Hacker News Reader

I think for buyers, agents make a lot of sense. Largely, because of how the system works, they're free to buyers, as the seller's pay the agent fees.

The problem is that the seller's must pay for both the buyer's agent as well as the seller's agent. And in order to get into MLS, you have to hire an agent to represent you. It's a horribly broken system where agents are essentially a cartel you have to do business with in order to sell your house. Everything has changed with MLS listings being online and so many real estate transactions have become boilerplate, with no major variables except price negotiation, which really isn't that difficult either.

If you're not familiar with the MLS system, it's something that is controlled by the Realtor association it's essentially a network of databases of every home for sale or rent that is represented by an agent. You have to have an agent in order to be listed that system and practically every real-estate website, including Zillow and Trulia, get the vast majority of their listing from the MLS systems.

Some smart agents realized how utterly ridiculous the role of the buyer agent has become in many situations (If you know the 80/20 rule, this is sort of the 99/1 rule: 99% of the value of a buyer agent comes from getting into MLS and it takes about 1% effort to do that). In response, they offer their services as "flat fee MLS" and they charge people a couple hundred bucks to play ball in the MLS system and you get to represent yourself in the actual sale process. You're paying $600 + 3% buyer commission, instead of a straight 5-6% total commission.

On a $300,000 house that will save the sellers $8,400.

Quick correction: only Redfin has MLS access (as they are a broker). As far as I know, Zillow and Trulia have very limited MLS access, and largely get their listings from the brokerages themselves.

We just purchased a house and Redfin by and large had the most timely and accurate data. It turns out that my experience is backed up by evidence: http://www.inman.com/news/2012/10/3/redfin-study-knocks-zill...

I think for buyers, agents make a lot of sense. Largely, because of how the system works, they're free to buyers, as the seller's pay the agent fees.

Are they really free for the buyer, though? Isn't some of the commission fee being built subconsciously into the price that the seller lists it at? Recent downtown aside, the general upward trend of house prices must at least be buoyed up a bit by those commissions. Surely not every seller just marks the cost up as a loss.

Plus, I've never been quite convinced that any buyer's agent would work as hard as possible to negotiate the price down if their commission is going to be a fixed percent of that price. There's zero incentive to get a better price and very infrequent repeat business from the same customers.

> I think for buyers, agents make a lot of sense. Largely, because of how the system works, they're free to buyers, as the seller's pay the agent fees.

When we bought our house we didn't use an agent. Our offer was instantly 3% more attractive to the seller. The seller's agent told us after we closed that there had been 5 other offers and the 3% put us on top.

A better way to think of it is this: the party bringing the money to the table is the party that is paying for everything.

How did you get into houses to view them without an agent to open the lockboxes? How did you assmble all the paperwork required for your states contract? I've long seen agents as unnecessary and would like to avoid one to make my offer stronger.

Sorry for the late reply - you can just call the seller's agent and have them show you around. We used a real estate lawyer to draw up the contract and to have someone we could ask negotiation advice from if we needed it. Far cheaper than the 3% cut. Be aware that in most agent contracts the selling agent is entitled to the full commission if there is no buyer's agent, so how attractive your offer is depends on the relationship between the seller and their agent. Also, every agent you meet will try to get you to use them as an agent, so make it clear you are acting without an agent.

This. We tried a few agents, and there's nothing better than a tenacious agent fighting for the house you want.

It wasn't even obvious to me to not use my agent when using Trulia, which I told my agent about when I was doing my own house research; we both just ended up using the tool to weed through some of the properties.

I used Trulia to find houses I was interested in, and then I would string them all together in order, share them with my agent, and then we'd use our phones to drive from property to property to check them out. Their mobile app experience was pretty great, we could see what school zones/crime, etc. and a bunch of other stuff. It was _much_ more efficient than the first time we had tried it where an agent brings a printout of nothing but MLK numbers.

