How to Buy w/out a Realtor?

[drboom]

[quote=urbanrealtor]Also:
To those who are bragging about having bought without an agent:

I dare you to post an address (or pm it).
I will share it with other agents on this board and in my office and we will tell you if we think you actually got a good price or not. (you may or may not have).
We will not post the address if you would prefer.

If you don’t have the courage to give us that, then I submit you are a coward without the courage of your convictions.

I am calling you out.

Reply if you’ve got a pair.

Otherwise step off.[/quote]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.

Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.

If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

xoxo,
-drboom

[njtosd]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . That is a bit like saying that you will be the one dude in your cellblock not to get raped or the one freshman who gets a hot female roommate.

[/quote]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.

[njtosd]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . That is a bit like saying that you will be the one dude in your cellblock not to get raped or the one freshman who gets a hot female roommate.

[/quote]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.

[njtosd]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . That is a bit like saying that you will be the one dude in your cellblock not to get raped or the one freshman who gets a hot female roommate.

[/quote]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.

[njtosd]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . That is a bit like saying that you will be the one dude in your cellblock not to get raped or the one freshman who gets a hot female roommate.

[/quote]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.

[njtosd]

[quote=urbanrealtor]. . . That is a bit like saying that you will be the one dude in your cellblock not to get raped or the one freshman who gets a hot female roommate.

[/quote]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=drboom]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.
[/quote]
I think that people who stare at comp sheets all day probably are better at evaluating comps than those who don’t. But I would certainly be in favor of letting the piggs decide. And again I am fine with it being the case that non-representation was a good idea. I just want to see evidence.

[quote=drboom]
Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.
[/quote]
So if I disagree with you, then my opinion is worthless?
Not a strong argument dude.
I think that being an agent is easy.
It has a very low threshold for legal standing and very easy minimum qualifications.
I think that being good or successful at it is rather tough.
That is why Dave Baum (sdr), Adam Rappoport (SD_R) and Dan Cassidy (that’s me) are still in business and generally only have time to make friends (or enemies) online whereas a lot of the people we competed with a few years ago are in different lines of work.
Its not reasonable to say that just because it looks easy to do it is.
There are lots of failed restaurants based on that premise.

[quote=drboom]
If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

[/quote]
I don’t think people are being dishonest I just want them to show their work.
I think that what looks like a good idea is often dependent on limited or skewed information.
However, if someone thinks they have a great deal without representation, I would like to see that and compare it to those who DO have representation.

I think that if someone is going to go on about how they have a great strategy (like working unrepresented or with the listing agent) they should show the stellar results they claim.

[quote=drboom]

xoxo,
-drboom[/quote]

So dude, seriously, your best shot when I say to bring evidence is to tell me to bring evidence?
Sure.
What evidence do you want?
Weak, weak argument.
And you are telling me to shut the fuck up?
Grow some and learn to cuss.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=drboom]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.
[/quote]
I think that people who stare at comp sheets all day probably are better at evaluating comps than those who don’t. But I would certainly be in favor of letting the piggs decide. And again I am fine with it being the case that non-representation was a good idea. I just want to see evidence.

[quote=drboom]
Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.
[/quote]
So if I disagree with you, then my opinion is worthless?
Not a strong argument dude.
I think that being an agent is easy.
It has a very low threshold for legal standing and very easy minimum qualifications.
I think that being good or successful at it is rather tough.
That is why Dave Baum (sdr), Adam Rappoport (SD_R) and Dan Cassidy (that’s me) are still in business and generally only have time to make friends (or enemies) online whereas a lot of the people we competed with a few years ago are in different lines of work.
Its not reasonable to say that just because it looks easy to do it is.
There are lots of failed restaurants based on that premise.

[quote=drboom]
If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

[/quote]
I don’t think people are being dishonest I just want them to show their work.
I think that what looks like a good idea is often dependent on limited or skewed information.
However, if someone thinks they have a great deal without representation, I would like to see that and compare it to those who DO have representation.

I think that if someone is going to go on about how they have a great strategy (like working unrepresented or with the listing agent) they should show the stellar results they claim.

