Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
urbanrealtor
ParticipantDr Boom,
You flap a lot in that last post but say very little other than you value your privacy too much to back up what you say.Okay then.
And by definition, you are not required to pay for services you don’t need.
You have expressed that there are lots of poorly informed people in the FSBO world.
This implies that the Realtor-structured market is the one you find preferable.
Ergo, it seems that you really are complaining that you can’t work in the Realtor world with out dealing with Realtors.
Like I said, show some results in your alternative version or step off.
And no, I didn’t misread anything you wrote.
You are just too much of a coward to defend your position when challenged and now you want to “nuance” it (seriously, data vs evidence?) to seem like less of a fool.
At a personal level, you don’t know crap about me except that I find your assertions and reasoning retarded beyond words.
Again, just show me some actual evidence (or data) in support of your position and I will acknowledge it.
You suggest stepping up the game when someone comes down to your level of discourse and yet you are at a total loss to defend your position.
I am truly wowed by your insights.
Participant[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]
It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.
Participant[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]
It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.
Participant[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]
It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.
Participant[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]
It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.
Participant[quote=sjglaze3]My attorney fee for that sale was about $450. And it was roughly the same when I bought the house. Over there, the attorney acts as the title company/escrow company. The big difference in the UK is the disclosures, as in, there arn’t any. The emphasis is on the buyer to do their due diligence with the help of a good building inspector. Tax and HOA issues are really non-existent for most UK property. Also, most houses there are seriously old (my 1896 house was considered pretty average), so it’s almost inevitable there will be repair issues. Perhaps, people’s expectations here are much higher. They are buying their dream home and want everything to be perfect.[/quote]
It may also be that houses that old have a more stable set of known issues. You know that xy and z need replacement every so often. I suspect the relative newness of American homes adds in a lot of variables. Interesting.
Participant[quote=njtosd]With respect to my posts, your comparison is off the mark. My argument has never been that a single agent representing both buyer and seller is better or worse than each having their own. The data that I would be interested in (let’s say for 92130) is a comparison of sales where agents were involved on both sides to those where one or both parties were represented by an attorney or represented themselves. My guess is that it’s a hard comparison to make, because most of the time agents are involved on both sides.[/quote]
That is not a real distinction.
Almost never does a side go unrepresented.
Most people who think that they are unrepresented, have the listing agent on as “selling agent” (which means buyers agent).
The fact that they are unaware of this is an unpleasant example of the extreme informational disparity.
As far as attorneys, that is even more rare (like less than 1%).The only real distinction (for statistical purposes) is between transactions where buyer and seller each have their own (distinct) agents and those that do not.
Personal story:
I have an listing that has gotten 7 offers in the last week (9457 Ronda) and today I got a call from a guy who says he is a buyer and wants to meet me in my office to write up an offer. I don’t know this guy. However here is the drill I expect to go through. He will either tell me that he will represent himself or that I can double end. He may ask for a buyer rebate.
Here is what I will do:
I will advise him he can have a rebate from me if its on a different property. If its my listing he wants, I will call another agent whom I trust to be ethical and honest (not a long list). I will probably refuse to write the offer for him if he insists on being unrepresented. If he pushes it then I will give him a blank piece of paper and ask him to write it himself.Participant[quote=njtosd]With respect to my posts, your comparison is off the mark. My argument has never been that a single agent representing both buyer and seller is better or worse than each having their own. The data that I would be interested in (let’s say for 92130) is a comparison of sales where agents were involved on both sides to those where one or both parties were represented by an attorney or represented themselves. My guess is that it’s a hard comparison to make, because most of the time agents are involved on both sides.[/quote]
That is not a real distinction.
Almost never does a side go unrepresented.
Most people who think that they are unrepresented, have the listing agent on as “selling agent” (which means buyers agent).
The fact that they are unaware of this is an unpleasant example of the extreme informational disparity.