I ran into some Trulia folks at a conference and wondered why they don't have like a "Pro" account or a way to pay them. I guess it's just not part of the business model, which is weird. When we flew into town to do shopping we had to see as many houses as we could and Trulia was just an amazing value. I would have _easily_ paid a hundred bucks for the time and effort Trulia saved us.

As far as using the agent, once we found the house we wanted the agent took it from there.

Hmmm, let's see.

Services of a home inspector, who will diligently inspect all visible areas of a home and give you a pretty good idea of almost all foreseeable problems with a house, output being a binder filled with inspection notes and possible problems: $500.

Services of a real estate agent, who will drive you to houses and unlock the door for you: 6% of transaction cost, equalling about $30,000 for an average purchase in my area.

In my area there are good agents who will do it for 2-3%. I used such an agent as a buyer for a 2% rebate. He knows the area well because he does a lot of volume as you can imagine. Some states do not allow the broker rebates though.

And fwiw, the percentage is at the seller's discretion, and the selling agent decides how to share it with the buyers agent (generally with agreement from the seller).

Both agents split the commission with their agency, so by the time it all percolates out, the agents get between 1 and 1.5% of the sale price. With that income, they pay for their local association membership, marketing, etc.

On some transactions, they do well for their time and money invested. On others, they do not.

Picky buyers will starve any agent. Seems like it'd be a smart move to only represent sellers.

the 6% is for both sides (buyer/seller), so it's only 3% for the buyer's agent that you're talking about.

Still ridiculous.

> Things that were cheap and add a lot of value to do when building, but not cheap to retrofit.

I'd love to know what these things were.

Think infrastructure: putting in quality wiring/plumbing/hvac is much cheaper on new construction.

Non-exhaustive list: Anything to do with plumbing, electrical, networking and audio cabling. Essentially if you ever think that you may one day want an in home audio system, security system, LAN, it is cheap as hell to put the cables in the wall now and just not terminate the ends. I also put some empty PVC in the walls in case I ever want to run any other cabling, it'll be easier to fish the line. FWIW, I put all my own cat6 cabling in and didn't have the electrician do it. 2 cables to all rooms, 4 to my office, 4 to the entertainment center. Plus cables to all four corner roof soffits if I want to put in security cameras.

I also took pictures of everything before the drywall went up so if I have to get into the walls, I know where electrical and plumbing sits.

We didn't finish our basement because we can always spend more money later, it is harder/more expensive to build more space. So we maximized how big the house was at the expense of not having a finished basement.

However, we did finish the stairwell down to the basement and didn't hide that stairwell with a door and wall. It is all open with railing and carpet and lighting. It really opens up the first floor and looks really nice.

We also plumbed the basement for a bathroom. There is nothing there, but the pipes are there sitting in the concrete foundation. (again, much cheaper to put the $50 worth of PVC in the foundation when it is poured instead of using a jackhammer when you finish the basement.

If you want any built in shelving, it is a lot cheaper to have it done while the trim guy is already there instead of waiting until later.

We spent an extra couple grand on spray foam insulation, my heating/cooling bills are about 30% lower than my neighbors .

That is all I can think of right now.

Excellent point and one I agree with. When I bought a house I had lucked into finding a very good agent (who I have since recommended multiple times) who had dealt with large and small purchases, short sales, etc... Her husband was a builder so she could walk in a house and easily assess its quality.

I too thought RE agents were a waste of time prior to meeting this lady. My only RE experience were friends of friends and acquaintances who all never seemed to work very hard. A great RE agent is invaluable when buying a house.

Her husband was a builder so she could walk in a house and easily assess its quality.

Should we choose agents based upon whether their significant other is a builder? Why not have an actual trained expert in home construction and maintenance be a part of the buying process, instead of relying upon the remote chance that an agent that will earn a five-figure commission may possibly have some value in that realm?

