patrick.net

fdelisio,

Here's the problem... Maybe a "law" is going too far.. But your "eating dirt" analogy doesn't hold up...

What happened in the past 3 years didn't just hurt individuals that bought homes.. it hurt the world economy! That's hardly "cleansing the gene pool". Sometimes we need laws, so idiots don't fuck up the system for the rest of us...

It was de-regulation, wild speculation, and easy no-money down loans... AND yes.. the resounding... real estate motto... Real Estate ALWAYS goes up LONG TERM.... get in NOW or be priced out forever...

And that was the Realtors fault... Individuals are to blame.. But there were lots of "enablers" out there! Banks, realtors, news media... It's hard to blame the individual entirely...

Jessie James never tought folks how to rob banks. REwhores will never remove the veil that hides their lies. Full title disclosure, building permits, tax records, and current debt on ANY deed should be a click away.

Totally! The lack of light is what keeps all of the cockroaches hidden.

All of those records should be easily available, but the thousands of counties all have different computer systems, different policies, and the records offices are often run by the same people who are in the local realtwhore assn.

Ahhh...I've got it now...the Realtors are the folks that run the local city, county and state governments so INCREDIBLY poorly, and who obscure all of this information -- not the lenders, banks, title companies, etc...the Realtors...they're to blame...

BTW, a decent RE agent makes between $50 - $100k per year:

According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly earnings of real estate brokers in 2007 were $79,800. Real estate agents made an average of $55,090.

...no one is getting rich at your expense -- these are just hard-working folks trying to make a living.

Ok, you can stick a fork in me -- I'm done...this conversation has gone the way of conspiracy theorists and secret societies...don't forget your tin-foil hats when you go outside, boys and girls...big brother is listening...

"BTW, a decent RE agent makes..."

Please don't use "decent" and "RE agent" in the same sentence, it's disingenuous. BAM!

RE agents, or marketing professionals (yawn), are people who buy the koolaide, pour it in a glass, tell you its good for you and is your favorite flavor and will give you superpowers, and then hold it to your lips screaming, "NOW! NOW IS THE TIME TO DRINK!" But, obviously, they're not forcing you to buy. Well, they do introduce you to a mortgage officer who gives a "commission" for the suckers they're brought...

A computer can show you what's for sale in the area. A title company can give a property profile that shows liens, assessments, everything to know about the property, etc. A mortgage company or bank prequalifies you. The city/county/state governments pass laws and hold the records. The buyer brings the money down and a hand with which to sign his life away. Where, exactly, does the realtor come into this equation? Or can you hear me over the voices in your head?

No, the tin-foil hat was for you -- specifically, you, elliemae -- what are you...12...???

The ceement pond has definitely left some water in your ears, since you didn't mention anything about the PROCESS of buying a home -- let alone the legal aspects -- the endless contracts that need to be filled-out properly, signed in the right places, etc. -- which is what ties together all those bits that you spewed above.

Talk about drinking the kool-aid...you've proven you know nothing about real estate except what you could glean from Wikipedia (which is a fair amount, BTW) -- but you mention absolutely NONE of the pitfalls that can befall a buyer/seller moving through the process of a sale in the market today.

There is no commission paid from loan brokers to Realtors, by the way...oh, except for the floozy/doozy/fake agent that nailed YOU, elliemae -- bitter, much...?

I, at least, admit that while I possess a real estate sales license and the knowledge that comes with the education, that means ZERO with no experience...so again...you kids have fun PLAYING life.

"No, the tin-foil hat was for you — specifically, you, elliemae — what are you…12…???"
No, I just appear younger than my years because I drink healthy stuff, stay away from koolaide.
You are correct, I forgot the cost of a Real Estate Attorney who costs less than $1,000 for the hairiest of transactions. He can do the legal stuff. The process of buying a home? Properly completed contracts, signed in the right places... An attorney can advise if a person can't read a contract.
I realize that you believe that a real estate license is super cool and that just anyone can't be a realtor, but we all know that's not true. ANYONE can be a realtor. No education, no qualifications, nothing but a short course. I haven't read Wikipedia to learn about your "career choice," but do applaud you for your continuing education efforts in that regard.

