Whose side is the agent on...
- Thread starter toughb
- Start date
Open Houses are a way to get several porspects into a home. The more people who see it the better the chance of it selling
While it's true that the more you make, the more they make, there's statistical evidence that agents leave their own houses on the market longer, and get a slightly better price, than when they are selling for someone else. In other words when they are selling your house they're motivated to close the deal and get paid. An extra 5% house value might be very significant for you, but only a bit of extra commission for them, versus a lot of extra work.
So while they are MOSTLY on your side, you should hold out just a bit to get the sort of price they'd get if it was their own house.
So while they are MOSTLY on your side, you should hold out just a bit to get the sort of price they'd get if it was their own house.
Here's one you'll like.
Open houses are a main stay for getting new clients. They use your home to solicit new buyers they can represent.
Other agents use your home as a selling tool. They have what they feel is a better house and they make double commission. They show yours down playing it and they take the buyers to their listing and upsell.
And we don't trust used car salesmen?
Open houses are a main stay for getting new clients. They use your home to solicit new buyers they can represent.
Other agents use your home as a selling tool. They have what they feel is a better house and they make double commission. They show yours down playing it and they take the buyers to their listing and upsell.
And we don't trust used car salesmen?
toughb said:
This is generally true. The chance that someone is going to walk in off the street and buy your home during an open house, is pretty slim. But the chance that the agent can capture the purchaser at the open house and sell them something else, which many be more sutable to the purchaser, is fairly good.
toughb said:
That would be a waste of time.
Agents with buyers just what to find the buyers a home that the buyers like, and will buy. There is generally little benifit to the agent in selling a home that they also have listed, other then to get the home sold, and be paid.
Often agents will agree that if they have a buyer that buys the property they have listed, they will reduce the commission. This is done to compete against all the ads that say 2.5% to sell your home. So, in some cases the last thing the agent wants is to sell his own listing, and lose out on the commission he would get if the buyer bought a home up the street.
fuji said:
Agents may not be representing themselves very well. Sometimes you can hold out and get a higher price, sometimes, if the market is moving up, or with some luck. But you have to balance the potential gains with the cost to carry the property, the stress, and other costs that could be present in different situations. Sometimes people get caught up in numbers for no real reason. Especially agents selling their own home. They have to get over a certain amount, or they have to get $5,000 more then market value. They may get it, but they often don’t. The list of properties owned by people who had to get that extra few thousand, that were on the market for some months and never sold, is often much longer then the list of sales. So, you have to decide what list you want to be on, and how long you are willing to hold out for that potential extra few thousand. Reality/desperation usually kicks in after 3 months or so.
If you can sell at a fair price, maybe a little fairer to the seller in this case, with a favorable closing, and a solid buyer, you are most likely better off then holding out for a couple of thousand more.
The good agent is on the side of the person who signed an agency form with him. The seller or the buyer.
Agents are looking out for themselves... I was selling my house & was in no hurry to sell. I put it at about almost 10% higher than the average price in my neighbourhood.
My house did not have anything that made it worth more than any others in the neighbourhood
The agent repeatedly asked me to lower it. I did not because I knew what I wanted and I knew it may take a little longer. Fortunately I did not listen to my agent as I ended up getting more than I was asking.
My house did not have anything that made it worth more than any others in the neighbourhood
The agent repeatedly asked me to lower it. I did not because I knew what I wanted and I knew it may take a little longer. Fortunately I did not listen to my agent as I ended up getting more than I was asking.
Last edited:
Not sure how many years ago the rules changed in real estate but your agent represents you and you alone now.
It used to be that all agents represented the seller. Now if you're a buyer your agent only represents you and a good agent will indeed be an asset.
I bought a home about 6 months ago after working with this agent for about 10 months in researching areas and visiting homes to get a feel for various neighborhoods and what we should be looking out for. We went out every friday afternoon when possible for a couple of hours and did our homework before the offer process started. We put in 3 offers the last was successful.
