3 ms·
There are ethical and practical reasons to avoid a system where buyers have a financial incentive to go without representation. In practice buyers without repre
by gnopgnip 8y ago
There are ethical and practical reasons to avoid a system where buyers have a financial incentive to go without representation. In practice buyers without representation are unlikely to close, and sellers are unlikely to accept unrepresented sellers because the sellers agent would charge more money because. Neither the seller or the buy would save a substantial amount of money compared to the old system.
- laurencerowe 8y agoYet somehow people still manage to buy and sell houses in the UK where buyers have no agent representing them. Buyers pay a fixed or hourly fee to a lawyer for conveyancing and sellers pay 1-1.5% to their listing agent. Overall costs seem to end up well under half that in the US (5-6% of sale price).
- stevekemp 8y agoI do often shake my head at the ideas of "normal" that different countries have. I'm from the UK, but in Finland these days, and the way that both of these countries work is very similar. In America a lot of things are very odd with regard for property, even common things like tenants paying rent by posting/delivering cheques!
- njarboe 8y agoYes. One needs to get rid of the idea in everyones head that one needs a buyer and sellers agent. This is a pure network effect that is keeping this over-priced service intact. Similar to the AMA's restriction on medical school licensing.