patrick.net

ScottC
ScottC

Greetings from total FOOL. I bought 2 houses without an agent several years ago. But then, the sellers had no agents either.

You are assuming buyer's agents work for the buyer. They are typically paid from the seller's commission and thus first and formost are interested in closing the sale. Second is selling the house for as high a price as possible. A buyer's agent is just as likely to work to convince the buyer to "come up" as to convince the seller's agent to get her client to "come down."

I have a Supra Turbo I bought new in 91 and still drive. I think it's nice, but I did not think it would be a classic. I got a good deal on it, since 1991 was when the Savings and Loan collapse occured, and car loans were hard to get. With Joe HowMuchAmonth out of the picture I was able to crank down the dealer price.

I hope something like this happens with houses.

Welcome back, Scott C.

Funny you should recommend buyers using an agent vs. sellers. The board seems to be running unanimously in the opposite direction: they recommending sellers using an agent, while buyers use a good RE attorney to look over the contract.

I have far less experience than most of the people on this board, many of whom have bought and sold homes several times, but this seems to make more sense to me. I can't really see what value a buyer's agent brings to the transaction, other than take his cut of the 5-6% commission (which of course makes the seller's agent reluctant to steer their clients to you). Both agents don't get paid until a sale is made, and both get paid based on a % of the sale price, so basically BOTH are really representing the seller's interests (getting maximum $$ for the place).

Posted before I refreshed the screen and saw Headset's reply --we basically said the exact same thing.