I'll agree that RE agents ("Realtor" is a trademarked term) are essentially unnecessary for the happy path when a property sale goes smoothly. In that case, they are overpaid secretaries.
But the reason RE agents are their own profession is because when a sale starts to wander off the happy path, there can suddenly be a LOT to know, discuss, and do. A good RE agent will be honest with you if the asking price is ridiculous in either direction. They know all the little local details and laws that are easy for a layperson to miss. They'll help you deal with a difficult buyer/seller. They know where the flood plains are. They know about zoning. They know who to call when the weirdest shit pops up. There are few other areas in life where ignoring (or not seeing) non-obvious red flags can ruin a person or family so completely.
I have had bad RE agents that were uncooperative paper-pushers who kept dropping the ball, and I have had good RE agents that were worth every single penny they earned.
If you want to be mad at something, I suggest looking into the National Association of Realtors. It is essentially the union that all RE agents are a part of, whether they want to be or not. NAR essentially owns the bulk of property listings in the US and heavily gatekeep access to it.
For our value add compared to the regular realtor when things go wrong. Our thesis is that because 65% of home buyers use the first realtor they meet, most individuals are getting this "uncooperative paper-pusher who keeps dropping the ball". We can outcompete this average realtor on the quality front.
Our end-game plan is to own our own MLS.
I don't want them. They've inserted themselves in the process against my will.
The quality bar is very low to become a realtor (3 months of online coursework).
Realtor reviews are cooked and completely fake online.
So it is not a big jump to say that the average realtor experience is poor as they are usually driven by a single advertisement or a single Zillow link for most people.
We try to mimic the behavior of the best performing top 1% of realtors and give that experience to all.
The issue is that we don't really have a choice in the matter. In a properly functioning market, you could still have your realtor if you wanted, and I could pretend they don't exist instead of having to help support their lifestyle.
When I sell my current home, the realtor commission would be around $20,000. That's $20,000 cash equity that is taken out of my hands. When I did this simple calculation, that's when beyond the shadow of a doubt, I knew I would not be using a relator -- I don't care how much of a headache it could be. I'm keepin' that $20K.
I've purchased two homes and I'm confident I can handle the paper work involved. I mean, most of the paper work is the attorney's and title company's anyway. The realtor is basically inserting himself in between those companies and then relaying that information to the client. In my case, my realtor was copied on all communications, but that is it. I was the one producing all the documentation, signing agreements, reading reports, following up on inspections, etc.
And I had one of the top Keller Williams agents in my state. The guy is known by everyone.
I can't make sense of paying someone $20,000 to say, "Let me know if you have any questions about the inspection report"; or to tell me, "I wouldn't buy this. There's moisture in the basement. There's a leak in the ceiling. The patio is not level." etc. I'm knowledgeable enough to see things like this, and if not, my inspector will educate me on it and identify issues.
I'm curious why you're paying for an inspector, though? Wouldn't the buyer want to hire their own inspector? Are you just looking for issues that the buyer might complain about? (My experience is that an inspector will _always_ find things that the buyer can use to negotiate the price down.)
I was under the impression that the title company was also chosen by the buyer (or their agent). Although they generally expect the seller to pay for, well, almost everything.
If the buyer is using an agent, I assume you're not paying the buying agent's 3%, right? I wonder if that would dissuade some buyers.
I've been in your shoes (before I got my license). I always had doubts about what my agent was actually saying on my behalf, and what they were telling me about the seller's position. It often felt like the listing agent would magically respond only after I followed up. That's why we're committed to giving you direct insight into the negotiation process, so you're not left guessing about what's really happening behind the scenes.
Not to defend the current real estate industry too much, but if the sellers were not paying $20k for a buyer's agent, the price of the home would likely just be $20k higher. That's an extra $20k that the sellers would get to keep. If they kept the price the same with or without an agent, that would seem to be some pretty irrational behavior. They'd be giving up $20,000 for no reason!
A rational seller is selling for as much as the market will bear, and are only paying transaction costs that they absolutely have to. Again not defending the current system at all- the sellers are the ones who who are paying too much in this case
Just curious, how are you going to advertise your property to real estate agents and consumers in your area?
I can't even get my house into the MLS without using a Realtor, and I'm currently logged into the MLS database server running updates. ;-)