4 ms·
We had to because the sellers insisted on using an agent themselves, because their realtor convinced them they had to, and then that agent then insisted that we
by etchalon 3y ago
We had to because the sellers insisted on using an agent themselves, because their realtor convinced them they had to, and then that agent then insisted that we use a realtor too.
And that's before I bring up how everyone, from the titling company, to the attorney, to the inspector, also insisted we "needed" a realtor, with multiple potential vendors refusing to talk to me without one.
It felt, at the time, like a racket, with everyone in on the grift.
- eddythompson80 3y agoI see. Honestly it feels more like your seller’s choice to go with a realtor. Then it’s the typical realtor preference to deal with another realtor. It’s like how a judge would hate to deal with a self representing defendant. It’s just a lot more hassle for them and they don’t wanna hold anyone’s hand throughout the process. Unless there are cities or counties with weird laws I’m not familiar with, you can always direct sell/buy. Due to where my place is, I get almost a monthly or bimonthly letter from a couple of well known developers in the area that usually highlight “no banks, no realtors” an they are looking to pay cash and handle all paper work themselves. It seems that the grift in your case was every body’s else’s convenience but yours, and that convenience costed 6%
- etchalon 3y agoI was literally going to just take the courses and become a licensed realtor in Texas myself (it would have been cheaper than the 3%) but the grift goes deeper as you can't get become a licensed realtor in Texas without being sponsored by/working for a Broker. Grifts all the way down.