As far as attorneys, that is even more rare (like less than 1%).The only real distinction (for statistical purposes) is between transactions where buyer and seller each have their own (distinct) agents and those that do not.
Personal story:
I have an listing that has gotten 7 offers in the last week (9457 Ronda) and today I got a call from a guy who says he is a buyer and wants to meet me in my office to write up an offer. I don’t know this guy. However here is the drill I expect to go through. He will either tell me that he will represent himself or that I can double end. He may ask for a buyer rebate.
Here is what I will do:
I will advise him he can have a rebate from me if its on a different property. If its my listing he wants, I will call another agent whom I trust to be ethical and honest (not a long list). I will probably refuse to write the offer for him if he insists on being unrepresented. If he pushes it then I will give him a blank piece of paper and ask him to write it himself.Participant[quote=njtosd]With respect to my posts, your comparison is off the mark. My argument has never been that a single agent representing both buyer and seller is better or worse than each having their own. The data that I would be interested in (let’s say for 92130) is a comparison of sales where agents were involved on both sides to those where one or both parties were represented by an attorney or represented themselves. My guess is that it’s a hard comparison to make, because most of the time agents are involved on both sides.[/quote]
That is not a real distinction.
Almost never does a side go unrepresented.
Most people who think that they are unrepresented, have the listing agent on as “selling agent” (which means buyers agent).
The fact that they are unaware of this is an unpleasant example of the extreme informational disparity.
As far as attorneys, that is even more rare (like less than 1%).The only real distinction (for statistical purposes) is between transactions where buyer and seller each have their own (distinct) agents and those that do not.
Personal story:
I have an listing that has gotten 7 offers in the last week (9457 Ronda) and today I got a call from a guy who says he is a buyer and wants to meet me in my office to write up an offer. I don’t know this guy. However here is the drill I expect to go through. He will either tell me that he will represent himself or that I can double end. He may ask for a buyer rebate.
Here is what I will do:
I will advise him he can have a rebate from me if its on a different property. If its my listing he wants, I will call another agent whom I trust to be ethical and honest (not a long list). I will probably refuse to write the offer for him if he insists on being unrepresented. If he pushes it then I will give him a blank piece of paper and ask him to write it himself.Participant[quote=njtosd]With respect to my posts, your comparison is off the mark. My argument has never been that a single agent representing both buyer and seller is better or worse than each having their own. The data that I would be interested in (let’s say for 92130) is a comparison of sales where agents were involved on both sides to those where one or both parties were represented by an attorney or represented themselves. My guess is that it’s a hard comparison to make, because most of the time agents are involved on both sides.[/quote]
That is not a real distinction.
Almost never does a side go unrepresented.
Most people who think that they are unrepresented, have the listing agent on as “selling agent” (which means buyers agent).
The fact that they are unaware of this is an unpleasant example of the extreme informational disparity.
As far as attorneys, that is even more rare (like less than 1%).The only real distinction (for statistical purposes) is between transactions where buyer and seller each have their own (distinct) agents and those that do not.
Personal story:
I have an listing that has gotten 7 offers in the last week (9457 Ronda) and today I got a call from a guy who says he is a buyer and wants to meet me in my office to write up an offer. I don’t know this guy. However here is the drill I expect to go through. He will either tell me that he will represent himself or that I can double end. He may ask for a buyer rebate.
Here is what I will do:
I will advise him he can have a rebate from me if its on a different property. If its my listing he wants, I will call another agent whom I trust to be ethical and honest (not a long list). I will probably refuse to write the offer for him if he insists on being unrepresented. If he pushes it then I will give him a blank piece of paper and ask him to write it himself.Participant[quote=njtosd]With respect to my posts, your comparison is off the mark. My argument has never been that a single agent representing both buyer and seller is better or worse than each having their own. The data that I would be interested in (let’s say for 92130) is a comparison of sales where agents were involved on both sides to those where one or both parties were represented by an attorney or represented themselves. My guess is that it’s a hard comparison to make, because most of the time agents are involved on both sides.[/quote]
That is not a real distinction.
