5 ms·

I've used buyers agents (1 traditional, 1 Redfin) when I've bought homes since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees and in most states I believe they are

I've used buyers agents (1 traditional, 1 Redfin) when I've bought homes since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees and in most states I believe they are legally bound to act in your best interest. I've had a new construction seller try to convince me to not get an agent and would give a discount instead but felt that the risk wasn't worth it especially since most buyers agents I've engaged with have been open to refunding some of the fee if you're doing most of the legwork to find homes, tour them, etc.

walrus01 8y ago
The other thing you should absolutely never do, as a buyer, is use a home inspector recommended by either the seller's agent, the seller themselves, or even your own buyers agent. Choose one yourself. Anything else and they have too much of an incentive to produce an inspection report that will result in a quickly closed sale.
- jermaustin1 8y ago
  Seems like they would open themselves up to some sort of liability if that happens.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- paradygm 8y ago
  Disclosure: my spouse is a home inspector It's a bit extreme outright dismiss an inspector just because they are recommended by your own agent (there is no reason whatsoever to even ask the selling agent for such advice). After all, you've hired them for their expertise and advice, and they see and know a lot more home inspectors than you. Of course, look at the recommended inspectors and do your own homework, like anything else. But if you can't trust your agent to recommend an inspection I question why you are working with them in the first place.
  - smileysteve 8y ago
    While the inspector recommended by your agent might be fine, there is an implied incentive/bias for the inspector to help close the sale; The recommending agent is a marketing arm for the inspector; if the wrong deal falls apart because of the inspection, the inspector knows the agent isn't going to get their commission, whether or not that means they'll recommend them with as much fervor the next time can be largely dependent on how badly the agent needed the money that time. But, by hiring without an agent referral; the inspector has no incentive to approve a house that shouldn't be approved; you're not going to be the new marketing arm. Indeed, absent a relationship with an agent, the inspector has an interest in inspecting as many properties for you as possible, and therefore finding as many deal breakers as possible.
    - paradygm 8y ago
      The flaw here is in thinking just because you find an inspector on your own that makes a difference in incentives. Who do you think the inspector has the most incentive to impress? The buyer whom they most likely will never see again or the agent who can potentially provide more and more clients?
      - smileysteve 8y ago
        This is my point in the last paragraph; you should ideally never let them meet.
- gamechangr 8y ago
  My mother owns a residential real estate brokerage. She's siting next to me and thinks the previous post has misguided advise. She has been a broker for over 30 years. She recommends that you always ask your agent for a home inspector recommendation. "We pick the best home inspectors by the ones that performed the best in previous deals. We don't get $1 for recommendations. We wouldn't want to incase there was ever a problem down the road. Getting a high quality home inspector is much harder than it looks.".
  - walrus01 8y ago
    Respectfully, I would ask if your mother has ever worked in a residential real estate market as overheated and bubble-like such as the metro Vancouver BC area. Shadow-flipping, assignments, double dealing have become the norm here. https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+real+estate+corruption&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+real+estate+corrup...
    - gamechangr 8y ago
      There are many many markets. Totally agree there. I appreciate your point. But by the same token, you are extending a reality that might be in Vancouver to all of real estate markets. This is one of the issue that I think makes Real Estate so complexed is that it's super easy to group it together as if 200 cities are one market. I wouldn't even know if you could group large areas together (like all agents in.... 'The South" "The west coast" "The East Coast"...do it this way.)
harryh 8y ago
since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees This is a myth perpetuated by buyer's agents. Just because you aren't writing a check doesn't mean it doesn't come out of your pocket. It's like sales tax. It's collected and paid to the government by stores, but it makes everything you buy more expensive.
- sokoloff 8y ago
  I agree with you based on who is bringing the money to the table, but in most cases, the seller has signed a contract with the listing agent stating the fee structure for the deal before you made an offer on the house. The seller has obligated themselves to that structure, so you're not saving money by doing it yourself. I found our house entirely myself, but brought in an agent on "my" side with whom I'd negotiated a 75bpp refund if I bought a specific property. I did and they cut me a check (out of my own money) at closing. In retrospect, I perhaps should have held out for a full point. (1 for the agent, 1 for the agent's brokerage, 1 for me)
  - harryh 8y ago
    Is there a reason you didn't do the deal without an agent and specify in your offer that you wanted the entire 3 points rebated back to you (which is kind of silly accounting, but whatever)? Certainly this would have been possible.
    - gamechangr 8y ago
      Curious..."how do you know "certainly this would have been possible?' Which market/city are you referencing?
      - harryh 8y ago
        certainly was perhaps too strong a word to use. How about "seemingly" ? I guess I'm saying I don't see any reason it shouldn't have been possible.
datavirtue 8y ago
And what risk was the agent mitigating for you exactly? They are not on the hook for anything but a check from the title agency.
honopu 8y ago
Some builders have their in office agent, depending on the state, that agent will represent both sides of the transaction in that case, so you aren't saving any money by not having an agent.