The real-estate industry is absolutely dominated by soft-skills -- the sales and people skills (ABC, etc) that dominate other sales industries (cars, mattresses, drug company reps, etc). It is not a credible argument in favour of agents that they may possibly bring some other incidental skill: Roll the die and find out.

Should we choose agents based upon whether their significant other is a builder? Why not have an actual trained expert in home construction and maintenance be a part of the buying process, instead or relying upon the random, remote chance that an agent that will earn a five-figure commission may possibly have some value in that realm?

I looked at upwards of 30+ houses. For each one I would have loved to bring in an entire of team of people, but that's simply not feasible. Having a primary person with lots of experience and knowledge to help me while making the large cuts was invaluable (I looked at short sales in various stages of construction, new homes, old homes). I would also hope that any serious RE agent takes time to learn a lot about the construction process. The fact that my agents husband is a builder was a plus, but not a requirement. What is a requirement is that any agent can see potential big issues without my having to spend additional money for experts.

And while you're right that soft skills dominate, my agent absolutely knew her stuff. She was like a walking Trulia anytime I went out with her. Perhaps she just preps well, but who cares if that's all it was. I'm also fine to accept that what I found is rare. I know it is rare and why I recommend her so highly to anyone I know looking to buy a house.

Do you want that trained expert to be there on every showing? That just doesn't seem possible, unless you are willing to pay for it.

While I agree, the argument was relative to the notion that agents are valuable in general because one agent had a rare, second-hand set of knowledge.

And FWIW, I do believe that seller home inspections are a good idea. It would be better still if it were a strongly regulated, accredited industry.

I wonder how novices identify the great ones, however. As with many personal-service businesses, it's hard to distinguish the good ones before you've had the service.

It may suck for people trying to get their start, but experience is a great first indicator. If you find an agent that's been doing it for 20-30 years you have someone who has seen the ups and down of the market. They should have sold lots of houses. Also, see if you can find someone who sells houses in many price ranges. My agent routinely sells expensive (1M+) houses, but works just as hard for me with a budget that is a fraction of that. I asked her about it once and her response was that one day me or one of my friends would hopefully be buying a house in the millions and I would recommend her then. That type of thinking is not only long term, but also shows the dedication to making each client happy.

Right. The good agents think long term, not about selling you a house in a month instead of three to get a quick commission.

Like any sales job with the possibility of repeat business, the commission matters, but so does the relationship.

When moving to San Jose I found a realtor who'd been working for 30+ years, at the top of her game, head of the Realtor's association, glowing recommendations, on and on and on.

She absolutely didn't get it. We were looking for a SFH, she kept pushing us to condos. We had a budget of X, she kept pushing to to X+10%. We'd make an offer N on something, she'd pressure us to offer N+20% (we didn't win any bids, but looking back at the sold records it was never on price).

She wasn't always forthcoming about helping us analyze the property. Until we flat-out said "this one's not for us", she wouldn't ever point out something wrong with the house unless it was glaringly obvious (one home that reeked of dog piss, for example). She obviously had experience in checking out houses, because as soon as we'd write a place off she'd rattle off 12 things that she saw wrong with it (dry rot, obviously unpermitted construction, etc).

It just felt lazy to me how she used cash as a crutch. Rather than getting creative with offers & cover letters and actually, you know, selling us, she'd say "let's throw more money at it!". She even had the gall to tell me that cash offers are usually higher than asking. Not even kidding.

It frustrates me to no end, because I'm the type that's on the phone with my mortgage broker every day asking what I can do to push the deal through. If you accept my offer, I won't sleep until I've done every single thing I can do to make it happen. I once got a short sale done (funded!) in 30 days (!!). You want me to buy your house.

But sellers can really be dumb, too. This one house I put an offer in, the sellers accepted a "higher cash offer" that fell out of escrow in a month. I re-offered, 20% down, no contingencies. Not even an inspection. They went with an offer that was $5k above mine, and then it took 90 days to close. Oh, and the house was vacant. Really guys, was that $5k minus commission worth carrying your house another 1 month + 2 months?