In each case we did visit an open house after seeing the home previously to get an extended tour.
The market last summer was such that a home would be listed on Tuesday, open house the next weekend and offers accepted the next Wednesday.
One week on the market and the open house was a strategic part of the selling.
Before each offer our agent did a market analysis (that took about 1.5 hours) of what had sold on the street, what the difference in price would be in that days market situation so we knew going in exactly what to offer. In previous years that more than likely didn't happen all the time as the agent rep'd only the seller.
I know in buying several homes in the 80's the market analysis was minimal if even offered.
So yes, your agent will work only for you and yes an open house is a good selling tool.
In every home we saw during an open house the agent selling was always polite and did ask if we were using an agent. Most were pleased we had an agent. It's very difficult repping both sides in a transaction with the new rules.
My suggestion is you look for an agent with at least 5 years experience. No slight intended to new agents but for the largest purchase in my life I like some experience on my side. Our guy has 23 years. We're still good friends. He lives in the area and we often have drinks or dinner. So it can have some positive benefits as well.
M2
It used to be that all agents represented the seller. Now if you're a buyer your agent only represents you and a good agent will indeed be an asset.
I bought a home about 6 months ago after working with this agent for about 10 months in researching areas and visiting homes to get a feel for various neighborhoods and what we should be looking out for. We went out every friday afternoon when possible for a couple of hours and did our homework before the offer process started. We put in 3 offers the last was successful.
In each case we did visit an open house after seeing the home previously to get an extended tour.
The market last summer was such that a home would be listed on Tuesday, open house the next weekend and offers accepted the next Wednesday.
One week on the market and the open house was a strategic part of the selling.
Before each offer our agent did a market analysis (that took about 1.5 hours) of what had sold on the street, what the difference in price would be in that days market situation so we knew going in exactly what to offer. In previous years that more than likely didn't happen all the time as the agent rep'd only the seller.
I know in buying several homes in the 80's the market analysis was minimal if even offered.
So yes, your agent will work only for you and yes an open house is a good selling tool.
In every home we saw during an open house the agent selling was always polite and did ask if we were using an agent. Most were pleased we had an agent. It's very difficult repping both sides in a transaction with the new rules.
My suggestion is you look for an agent with at least 5 years experience. No slight intended to new agents but for the largest purchase in my life I like some experience on my side. Our guy has 23 years. We're still good friends. He lives in the area and we often have drinks or dinner. So it can have some positive benefits as well.
M2
An open house makes or breaks the sellers chances depending on how its handled. I have been to some abysmal propertis where the agent was more interested in your contact info than selling you the property. I have been to some others where the agent makes you feel like a betrayer if you dare walk out without committing to an offer.
MarkII said:
The reason for an open house is to capture buyers. Even when people say they have an agent, they could be lying, and call the friendly agent at the open house later.
There is no difficulty at all in representing both sides of a sale, buyer and seller. It could easier because as agent has control of both parties. Having another agent involved could be good if the buyers/sellers are difficult. Then he has someone else to blame problems on.
KBear said:
Kbear you have some excellent points. I found in MY recent purchase it was the opposite. I won't debate it as it comes down to personal opinion.
There is a home directly behind us that was listed 3 weeks ago. Sign went up thursday, open house on the weekend and on Monday a home inspector was seen on the roof. Sold sign out on Wednesday morning. I have to assume the open house did play a part. There had to be 300 people each day coming through, made for a parking nightmare!
Ya..some agents will try and be the every person agent, but I'd rather have my own person looking out for me. That trust comes from working with an agent for some time prior to making an offer.
I would never personally make an offer on a home with the listing agent. There is just too much room for ahem.."options" if you get my gist.
M2
MarkII said:
Earlier you were speaking about the agency relationship, dual agency. It is not a problem for the agent, from agency standpoint, to represent both parties. From the buyers side, walking into an open house and agreeing to buy it without some inside knowledge could be a mistake.