Almost never does a side go unrepresented.
Most people who think that they are unrepresented, have the listing agent on as “selling agent” (which means buyers agent).
The fact that they are unaware of this is an unpleasant example of the extreme informational disparity.
As far as attorneys, that is even more rare (like less than 1%).The only real distinction (for statistical purposes) is between transactions where buyer and seller each have their own (distinct) agents and those that do not.
Personal story:
I have an listing that has gotten 7 offers in the last week (9457 Ronda) and today I got a call from a guy who says he is a buyer and wants to meet me in my office to write up an offer. I don’t know this guy. However here is the drill I expect to go through. He will either tell me that he will represent himself or that I can double end. He may ask for a buyer rebate.
Here is what I will do:
I will advise him he can have a rebate from me if its on a different property. If its my listing he wants, I will call another agent whom I trust to be ethical and honest (not a long list). I will probably refuse to write the offer for him if he insists on being unrepresented. If he pushes it then I will give him a blank piece of paper and ask him to write it himself.Participant[quote=sjglaze3]This is an interesting thread. I’ve often wondered how realtors can justify their 6% fee. I sold my house in England 10 years ago and spent 1.5% on the commission. This is typical over there – I just googled it and 1-2% is still the norm. Then again, the total sales contract for the UK house ran to about 3 pages! When I bought a house over here, it took 30 pages just to make an offer. I was blown away by the difference. It seems to me that the whole process has been hijacked by lawyers and the term “buyer beware” which covers real estate transactions abroad doesn’t apply here.[/quote]
I think that its less about hijacking and more about people’s disappointment and financial damage.
Lots of people have bought and then been frustrated to find out that there was some wacky defect (high tax rate, damaged sewer line, an undisclosed hoa rule that screws up your plans for a home office). Generally, in the UK, “estate sales” as you call them, are retail sales and therefore favor agents that act primarily as retail salesmen.Riddle me this:
What happens to your financial calculus when you take attorney fees into account?Participant[quote=sjglaze3]This is an interesting thread. I’ve often wondered how realtors can justify their 6% fee. I sold my house in England 10 years ago and spent 1.5% on the commission. This is typical over there – I just googled it and 1-2% is still the norm. Then again, the total sales contract for the UK house ran to about 3 pages! When I bought a house over here, it took 30 pages just to make an offer. I was blown away by the difference. It seems to me that the whole process has been hijacked by lawyers and the term “buyer beware” which covers real estate transactions abroad doesn’t apply here.[/quote]
I think that its less about hijacking and more about people’s disappointment and financial damage.
Lots of people have bought and then been frustrated to find out that there was some wacky defect (high tax rate, damaged sewer line, an undisclosed hoa rule that screws up your plans for a home office). Generally, in the UK, “estate sales” as you call them, are retail sales and therefore favor agents that act primarily as retail salesmen.Riddle me this:
What happens to your financial calculus when you take attorney fees into account?Participant[quote=sjglaze3]This is an interesting thread. I’ve often wondered how realtors can justify their 6% fee. I sold my house in England 10 years ago and spent 1.5% on the commission. This is typical over there – I just googled it and 1-2% is still the norm. Then again, the total sales contract for the UK house ran to about 3 pages! When I bought a house over here, it took 30 pages just to make an offer. I was blown away by the difference. It seems to me that the whole process has been hijacked by lawyers and the term “buyer beware” which covers real estate transactions abroad doesn’t apply here.[/quote]
I think that its less about hijacking and more about people’s disappointment and financial damage.
Lots of people have bought and then been frustrated to find out that there was some wacky defect (high tax rate, damaged sewer line, an undisclosed hoa rule that screws up your plans for a home office). Generally, in the UK, “estate sales” as you call them, are retail sales and therefore favor agents that act primarily as retail salesmen.Riddle me this:
What happens to your financial calculus when you take attorney fees into account? -
AuthorPosts