walrus01 8y ago

The other thing you should absolutely never do, as a buyer, is use a home inspector recommended by either the seller's agent, the seller themselves, or even your own buyers agent. Choose one yourself. Anything else and they have too much of an incentive to produce an inspection report that will result in a quickly closed sale.

jermaustin1 8y ago
Seems like they would open themselves up to some sort of liability if that happens.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
paradygm 8y ago
Disclosure: my spouse is a home inspector It's a bit extreme outright dismiss an inspector just because they are recommended by your own agent (there is no reason whatsoever to even ask the selling agent for such advice). After all, you've hired them for their expertise and advice, and they see and know a lot more home inspectors than you. Of course, look at the recommended inspectors and do your own homework, like anything else. But if you can't trust your agent to recommend an inspection I question why you are working with them in the first place.
- smileysteve 8y ago
  While the inspector recommended by your agent might be fine, there is an implied incentive/bias for the inspector to help close the sale; The recommending agent is a marketing arm for the inspector; if the wrong deal falls apart because of the inspection, the inspector knows the agent isn't going to get their commission, whether or not that means they'll recommend them with as much fervor the next time can be largely dependent on how badly the agent needed the money that time. But, by hiring without an agent referral; the inspector has no incentive to approve a house that shouldn't be approved; you're not going to be the new marketing arm. Indeed, absent a relationship with an agent, the inspector has an interest in inspecting as many properties for you as possible, and therefore finding as many deal breakers as possible.
  - paradygm 8y ago
    The flaw here is in thinking just because you find an inspector on your own that makes a difference in incentives. Who do you think the inspector has the most incentive to impress? The buyer whom they most likely will never see again or the agent who can potentially provide more and more clients?
    - smileysteve 8y ago
      This is my point in the last paragraph; you should ideally never let them meet.
gamechangr 8y ago
My mother owns a residential real estate brokerage. She's siting next to me and thinks the previous post has misguided advise. She has been a broker for over 30 years. She recommends that you always ask your agent for a home inspector recommendation. "We pick the best home inspectors by the ones that performed the best in previous deals. We don't get $1 for recommendations. We wouldn't want to incase there was ever a problem down the road. Getting a high quality home inspector is much harder than it looks.".
- walrus01 8y ago
  Respectfully, I would ask if your mother has ever worked in a residential real estate market as overheated and bubble-like such as the metro Vancouver BC area. Shadow-flipping, assignments, double dealing have become the norm here. https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+real+estate+corruption&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=vancouver+real+estate+corrup...
  - gamechangr 8y ago
    There are many many markets. Totally agree there. I appreciate your point. But by the same token, you are extending a reality that might be in Vancouver to all of real estate markets. This is one of the issue that I think makes Real Estate so complexed is that it's super easy to group it together as if 200 cities are one market. I wouldn't even know if you could group large areas together (like all agents in.... 'The South" "The west coast" "The East Coast"...do it this way.)

harryh 8y ago

since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees This is a myth perpetuated by buyer's agents. Just because you aren't writing a check doesn't mean it doesn't come out of your pocket. It's like sales tax. It's collected and paid to the government by stores, but it makes everything you buy more expensive.

sokoloff 8y ago
I agree with you based on who is bringing the money to the table, but in most cases, the seller has signed a contract with the listing agent stating the fee structure for the deal before you made an offer on the house. The seller has obligated themselves to that structure, so you're not saving money by doing it yourself. I found our house entirely myself, but brought in an agent on "my" side with whom I'd negotiated a 75bpp refund if I bought a specific property. I did and they cut me a check (out of my own money) at closing. In retrospect, I perhaps should have held out for a full point. (1 for the agent, 1 for the agent's brokerage, 1 for me)
- harryh 8y ago
  Is there a reason you didn't do the deal without an agent and specify in your offer that you wanted the entire 3 points rebated back to you (which is kind of silly accounting, but whatever)? Certainly this would have been possible.
  - gamechangr 8y ago
    Curious..."how do you know "certainly this would have been possible?' Which market/city are you referencing?
    - harryh 8y ago
      certainly was perhaps too strong a word to use. How about "seemingly" ? I guess I'm saying I don't see any reason it shouldn't have been possible.

datavirtue 8y ago

And what risk was the agent mitigating for you exactly? They are not on the hook for anything but a check from the title agency.

honopu 8y ago

Some builders have their in office agent, depending on the state, that agent will represent both sides of the transaction in that case, so you aren't saving any money by not having an agent.