Anyway, I got so sick of it all I just rented. I'll probably end up with new construction when I've got my fortitude back. But man do I hate dealing with real estate.

Real Estate Agents are one of those things where the pareto principle applies. 20% of the agents, do 80% of the business. Just find one of the 20%, they'll have a ton of awards (million dollar club, etc). If you go visit them at their office space, they'll have a window office, not a cube.

The cool thing about real estate agents (unlike attorneys) is that the great ones charge just as much as the bad ones.

Takeaway? Mainly just reinforcing the fact that this market is still immensely inefficient.

I have similar arguments against those who claim that robots will soon put doctors out of a job.

unrelated note: As an owner and advocate for pitbulls, I think this analogy is inaccurate and perpetuates the stereotype that pitbulls are aggressive animals.

As a result of breeding, pitbulls are wonderful with people, despite their reputation. Even dog fighters would agree as a person generally stands in a dog fighting ring to break up the fight (and doesn't want to be attacked). It takes a great deal of "training" (aka abuse) to make a pitbull aggressive towards people.

Pitbulls are not always the best with other dogs, but it is something that can be remedied with an assertive owner.

tl;dr Pitbulls are loving, sweet dogs.

Pitbulls are loving, sweet dogs.

That's just another broken stereotype. Pitbulls run the full spectrum; just like other dogs breeds. Statistically, they are more likely to attack people than average but it's hard to separate their owners from the breed it's self. IMO, the real problem is as a large breed the potential for harm is greater than smaller dogs and far to many people mistreat them.

That's a good point, although i believe it is natural for pitbulls to be well behaved (in our eyes), but your point is taken.

As far as pitbull biting stats: 1. Pitbull is not a breed; it's an umbrella term for six different breeds. 2. There are _a lot_ of pitbulls in the U.S.

Actually, pit bulls are less or equally likely to attack than most other common dogs, including the golden retriever. Advocates against them roll over this fact by saying that the more powerful jaws make it worse when it does happen. Note, I have two pretty awesome "pit bulls" - an American Staffordshire Terrier and an American Pitbull Terrier.

A 9-year (1979–88) review of fatal dog attacks in the United States determined that, of the 101 attacks in which breed was recorded, pit bulls were implicated in 42 of those attacks (42%).[24] A 1991 study found that 94% of attacks on children by pit bulls were unprovoked, compared to 43% for other breeds.[25] A 5-year (1989–94) review of fatal dog attacks in the U.S. determined that pit bulls and pit bull mixed breeds were implicated in 24 (29%) of the 84 deaths in which breed was recorded.[26]

A review of the medical literature found that pit bulls and pit bull cross-breeds were involved in 42–45% of dog attacks.[31] Fatalities were most often reported when children were attacked, with 70% of victims being under the age of 10.[31]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit_bull#Attacks_on_humans

In addition to the points I made below (pit bull isn't a breed, but an umbrella term for six different breeds, et al.), a few paragraphs under the portion you pasted on wikipedia:

Several studies determined that pit bull owners, and owners of other "vicious" or "high risk" breeds (most commonly identified as Akita, Chow Chow, Doberman Pinscher, Rottweiler, and Wolf-mix), are more likely to have criminal convictions and are more likely to display antisocial behaviors. A 2006 study compared owners of "high risk" dogs to owners of "low risk" dogs. "High risk" dogs included “vicious” dogs by breed (e.g., pit bulls) or “vicious” actions (e.g., any dog that had bitten, attacked, or killed a person or other animal). The study determined that "high risk" dog owners had nearly 10 times as many criminal convictions then did "low risk" dog owners.[39] A 2009 study[40] and a followup 2012 study generally supported these findings.[41]

I completely agree with what your saying. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a reasonable way to pre-screen dog owners as plenty of people in "high risk" groups are great pet owners and owning a dog can often have rather positive results. At the same time there are some truly horrible people out there.

