3 ms·

The realtor cartels that control the listing databases should be made illegal. I don't have to go through a middleman to take some pictures, write a blurb and i

The realtor cartels that control the listing databases should be made illegal. I don't have to go through a middleman to take some pictures, write a blurb and input some data to sell my truck. I shouldn't have to go through the same to sell my house.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
I mean you could list your house on Craigslist or something, you don't necessarily have to go through the database to sell it, no?
- mikestew 3y ago
  That's like saying, "you don't have to own a car in the U. S.". Yes, it's possible, and many do it. Just like we bought our current house without involving realtors. At the same time one cannot just dismiss the fact that the whole system is built around the involvement of realtors, just as most U. S. cities are built around the idea that to get from A to B you will use a car. A friend asks you, "you think I should sell my house on Craigslist?". What disadvantages of that choice would you list for them versus using a realtor?
  - BobaFloutist 3y ago
    No, you're totally right. I was mostly thinking it over myself, why in the day and age of instant cheap internet listing houses are still mostly sold through realtors through a proprietary database. And I guess it's because they're just sooo expensive that everyone wants to be super sure to get everything right.
    - mikestew 3y ago
      No, you're totally right. Eh, I don't know about that, but you're not wrong, either. Because were we to go look at a house today, we'd hit Zillow/RedFin to narrow down our choices, or even pick a single house that fits our needs. A realtor at that point, from the buyer's side, is adding what value, exactly? Now, the realtor can point out a few transactional details, maybe even point out something about that house that we didn't notice (though that's kinda what inspectors are for). Is that worth 5% of the price? I argue a strong "no". So I would your comment around and agree that we don't need realtors like we used to, but I stand by my statement that one with currently have a rougher go of it without.
      - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
        Looking around it seems that most houses here are sold with a 5% realtor fee. This means that the seller immediately bumps up their price by 5%, because they have an idea in mind of with how much money they want to walk away with. And then there is the issue of when a buyer choses not to use an agent, which makes the seller's agent pocket the WHOLE commission. It's not that the seller only pays 2.5%. It's not that the buyer get's the 50% of the commission. The only person who is eligible for the other part of the commission is someone who is part of the same cult.
      - BoiledCabbage 3y ago
        That's effectively what it boils down to. There is no competition for the hiring of realtors at any market rate. It's baked into the contract itself (and related to the lawsuit I believe). If I walked into a realty office and one said, hey I'll do XYZ for you for a flat fee of $1000 and another say and I'll do the same thing for $15,000 people would dig pretty closely into what the difference is in service being provided. The fact (as the article says) it's rolled into a contract and the contract of the house itself, and the contract sets the realtor's price is what really makes no sense and needs to change. How in the world are you allowed to specify how much I pay my agent?? Could you imaging doing something like that with atty fees in a lawsuit? You sue me and I decide how much your lawyer gets paid.
      - robbbed 3y ago
        In that scenario you wouldn't pick a buyers agent you'd go directly to the listing agent. They'd represent both parties in that example. I'd imagine maybe the seller can negotiate the commission down since the selling agent is getting both sides. I'd argue we'll still need buyers agents in the future but not as many. If you already know the area and what you want then just look, pick a home and contact the listing agent. If you need someone familiar with the area who can guide and negotiate on your behalf then you'll want a buyer's agent. I think we can have both scenarios, no?

BobaFloutist 3y ago

I mean you could list your house on Craigslist or something, you don't necessarily have to go through the database to sell it, no?

mikestew 3y ago
That's like saying, "you don't have to own a car in the U. S.". Yes, it's possible, and many do it. Just like we bought our current house without involving realtors. At the same time one cannot just dismiss the fact that the whole system is built around the involvement of realtors, just as most U. S. cities are built around the idea that to get from A to B you will use a car. A friend asks you, "you think I should sell my house on Craigslist?". What disadvantages of that choice would you list for them versus using a realtor?
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  No, you're totally right. I was mostly thinking it over myself, why in the day and age of instant cheap internet listing houses are still mostly sold through realtors through a proprietary database. And I guess it's because they're just sooo expensive that everyone wants to be super sure to get everything right.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    No, you're totally right. Eh, I don't know about that, but you're not wrong, either. Because were we to go look at a house today, we'd hit Zillow/RedFin to narrow down our choices, or even pick a single house that fits our needs. A realtor at that point, from the buyer's side, is adding what value, exactly? Now, the realtor can point out a few transactional details, maybe even point out something about that house that we didn't notice (though that's kinda what inspectors are for). Is that worth 5% of the price? I argue a strong "no". So I would your comment around and agree that we don't need realtors like we used to, but I stand by my statement that one with currently have a rougher go of it without.
    - WirelessGigabit 3y ago
      Looking around it seems that most houses here are sold with a 5% realtor fee. This means that the seller immediately bumps up their price by 5%, because they have an idea in mind of with how much money they want to walk away with. And then there is the issue of when a buyer choses not to use an agent, which makes the seller's agent pocket the WHOLE commission. It's not that the seller only pays 2.5%. It's not that the buyer get's the 50% of the commission. The only person who is eligible for the other part of the commission is someone who is part of the same cult.
    - BoiledCabbage 3y ago
      That's effectively what it boils down to. There is no competition for the hiring of realtors at any market rate. It's baked into the contract itself (and related to the lawsuit I believe). If I walked into a realty office and one said, hey I'll do XYZ for you for a flat fee of $1000 and another say and I'll do the same thing for $15,000 people would dig pretty closely into what the difference is in service being provided. The fact (as the article says) it's rolled into a contract and the contract of the house itself, and the contract sets the realtor's price is what really makes no sense and needs to change. How in the world are you allowed to specify how much I pay my agent?? Could you imaging doing something like that with atty fees in a lawsuit? You sue me and I decide how much your lawyer gets paid.
    - robbbed 3y ago
      In that scenario you wouldn't pick a buyers agent you'd go directly to the listing agent. They'd represent both parties in that example. I'd imagine maybe the seller can negotiate the commission down since the selling agent is getting both sides. I'd argue we'll still need buyers agents in the future but not as many. If you already know the area and what you want then just look, pick a home and contact the listing agent. If you need someone familiar with the area who can guide and negotiate on your behalf then you'll want a buyer's agent. I think we can have both scenarios, no?