If your trusty agent went out, knocked on doors, found the home you wanted, and listed it exclusively, would you not be willing to buy it even though he represents both parties?
KBear said:
No..I would not is the answer.
Look this isn't a pissing contest. You have your thoughts and I have mine.
Simply different perspectives.
As to your earlier statement that open houses are "The reason for an open house is to capture buyers" well yes it is, why else would they do it? The objective is to sell the home and maximize the return for the seller.
I only tried to correct the info that agents have to represent each party separately now rather than the model they followed a few years back.
M2
Agents represent themselves. They want the property to move as soon as possible. A few thousand dollars one way or the other is irrelevent to them. I personaly don't have a lot of respect for real estate agents. Their right up there with lawyers. Can't live with them and can't live without them.
Keener is bang on, they want to sell your house as fast as they can. One of their favorite sales pitches is "This offer is 93% of the asking price" sounds good but that 7% is $14,000 on a $200,000 home, your loss! They would rather have 2 1/2% (most are split sales) of 186,000 with a quick sale than try and get you $200,000 and take another 4-6 weeks of trying to sell the house. Of that 14,000 they will only get about $200, not worth it to them. 5% of 14,000 is $700/2=$350, of that 350 the agency gets their cut, leaving very little to the agent. DON'T TRUST ANY REAL ESTATE AGENT, I'VE BEEN THROUGH IT!
bee eh said:
There is a form they will have you sign before doing the offer that declares representation. They just check off multiple representation, dual agency. To be more accurate, the office holds the listings, and the representation is with the office/brokerage whether buying or selling. So, there is a decent chance you could be in this dual agency situation if you are working with an agent in a large office, as you could like to buy one of the properties held by another agent in your agent’s office.
One reason they might do this, work with my agent buddy deal, is if they have made a deal with the seller to reduce the commission if they have a buyer for the home they have listed. That is the 2.5% total commission if we sell your home sort of deal.
A real estate agent's goal is to make a deal because if there is no deal, there is no commission. The best way to handle an agent is to treat them the same way as you would with any contractor you hire. They are working for you and you are hiring them for their expertise and advice... but you still need to supervise them and ultimately, you and only you are in charge.
Having recently changed homes, I used the same agent to sell my existing place and buy a larger one. She gave me good advice on what I should fix up before selling... which I did. And after is was on sale for a bit, she gave me extra feedback on some additional things to do to make the place easier to sell.
On the buying end, I was one of three people bidding on the house. My agent told me to get my ass down to the current owners home if I was serious about getting it. Because I followed her advice, I avoided a bidding war. After they accepted my offer, during the deal completion, one of the other interested bidders wanted to put in a higher offer, but it was too late for them because my offer was accepted and my agent would have killed the other agent if I didn't get the house and she didn't get her share of the commission.
You *could* sell a house without a real estate agent, but that will mean that it will take much longer to sell and you won't necessarily get the same price simply because it won't get as much exposure.
So in my view, it is worthwhile to use an agent if you consider your time to be valuable and for their advice. Just remember, they work for you, and they need to be supervised, and you are in charge.
Having recently changed homes, I used the same agent to sell my existing place and buy a larger one. She gave me good advice on what I should fix up before selling... which I did. And after is was on sale for a bit, she gave me extra feedback on some additional things to do to make the place easier to sell.
On the buying end, I was one of three people bidding on the house. My agent told me to get my ass down to the current owners home if I was serious about getting it. Because I followed her advice, I avoided a bidding war. After they accepted my offer, during the deal completion, one of the other interested bidders wanted to put in a higher offer, but it was too late for them because my offer was accepted and my agent would have killed the other agent if I didn't get the house and she didn't get her share of the commission.
You *could* sell a house without a real estate agent, but that will mean that it will take much longer to sell and you won't necessarily get the same price simply because it won't get as much exposure.
So in my view, it is worthwhile to use an agent if you consider your time to be valuable and for their advice. Just remember, they work for you, and they need to be supervised, and you are in charge.