Not my career choice -- I took the classes and test to be able to learn more, not to get into the biz -- that was my wife's choice, and she LOVES it, because she loves people, and REALLY loves finding their next home for them -- not like the nasty loser that obviously burned the CRAP out of you, apparently.
Oh, that's right -- people ARE different -- even RE agents.
I'm an integration test engineer, and quite happy with my career choice -- but I wanted to LEARN about something through the usual channels, rather than spend all of my time trying to learn the same thing without paying for it, and berating other folks for taking that route (an entire segment of the population, no less).
Oh, and attorneys are SO much more ethical and moral than RE agents, so yeah -- go trust an attorney...geez...get a clue...
This is starting to sound like tax evasion -- you know you can avoid paying taxes altogether...but it's going to take ALL of your time, money and resources to do it...good luck with that.

WHY BUY, are we still talking about buying a home, oh wait maybe you are in a better area, sorry what area are you in? If in Ca. then What I am saying has some meaning. I presume you have done the crash pages? OK then Renting is almost ALWAYS (unless math comes out different in your area it is possible)

It drives me bat-shit crazy when Realtards call houses a "home". I have yet to hear one call a house a house. This is yet another one of their emotional ploys.

@cashmonger:

The old timers at patrick.net will attest that I am a long term JBR. But honestly? For some people, a house really is a home. The ownership makes a huge psychological difference to them. And ya know what? Those folks are almost always long term residents and not speculators. If they want a home, so be it. In Randy's parlance (and Bubblizer model), their premium to own is high, but that's their personal perogative.

I know several folks who bought during the early bubble (02-04). The "home"-owners are still placid. Only the get rich quick folks are freaking out.

felatio say:
"Oh, and attorneys are SO much more ethical and moral than RE agents, so yeah — go trust an attorney…geez…get a clue…
This is starting to sound like tax evasion — you know you can avoid paying taxes altogether…but it’s going to take ALL of your time, money and resources to do it…good luck with that."

Yep. I'm saying that attorneys are much more ethical and moral than RE agents, much more education required, and a hell of a lot cheaper than 6% for which they've done nothing. And the attorney's legal advice is actually legal advice, rather than that received from a person who took a short-course and then prints out some forms from a computer program. I realize that you're married to a realtard, and obviously support your spouse, but you won't convice me and many others on this forum that their "profession" is valid or necessary.

Are you seriously comparing buying a home without paying a realtard 6% for the mls listing with avoiding paying taxes? Hello? McFly? You're the one who needs a tin-foil hat if you believe that crap.

felatio say:
"BTW, a decent RE agent makes between $50 - $100k per year:According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average yearly earnings of real estate brokers in 2007 were $79,800. Real estate agents made an average of $55,090."

That was GROSS income, certainly not net income. According to what I read, it didn't account for the $ spent in advertising, transportation, and all those other things that Realtards spend their $ on. And the updated numbers are:

http://blogs.palmbeachpost.com/realtime/2009/05/13/typical-realtors-pay-fell-to-36700-last-year-nar-says/

Typical Realtor’s pay fell to $36,700 last year, NAR says
by Jeff Ostrowski
The median income for Realtors was $36,700 in 2008, down from $42,600 in 2007, the National Association of Realtors says today.

Realtors licensed as brokers earned a median of $49,300 last year, while sales agents made $28,400.

Realtors in the business two years or less earned a median of $8,600, while those in the business for 16 years or more earned $53,900.

Realtors who worked less than 20 hours per week earned a median of $8,200, while those who worked 60 hours or more earned $74,000.

I am having fun PLAYING life, while realtards slave away for their $8,200...

@ellie:

When the stock market plunges, I don't blame brokers. However, I will mention that I still believe that realtors should be bound by the eqivalent SEC rules as stock brokers, and that mortgage brokers should either 1. Have a fiduciary duty to clients, or 2. Should by law make their duty to the bank or brokerage apparent to clients.

@ellie for new post:

The difference is that lawyers are bound to their clients by law and reviewed by the bar. An agent is not the same as a legally bound representative, any more than you local car salesman is liable for product defects. Lawyers are dedicated to you upon pain of disbarment, period, The End.

I don't blame realtors for the housing market tanking. That's simplistic. They were selling whatever they could for whatever price they could. They are in the business to make money, not to provide a service of any type. They are paid by the seller and therefore work for the seller and have no incentive to get the buyer any better deal.

