer accordingly).

I've never tried to buy in SF, but this strategy has always worked for me and saved a lot of money over the years. Frankly I can't understand the purpose of a buyers agent in this era, and taking 3% off the cost of a house is very substantial.

When the closing statement (HUD-1) is finally prepared, usually I can see that the seller's agent took some of the buyer's agent fee, e.g. they will end up with 4% instead of 3% in the end and the rest goes back to the seller. Since these offers usually mean more money for the seller'a agent they go to the top of the pile.

It's also important to disclose that you've purchased houses before, that you have funds, and that you are ready to close immediately. You don't need a buyers agent to tell you this.

So you reduce the top-line offer by 3%? Or, if your written offer specifies 3% back to you, how does the seller's agent manage to take 4% in contradiction to the offer? Not sure what jurisdiction you're operating in, but I wasn't aware that offers could dictate chagnes to the terms of a pre-existing listing agreement between the seller and their agent. Would love more details on how to effect something like this.

Yes, reduce the top-line offer by 3%, or slightly less than 3% -- so everyone is actually coming out ahead.

You're absolutely right, I can't dictate the agreement between the seller and their agent. But when I put in writing, "hereby relinquish any and all claim to the 3% buyer's agent fee ($XX,XXX)" it gets the point across. Then it's between the seller and their agent, usually the agent will get a small bump (from 3% to 4%) and the seller keeps the rest.

It's important to try to convince the seller at the same time, that the sale will be easier without the buyer's agent, not harder. Also important to refuse to sign any kind of "dual agency" agreement with the seller's agent.

>but I wasn't aware that offers could dictate changes to the terms of a pre-existing listing agreement between the seller and their agent.

Exactly. Sounds like this borders on interference. The seller can't sign such an offer without breaking a previous contract. It may have worked for him because the broker was amendable to changing their agreement but by not having representation the person above may still have overpaid by 2%. What if the pricing strategy was to price 5% over what the seller really wanted knowing people would negotiate down.

Additionally the previous the buyer doesn't know what the co-broke fee, if any, is being offered to an agent that procures a buyer.

> It may have worked for him because the broker was amendable to changing their agreement but by not having representation the person above may still have overpaid by 2%.

Or you might have representation and still overpay by 2%. It's kind of how investing in a mutual fund with a 3% load doesn't guarantee that you'll beat the market.

The buyers agent commission rate is public and actually shown in the listing.

I'm not dictating at all the commission received by the sellers agent. I'm saying you just write explicitly in the offer that you have no buyers agent and waive any claim to any buyers agent commission, and consider that dolllar amount to remain with the seller.

Sometimes the agreement between the seller and their agent stipulates some higher commission is paid when there is no buyers agent, but it's none of my business. The fact is it's 2.5-3% of the total price which isn't being paid to a 3rd (4th) party, and that means more money on the table for everyone else.

Another data point confirming your 1% as in line with seller's agent additional effort in handling buyer-side paperwork, communication et al. I just sold through a discount broker, independent and therefore free to set his own rates. His fee for buyers without their own agents: 1%. This was in Mountain View, California.

This, exactly. If you're comfortable enough with the property you're buying and know what to look for, the selling agent has a decent reputation (i.e. he has something to lose if he tries to cheat you), and have been through the process before, you can easily approach the selling agent without an agent of your own. An experienced agent will understand what's going on and know that this leaves another 3% to work with. I'll probably never use a buyer's agent again in my home market, though I would probably use one in an unfamiliar city.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com