[quote=drboom]

xoxo,
-drboom[/quote]

So dude, seriously, your best shot when I say to bring evidence is to tell me to bring evidence?
Sure.
What evidence do you want?
Weak, weak argument.
And you are telling me to shut the fuck up?
Grow some and learn to cuss.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=drboom]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.
[/quote]
I think that people who stare at comp sheets all day probably are better at evaluating comps than those who don’t. But I would certainly be in favor of letting the piggs decide. And again I am fine with it being the case that non-representation was a good idea. I just want to see evidence.

[quote=drboom]
Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.
[/quote]
So if I disagree with you, then my opinion is worthless?
Not a strong argument dude.
I think that being an agent is easy.
It has a very low threshold for legal standing and very easy minimum qualifications.
I think that being good or successful at it is rather tough.
That is why Dave Baum (sdr), Adam Rappoport (SD_R) and Dan Cassidy (that’s me) are still in business and generally only have time to make friends (or enemies) online whereas a lot of the people we competed with a few years ago are in different lines of work.
Its not reasonable to say that just because it looks easy to do it is.
There are lots of failed restaurants based on that premise.

[quote=drboom]
If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

[/quote]
I don’t think people are being dishonest I just want them to show their work.
I think that what looks like a good idea is often dependent on limited or skewed information.
However, if someone thinks they have a great deal without representation, I would like to see that and compare it to those who DO have representation.

I think that if someone is going to go on about how they have a great strategy (like working unrepresented or with the listing agent) they should show the stellar results they claim.

[quote=drboom]

xoxo,
-drboom[/quote]

So dude, seriously, your best shot when I say to bring evidence is to tell me to bring evidence?
Sure.
What evidence do you want?
Weak, weak argument.
And you are telling me to shut the fuck up?
Grow some and learn to cuss.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=drboom]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.
[/quote]
I think that people who stare at comp sheets all day probably are better at evaluating comps than those who don’t. But I would certainly be in favor of letting the piggs decide. And again I am fine with it being the case that non-representation was a good idea. I just want to see evidence.

[quote=drboom]
Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.
[/quote]
So if I disagree with you, then my opinion is worthless?
Not a strong argument dude.
I think that being an agent is easy.
It has a very low threshold for legal standing and very easy minimum qualifications.
I think that being good or successful at it is rather tough.
That is why Dave Baum (sdr), Adam Rappoport (SD_R) and Dan Cassidy (that’s me) are still in business and generally only have time to make friends (or enemies) online whereas a lot of the people we competed with a few years ago are in different lines of work.
Its not reasonable to say that just because it looks easy to do it is.
There are lots of failed restaurants based on that premise.

[quote=drboom]
If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

[/quote]
I don’t think people are being dishonest I just want them to show their work.
I think that what looks like a good idea is often dependent on limited or skewed information.
However, if someone thinks they have a great deal without representation, I would like to see that and compare it to those who DO have representation.

I think that if someone is going to go on about how they have a great strategy (like working unrepresented or with the listing agent) they should show the stellar results they claim.

[quote=drboom]

xoxo,
-drboom[/quote]

So dude, seriously, your best shot when I say to bring evidence is to tell me to bring evidence?
Sure.
What evidence do you want?
Weak, weak argument.
And you are telling me to shut the fuck up?
Grow some and learn to cuss.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=drboom]

I don’t qualify since I ended up buying with an agent.

But once again, we have a pro who thinks only other pros can determine whether a deal was good or not. The schoolyard taunts are funny but misplaced.
[/quote]
I think that people who stare at comp sheets all day probably are better at evaluating comps than those who don’t. But I would certainly be in favor of letting the piggs decide. And again I am fine with it being the case that non-representation was a good idea. I just want to see evidence.