But they're not necessary. Unless the seller won't go without a realtor, which is stupid considering the seller receives thousands of dollars less merely because they paid for an ad and accessed the mls. The mls is a relic of the past, homes can be found without it and the corner on the market the realtards possessed is no more. The internet has replaced the mls and the economy has killed the realtors. Just like the home computer industry (desktop printing) changed the printing business forever.

The only people who think that realtors are necessary are either the realtors or their spouses. :)

fdelisio said:

BTW, a decent RE agent makes between $50 - $100k per year:

Which part of the country are you from? ND, SD. In bay area, any house in decent neighborhood sells for 500K. 6% of that would be 30,000 and split between realtwhores. Assuming (in)decent realtwhore sells 6 houses in a year, its 90,000 Gross, and they can deduct almost everything including coffee and lunch from tax. Do you know how much rest of us have to work hard to earn that much after tax?

I totally agree with ellie, they dont deserve so much. If and when I use my house, I will use redfin agent for sure. Not the other realtwhores.

I know several folks who bought during the early bubble (02-04). The “home”-owners are still placid. Only the get rich quick folks are freaking out.

Just not true. Potential buyers are also freaking out. The majority of people who bought, even in the early bubble years, were mostly buyers with bubble equities, and by paying too much, they've jacked the whole system up. It has been etched into the popular mindset that a quarter million dollars affords you a crawl space with Pergo flooring, which is just insane, especially when compared to what it would afford you in '99 prices. For a responsible buyer today who saved up twenty percent over the years (skipping out on world travel, gadgets and car payments), without any help from phony bubble equity, what is available when he started saving vs what is available now is quite disillusioning. I've seen fixer-upper places around here that, in 2000, were 235K -- now selling for 680K, still in fixer-upper condition. No shit. Now anyone with hard earned money in the bank is looking around and thinking they'd rather invest their twenty percent in baseball cards than a house.
So, sure, I suppose you CAN pay eighty-five dollars for a sandwich, too, and not feel too bad about subscribing to a subjective, pinhole point of view where the value of the dollar and its buying power is strictly relative. Ultimately, however, nobody (outside of the really filthy rich) will be immune to the economic shit storm, no matter how squared away or placid you feel in your home. Why single out real estate agents, bankers and speculators? It was the "hey, I got MINE" instant-gratification crowd that really set things in motion these last eight years. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should!

I bought in 2000. I put 20% down. Equity-wise, I owned 2/3 of my home in 2005. Now I own a couple of bedrooms and possibly a corner of my kitchen...
Once again, I don't hold realtors, appraisers, mortgage officers, etc responsible for the bubble, except for those who committed fraud - and they should be prosecuted; but I don't believe that they're necessary or hold any value. We've been told that they do - but its the NAR that tells us that. The NAR is an organization that depends on all of us believing that realtors are necessary, and they spend millions on lobbying for the rights of realtors.
The original post said:
"I was curious about the logistics and cost-benefits of simply getting a real estate license before I purchase a home… I’m an intelligent college educated individual that doesn’t feel the need for a middle-man and a hefty 6% commission on a half million dollar home purchase…. Anyone else consider being their own “agent” in Us: Will real estate become like airline tickets, where the “agents” were replaced by online algorithms??a home purchase?"
Yes - it's called FOR SALE BY OWNER. BUY WITHOUT A REALTOR.

http://lansner.freedomblogging.com/
Us: How big is online shopping for real estate?

Greg: Big and getting bigger. According to studies conducted by the National Association of Realtors, over 84% of all home buyers begin their search online. That’s a huge number and growing, the stat is closer to 90% when you are talking about first time home buyers. Also, according to Realtor.com, the current leader in homes for sale on the web; Compared to March 2009, their total number of visitors, on Realtor.com, in April surged by 123 percent to 11.3 million, while April 2009 year-over-year growth in traffic reached 104 percent.

Us: Does the real estate industry really understand what’s happening?

Greg: There are two ways of looking at it. On one side, I don’t think agents will ever go away. Buying or selling your house is likely to be the largest financial transaction of your life. A good agent provides you the advice and know how to guide you through that process. On the other side of the coin, you have companies like Zillow, Trulia, Redfin and Zip Realty realty who don’t come from the “traditional” way of doing things that are really changing the game. So I don’t think that agents will go away, but new models, created outside the traditional industry, will force things to change.

