Admittedly, I've never worked in real estate other than the brief stories with my father. >> A great agent can be the difference between getting a property or

Admittedly, I've never worked in real estate other than the brief stories with my father. >> A great agent can be the difference between getting a property or not. I've heard such success stories, and I agree with you. An agent knowledgeable about one city would be ill suited to sell homes in another. It's very difficult for an agent to transition between cities, even if that agent is excellent at selling properties in his or her current city. Success depends too much on how much an agent knows about the local region and community. The point I was trying to make was that the amount of knowledge is relatively constant (e.g. what sellers look for in a buyer), it's just a different body of knowledge that depends on the region. >> You do realize that the number of pocket listings has grown substantially in the past several years, right? No, I did not realize, sorry for my narrow perspective! >> They're far more likely to be tapped into the networks that will give their clients access to properties that haven't hit the MLS. This is again to my point - the success of an agent depends more on what they know about their region (e.g. available properties, all-cash offers vs. larger offers, etc.), than the actual amount of work. IMHO it simply isn't enough of a difference to justify a 10-fold increase in price. Palo Alto is an extreme example. There are likely niche communities where buyers would rather pay a fixed-cost and accept the risk inherent with taking a less-reputable agent.