3 ms·
While I'm usually against certification, I don't think one weeks worth of studying and a $300 fee is a huge barrier to entry to be able to oversee a $300,000 tr
by JamesBarney 11y ago
While I'm usually against certification, I don't think one weeks worth of studying and a $300 fee is a huge barrier to entry to be able to oversee a $300,000 transactions and have unrestricted access to 70% of houses on the market.
I don't think the market would change much if this barrier was removed. The median realtor is only $38,000 a year.
- aggieben 11y ago$300 fee? No, my friend. If you buy something on MLS, you pay at least half of a 6% commission on that $300k, for a cool $18,000 (if you have an easygoing seller, that is) How's that for a barrier to entry? And yah - the market would revolutionize overnight* because without professional licensing suddenly MLS becomes just one of many sources of data - and judging by the technology of MLS, a quickly irrelevant one. * - I exaggerate: it would take at least a fortnight.
- URSpider94 11y agoHe's referring to the cost to become licensed as a professional Realtor, at which point you can sell your own home.
- aggieben 11y agoYou can sell your own home without a license. He was referring to the "cost of entering the MLS market" (my paraphrase) being a mere $300 (for having an agent list the sale). My point is that's not true because any actual sale costs an additional 6% of the transaction.