Greg: Like any industry you have a group of people who embrace change and others that do not. In the past the agents were the gatekeepers of MLS (homes for sale) data; consumers had to pass through them for access. Now, listing information is everywhere. Smarter agents realize this, and are coming up with new ways to engage today’s consumers and increase their overall value proposition.

AHB: There was no excusing the Bay Area and other insane bubble cities. Most of friends are from Colorado or the Northeast. Prices went up 25% or so, which is financially survivable. Since the "house is a home" crowd will stay put for at least a decade, they'll break even... and all my friends are the 20% down types. I am also acquainted with a few "investors" who were rolling bubble appreciation in fresh 5% downpayments. I don't feel sorry for those people, any more than I would for a rookie daytrader using 20:1 margin and rolling paper gains forward in a climbing stock market.

For whoever bought in crazy bubble areas, even for the long term, I just feel sad. The leverage will crush most of those people.

June 13th, 2009 at 10:00 am | top | quote
I bought in 2000. I put 20% down. Equity-wise, I owned 2/3 of my home in 2005. Now I own a couple of bedrooms and possibly a corner of my kitchen…
Once again, I don’t hold realtors, appraisers, mortgage officers, etc responsible for the bubble, except for those who committed fraud - and they should be prosecuted; but I don’t believe that they’re necessary or hold any value. We’ve been told that they do - but its the NAR that tells us that. The NAR is an organization that depends on all of us believing that realtors are necessary, and they spend millions on lobbying for the rights of realtors

...Sounds like the diamond market, and DeBeers' decades-long propaganda campaign/manipulation of the perception of what is a mostly useless material with little resale.

What? Do you mean to tell me that an engagement ring shouldn't cost the equivalent of 1-1/2 month's salary? Th-th-that's sacreligious! Just plain wrong! It's an investment in the future of the marriage and quantifies exactly the amount of love a man has for a woman. Meanwhile, we don't have to spend anything at all to quantify the amount of love we have for ya'll. You'll just have to take our word for it on that one...

Just get her a huge, low grade rock... a.k.a. the Diamond McMansion (tm). Seriously, most people can't tell the difference, so cheap and big ought to impress all J6Ps out there (and their wives).

<blockquote>the value of a diamond …. much like a home …. makes no difference unless you want to sell it or borrow against it.</blockquote>

Sure, but it's this sort of insular point-of-view that gets us into a lot of trouble. The real value of a THING is actually measurable, be it a house a diamond or a rare automobile. Unless we're talking a one of a kind rare artifact, where is the pleasure or peace of mind in overpaying? Repeat: Just because you can, doesn't mean you should.

Expensive diamonds are pretty, but I couldn't tell the difference between a $5000 one and a $500 one. But the jewelry stores tell us how important it is to quantify your love.

Other examples of industries telling us that they're necessary:

Mortuaries: play upon the emotions of the decedant's families by using words such as "tribute" and "honor" of the dead guy. The truth is that there are mortuaries that charge substantially less, and it is prudent to shop around. You can save thousands of dollars, shop around.

Mattresses: They claim that they use new technology, but it's either springs, foam, water or air. Been the same for years. A $10,000 mattress sleeps the same as a $500 mattress, shop around.

Furniture: "Solid wood" doesn't mean solidly built. They still have veneers and can be crappily built. Solid wood can be heavier, too - and there's little or no resale value. It's psychologically easier to change your decor if you spent less on it, too. You can save thousands, shop around.

Computers: Get the one that's right for you - if you don't do a whole lot with it, it won't cost as much. You can save thousands, shop around.

I'm not talking about the furniture you sit on. I'm talking about those fancy expensive "museum" pieces that hold ugly heirlooms and books you'll never read. You can get a nice cupboard for $1200 or less, but people spend $5,000 for the same thing...

Good quality furniture at discount prices:
www.homedecoratorsoutlet.com

You have to keep looking, decide what price you like and when it happens, buy fast. You do have to assemble some of it, but it's the same stuff as the Home Decorator's Collection only deeply discounted.

