3 ms·

You took my word "selling" replaced with "customer acquisition" then argued I was wrong. You're right, that the majority of the work of a 10 million dollar hou

You took my word "selling" replaced with "customer acquisition" then argued I was wrong. You're right, that the majority of the work of a 10 million dollar house is customer acquisition. And this isn't true of a 100k condo. But this was my point, 3% of a 100k home is close to the competitive market price. But 3% of a 10 million dollar home is pretty far away from the competitive market price.

conanbatt 8y ago
I'll try to rephrase it: 100x the comission might have 100x the competition. As a seller of the house, you pay more but you also get better agents.
- JamesBarney 8y ago
  You're not getting a 100x better agent, and most of the best i.e. most successful agents I've seen weren't necessarily better negotiators, better at contracts, or more responsive. They were specifically better @ marketing and selling themselves. The most successful agents I know close houses twice as fast as other agents. But they close them twice as fast as other agents because they're listing them under market value. My wife was a real estate agent for 5 years but she got out of it because all of the most successful agents she met were more successful in ways that hurt the client not helped them. Examples - convincing their clients to settle for homes quickly, convincing clients to list their house less than market value, weeding out easy clients.
  - conanbatt 8y ago
    My wife is also in the real estate market: the reality is that people's incentives are not maximized on house value, they also care about other things , like safety, patient, attention, etc. It is what it is. RE is not a perfect market because goods really cant be commoditized. I reiterate my point with one more argument: the average income of a realtor is very low: they make very little money. The number of active realtors is almost perfectly correlated with house prices: that means a highly competitive , and thus relatively efficient, system.

conanbatt 8y ago

I'll try to rephrase it: 100x the comission might have 100x the competition. As a seller of the house, you pay more but you also get better agents.

JamesBarney 8y ago
You're not getting a 100x better agent, and most of the best i.e. most successful agents I've seen weren't necessarily better negotiators, better at contracts, or more responsive. They were specifically better @ marketing and selling themselves. The most successful agents I know close houses twice as fast as other agents. But they close them twice as fast as other agents because they're listing them under market value. My wife was a real estate agent for 5 years but she got out of it because all of the most successful agents she met were more successful in ways that hurt the client not helped them. Examples - convincing their clients to settle for homes quickly, convincing clients to list their house less than market value, weeding out easy clients.
- conanbatt 8y ago
  My wife is also in the real estate market: the reality is that people's incentives are not maximized on house value, they also care about other things , like safety, patient, attention, etc. It is what it is. RE is not a perfect market because goods really cant be commoditized. I reiterate my point with one more argument: the average income of a realtor is very low: they make very little money. The number of active realtors is almost perfectly correlated with house prices: that means a highly competitive , and thus relatively efficient, system.