Hacker News Reader

Comment by nvr219 | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

Have you both bought and sold a primary residence without a realtor?

Interested to hear about the experience.

Bought current house without agent (very desirable part of Los Angeles). Selling now without agent. If you buy with an agent you put yourself at a disadvantage because the selling agent will need to split the commission (typically 2.5% a piece or so). When you make an offer on a home without a buying agent, suddenly your offer looks a lot more attractive to the selling agent, who is the only point of contact the seller has into what is happening with their property in terms of offers. People wonder how we got our house so cheap—bank on the real estate agents being greedy. They are the worst, period. I have not met a single one who will not double end a deal in 10 years in the LA market. Not sure how the current sale will go, but I will not work with an agent, I’ve dealt with too many to make that mistake.

I’ve seen this happen many times in LA. Never in SF, and once in Oakland. I don’t have much experience outside California but helped friends in Chicago buy a condo. It definitely helped that they didn’t have an agent and leveraged the listing agent.

Not having an agent is generally a big asset when buying a home, much more than anything an agent will bring to you.

>definitely helped that they didn’t have an agent and leveraged the listing agent.

Ooof. Gotta be careful with this one and understand agency law in your respective state. That listing agent may not actually be working for you the buyer, even if they help you fill out the paperwork.

They're not working for the seller either, they're working for themselves. They are not a fiduciary to any party. You can get screwed by an agent regardless of who hired them.

>If you buy with an agent you put yourself at a disadvantage because the selling agent will need to split the commission

I can’t speak to California law, but this isn’t explicitly true in either market where I work. Non-agency is a thing in some places, and depending on the terms of the listing contract the listing agent might pocket both sides regardless if there isn’t a buyer’s agent.

I’d also argue that there are a lot of properties where a buyer benefits from expertise on the part of an agent - either negotiating strategies or local market concerns. In my market for example understanding environmental and construction issues and value add that a buyer won’t know without doing meaningful research on their own.

I have done both (I have also purchased with a realtor), all in rural Oregon.

I did a FSBO in a tiny town and the property was purchased directly by a buyer that was also without a realtor, but both sides had a mortgage from a national bank, and inspections happened, there was a boilerplate contract (the same one the previous realtor used for us buying the house, the lawyer’s name was on the contract) and a title company. The transaction was on rails. Could not have been smoother or cheaper.

For that place we knew the local market was small and the rumor mill active and figured we could FSBO for a bit before we contacted a real estate agent if we needed access to the MLS and non local buyers.

As for the time we purchased without an agent, we purchased a few 100 acre ranch from our family and did so with a real estate contract, seller financing and no mortgage. It would have been difficult to get financing at a reasonable rate for a property of this kind. This involved a fair bit of time dealing with lawyers and neither party is happy with the lawyers but the deal got done.

Anyhow - both experiences were good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com