Regardless of what the Realtard®'s take home pay is, their burden to the deal is 5-6% of the selling price. If there is only 10% of equity in the property (another favorite Realtard® word), then half of the seller's equity is gobbled up by the two sharp-dressed, BS spewing goons that in nearly every case show up in a Mercedes or Lexus.
I know Realtards® here in Northern California that bragged about pulling down $300K+ a year during the height of the RE bubble. The same reason I hate seeing Realtard®’s white or silver Mercedes or Lexus (I swear 99% of Realtards® drive either a white or silver Mercedes or Lexus) sitting in front of every Open House is the same reason I chose to buy a modest vehicle to drive to my client’s facilities. The opulent front Realtard®’s put up stinks and is basically a big middle finger to every buyer and seller out there.
I have been lied to and bull-shitted by way too many of these fucks to have one ounce of respect for any of them. It is much like a politician trying to say, “Hey, I am not like any of my colleagues.”
I have a close family member who is a mortgage broker and a Realtard® and even HE says that the majority of Realtards® out there are Realtards® because they have failed at everything else in life.

The local branch of the NAR used to have 'spensive cars in the parking lot, including tons of SUV's. (We call them BMW's, as in "Big Mormon Wagons..." Now there are many used cars on meeting day.

I realize that in some exclusive areas, such as the Hamptons and the West side of LA, there are huge commissions that drive up the income of the realtards/realwhores. But most realtors make very little and IMHO realtors are useless relics of the past. Like typewriters, carbon paper, and beepers. The NAR can spend as much money as it wishes, the "profession" is changing forever as it should.

Anyone who goes to a realtor for legal advice should get his/her head checked. Anyone who can't download a form from the internet should pay an attorney to represent them in the transaction, and should expect to pay substantially less than 6% of a listing to do so. I don't care what HGTV and the NAR tries to cram down my throat, felatio. :)

elliemae,

"cram down my throat, felatio."

ROTFLMAO

Excellent.

Anyone who goes to a realtor for legal advice should get his/her head checked. Anyone who can’t download a form from the internet should pay an attorney to represent them in the transaction, and should expect to pay substantially less than 6% of a listing to do so.

All the realtor does is find a buyer, period. Downloading a form or hiring an attorney is part of closing, nothing to do with finding a buyer in the first place. You will still need the form, title company or lawyer whether you use a realtor or not.

To get rid of realtors, you would have to find a way for sellers to find buyers. The trick would be to get Joe Public to at least look at For Sale by Owner instead of just calling a realtor by reflex when he is intereted in a house.

I have sold 5 houses over the last few years. I tried FSBO on all of them, but was only able to sell one without using a realtor. One house, a 1600ft 4 bed 1car, was sold in 2003. I did the FSBO bit with flyers, newpaper ads, sign, and military housing referral. All I got for a month was realtors looking to list, lookie loos, and absurd lowballs. I finally listed with a discount broker at 4%, raised the asking price to cover most of the commission, and the house ended up with multiple offers just hours after she typed it in. In 2003, houses commonly got multiple offers, so why so hard to sell FSBO? Because all the serious buyers call a realtor first.

I would love to have a Craigs List or similar that would be sufficient to attract buyers. But how do you convince Joe to look directly intead of using a agent to drive him around and hold his hand for "free?"

More & more people are hooked into the internet. There are fsbo sites that come up in area searches, and there are the tried & true fsbo magazines at the supermarket. Things have changed dramatically over the past few years, even the attitudes toward realtors. More & more often people are choosing not to turn their hard earned money over to realtors.

It's an unfortunate necessity to pay a higher price to cover the commission if you're buying and they're selling thru a realtor - but these days they're dropping prices to meet the buyers.

Name-calling is what children do when they think they're losing an argument...thanks for staying true to your kind, there, Miss Elliemae...

I'm REALLY happy that my life is not reduced to this kind of witch-hunt -- picking on a tiny segment of people who work in the housing market, trying to blame SOMEONE for your problems...

My wife uses the internet to educate her clients, and allow them to optimize/customize their searches utilizing tools like ListingBook and other websites (most of the large firms have taken great advantage of the internet, and no longer just use the MLS), and she works in tandem with them to find exactly what they are looking for -- it's a partnership.