[quote=drboom]
Just how hard do you think this stuff is? If you think it’s hard, I submit you’re not all that bright to begin with–so your opinion is worthless one way or the other. If you think it’s easy but requires the all-seeing and all-knowing MLS, I’ve already dealt with that elsewhere: see the “cult” thread.
[/quote]
So if I disagree with you, then my opinion is worthless?
Not a strong argument dude.
I think that being an agent is easy.
It has a very low threshold for legal standing and very easy minimum qualifications.
I think that being good or successful at it is rather tough.
That is why Dave Baum (sdr), Adam Rappoport (SD_R) and Dan Cassidy (that’s me) are still in business and generally only have time to make friends (or enemies) online whereas a lot of the people we competed with a few years ago are in different lines of work.
Its not reasonable to say that just because it looks easy to do it is.
There are lots of failed restaurants based on that premise.

[quote=drboom]
If you think people are being dishonest, then I’d like to know who you think is full of $#!t and why. If you can’t come up with anything concrete, then STFU and bring some data to the discussion like you did in the previous post.

[/quote]
I don’t think people are being dishonest I just want them to show their work.
I think that what looks like a good idea is often dependent on limited or skewed information.
However, if someone thinks they have a great deal without representation, I would like to see that and compare it to those who DO have representation.

I think that if someone is going to go on about how they have a great strategy (like working unrepresented or with the listing agent) they should show the stellar results they claim.

[quote=drboom]

xoxo,
-drboom[/quote]

So dude, seriously, your best shot when I say to bring evidence is to tell me to bring evidence?
Sure.
What evidence do you want?
Weak, weak argument.
And you are telling me to shut the fuck up?
Grow some and learn to cuss.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=njtosd]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.
[/quote]

I think the rape analogy stems from the fact that I sometimes feel like a slinger in an episode of the wire. And no, I don’t think that you have to have testicles to respond. I was being facetious (perhaps rather roughly).
I do think though that this thread is generally a lovely conjectural nugget and not something borne out by actual experience.

Give me a zip code or area to work with.

I would like to look at it and see what the actual data says.

If it turns out that exclusive agent representation (where each agent represents one side exclusively) does not actually add valued (which is the essential argument in this thread) then I would like to know.

I have a vested interest in knowing one way or the other.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=njtosd]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.
[/quote]

I think the rape analogy stems from the fact that I sometimes feel like a slinger in an episode of the wire. And no, I don’t think that you have to have testicles to respond. I was being facetious (perhaps rather roughly).
I do think though that this thread is generally a lovely conjectural nugget and not something borne out by actual experience.

Give me a zip code or area to work with.

I would like to look at it and see what the actual data says.

If it turns out that exclusive agent representation (where each agent represents one side exclusively) does not actually add valued (which is the essential argument in this thread) then I would like to know.

I have a vested interest in knowing one way or the other.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=njtosd]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.
[/quote]

I think the rape analogy stems from the fact that I sometimes feel like a slinger in an episode of the wire. And no, I don’t think that you have to have testicles to respond. I was being facetious (perhaps rather roughly).
I do think though that this thread is generally a lovely conjectural nugget and not something borne out by actual experience.

Give me a zip code or area to work with.

I would like to look at it and see what the actual data says.

If it turns out that exclusive agent representation (where each agent represents one side exclusively) does not actually add valued (which is the essential argument in this thread) then I would like to know.

I have a vested interest in knowing one way or the other.

[urbanrealtor]

[quote=njtosd]

I never thought that in the course of a two related threads I would find two real estate professionals resorting to rape analogies. Is there a reason for this? There are a lot of other analogies out there from which to choose. Maybe urbanrealtor could give us some statistics on the likelihood that this coincidence is random.

Also, I’m not so sure that “a pair” is so terribly necessary to answering your questions. As for me, I haven’t claimed to have purchased without an agent, although I am considering it with respect to our next home purchase.
[/quote]

I think the rape analogy stems from the fact that I sometimes feel like a slinger in an episode of the wire. And no, I don’t think that you have to have testicles to respond. I was being facetious (perhaps rather roughly).
I do think though that this thread is generally a lovely conjectural nugget and not something borne out by actual experience.

Give me a zip code or area to work with.

I would like to look at it and see what the actual data says.

If it turns out that exclusive agent representation (where each agent represents one side exclusively) does not actually add valued (which is the essential argument in this thread) then I would like to know.

I have a vested interest in knowing one way or the other.

[Author]

Posts