PS: I never really know what else to call pit bull it's not really a "group" and the definition is rather vague, but repeating pit bull all the time is rather repetitive. Any suggestions?

It is unfortunate. You're right, logistically it's impossible to screen people. Technically you could do criminal background checks, but I don't know if animal rescues have the resources for that; or what the blow back would be. And even then, like you said, these people could be rehabilitated and just want a dog -- which in itself can be therapeutic. It's complex.

I call all of the pit bull breeds pit bulls (or pits or pibbles) despite the definition being vague. It'd be a bit awkward to walk around in public and say, "check out that Staffordshire bull terrier." I just think lumping all the breeds into one group when citing bite statistics is misleading.

> Actually, pit bulls are less or equally likely to attack than most other common dogs

You're really not entitled to your own facts, and this fact is false. All the data everywhere shows that pit bulls are always at the top of the "most likely to be involved in biting incidents" charts. Ontario, for example, has reduced dog bite incidents by about 25% by banning pit bulls from being kept as pets.

What you are failing to take into consideration is that the demographic that keep a pit or rot mix as a non-socialized and aggressive guard dog over represents the breed as a whole. Yes, a pit bull has a greater chance of inflicting serious harm if they attack, most of the ones that attack are the millions locked in a yard by your neighborhood drug dealer.

I just read through a couple reports, they include wonderful stories like the pit bull who knocked over an old lady and broke her hip as an attack.

Edit: To make an anecdotal, worthless point...I live in a really poor area of Portland. I walk through the neighborhood and on just about every block there is one house with a locked up pit bull behind a 4 foot chain link fence. These dogs are aggressive, abused and very well represent a danger to people.

Hah. Great argument. Especially when you consider that 'pit bulls' are not a breed, but an umbrella term for six breeds. So, yes, if you combine the bite statistics for six different breeds of dog (a few of which are very popular; all combined which make up about 7% of the dog population in the U.S.), the _six_ breeds will account for more biting incidents than any other _one_ dog. What a damning verdict.

This doesn't take into account any qualitative analysis either. For example, how many people buy a retriever or lab and train (aka, abuse) it to be aggressive towards everyone (i.e., a guard dog)?

Also, while voluntary, the American Temperament Test Society tests dogs in a number of scenarios for the overall temperament. Pit bull breeds do very well in these tests and have some of the highest sample sizes.

For example, page 1 (http://atts.org/breed-statistics/statistics-page1/#totals) lists the American Pit bull terrier and American Staffordshire terrier as ranking very highly and having 800+ subjects.

I didn't take it as "pitbulls are aggressive" but as pitbulls are tenacious. Pitbulls are one of the few breeds which exhibit the "bite-hold-shake" (like their ancestor the bulldog) and are thusly seen to be tenacious. Maybe just difference of inference.

Many breeds actually have this behavior. It's common in play.

Nearly every dog does "bite-hold-shake".

Totally off subject but I concur. As long as the owner is understanding of the breed and is confident in being the alpha dog, pits are great dogs. I have one as well as two cats and they all get along famously.

Still, I want my real estate agent to have the common mythological qualities of a pit, given my choice.

Try not to use the term pitbull in that context. It's damaging to the breed and ignorant.

The cool thing about real estate agents (unlike attorneys) is that the great ones charge just as much as the bad ones.

The uncool thing about real estate agents is that the bad ones charge just as much as the good ones.

My personal experience with real estate agents have been terrible. People who know nothing about the area, nothing about the home, and can't even answer rudimentary questions such as property taxes or school district. I have absolutely learned much more about homes and areas on websites.

Further -- at least here -- the home is vetted by a home inspector, not the agent (the latter usually giving the most superficial of advice like "paint the walls" or "get a new countertop"). The legalities are handled by a real-estate lawyer. Etc.

There absolutely should be assistance in both the buying and the selling of houses. Is it worth tens of thousands of dollars? Hardly.