Also, we are not upside-down on OUR home (yes, our house IS a home, and we LOVE it that way), and have happily almost paid it off, just about 16 years early, thanks to Dave Ramsey and folks like him -- now I WOULD take constructive criticism from him...but he wouldn't call me names just because I disagreed with him.

Have fun in your little world, Elliemae...you can be a BIG fish in this little pond of yours here...I've spent all the time that I have here to show folks that, while LIFE may not be fair...people can CHOOSE to be...or not.

FAB wrote the definitive post on why "saving 3%" is not worth it (when there are much greater savings to be had). If you actually have your license (like FAB), or know what you are doing, the way to go is dual agency. Yes, you heard that right. As long as you know what you're doing, the dual agent is now beholden to you, the buyer, as they won't get their 6% commission if the house doesn't sell to YOU (at the price YOU want). Imagine that, they work for you now, instead of the seller...

I second EBGuy.

When I went to open houses, the realty agents were brimming with hope after learning that I don't have an agent. All of them offered to negotiate down the price for me, and some of them even told me the financial situation of the seller (divorced, need to sell).

The 3% savings is not really worth it if you can have someone working for YOU. A new neighbor of mine went dual agent with the seller's agent who argued down $200K on the house.

Realty agents do not necessarily work in buyer's or seller's favor. They amplify the advantages of buyer and seller, in a seller's market, they amplify the gain of a seller. However at the downturn, they amplify the bargain of the buyer. Realty agents care about transaction first, price second, they only pursue price when transaction is intact. They are willing to throw price under a bus if transaction is at risk.

Honestly I hate heavy furniture, really hate them to death. Have you tried moving one yourself?

IKEA is the best for me, disposable, easily assembled, and stylish. If I change my mind, I can easily dispose of them and get a new set, and not feel a heartache.

I inherited a bunch of heavy, sturdy furniture from the last homeowner, and I tell ya, they are ugly as hell, and it cost me $$$$$$$$$$ to get rid of them because the junk yards charge by weight. If I want to get rid of IKEA furniture, I can chop them up and stuff them into the trash bin over a few week. Not a single chance with those super heavy furniture.

Unless it is a piece made by some kind of master furniture maker with a signature at the back, or has a lasting style, I stay away as far as possible from those solid wood furniture. I like solid wood home, that I don't mind at all.

Realty agents do not necessarily work in buyer’s or seller’s favor. They amplify the advantages of buyer and seller, in a seller’s market, they amplify the gain of a seller. However at the downturn, they amplify the bargain of the buyer. Realty agents care about transaction first, price second, they only pursue price when transaction is intact. They are willing to throw price under a bus if transaction is at risk.

Excellent point. I think thats Elliemae's point as well. In other words, they look after their own interest(getting commission) first either at the cost of somebody else.

Lots of realtors I met drank their own kool-aid.

The most frequently repeated conversation goes like the follows:
Agent: Do you like the house?
Me: well, there are some issues, blah blah yada yada
Agent: I have another house, which I own that I want to sell that may fit your criteria
Me: really? is it your own home?
Agent: No, I am selling 3 investment properties, this is just one of them. But I may sell my residence if the price is good.

Realtors are sales people. They're hired by people who think they're necessary. They don't provide legal advice, they don't represent anyone except themselves. They drink koolaide that tells them they're marketing professionals (listing on the mls, big deal!) and that they are necessary to a home sale. But if you can drive around and find a home or look on the internet, they're not needed. So far as them being necessary to the seller, that's a load of crap. Their only loyalty is to themselves. They hold no magic key to any sale.

When fellatio pokes fun at me in his condescending little way, saying that I'm playing life and acting like a 12-year old it hurts my feelings and makes me cry. My tin-foil hat rusts and I worked hard to make it. I'M TELLING MY MOMMY AND SHE'LL SPANK YOU!

When fellatio pokes fun at me in his condescending little way, saying that I’m playing life and acting like a 12-year old it hurts my feelings and makes me cry. My tin-foil hat rusts and I worked hard to make it. I’M TELLING MY MOMMY AND SHE’LL SPANK YOU!

As well you should, he's so articulate and fantastic, you should think more like him, then maybe your Tin hat would be rust-proof. . .

Yeah.

...and I was expecting sexist comments about mom & spankings.

The only sexist thing about it is that mom did the spanking. Of course, dad should.