All noted. Bummer

So, as you feel that realtors are useful and, as you have stated above that, in essence, the purchaser should pay the fee, would you be prepared to make a valid (not one discounted so that you can pay your realtor) to the vendor? Would you use a realtor? If you wouldn't for such a purchase, would you only do so if their fee was being paid by the vendor?

The point being, the vendor pays the fee. I fail to see what "added value" the purchaser's realtor provides to the vendor. Now, if each party paid their own realtor, I would agree that it is entirely a matter for each as to whether they do so. Just like, one does not have to use an estate agent to sell a property in the UK.

Hence the use of the word "normally"

Oh, as most of my life has been, pre-internet.

Very good. I agree that I'm abnormal.

Seconded......Motion Carried. Bring on a Strait Jacket

The vendor may write the cheque, but who pays the fee? One could also look at it that the fee is calculated into the selling price.

Whatever it is still daylight robbery. Per hour spent on a sale/purchase, a realtor probaly costs more than a lawyer.

In Calgary, a lawyer typically charges less than $2,000 for the legal work for buying and selling a property, no matter how expensive the house. I doubt very much that a realtor would do both for anything like as little.

In vancouver they will be getting $24k+ per house (assuming 4% of $600k and that's lower than the average price). They may add value, but can even JonboyE justify that much?

It's typical of all industries that are on the back of real estate, be it banking, mortgage brokers, realtors - they extract far more wealth from the economy than can be possibly justified for what they do. How anyone can defend them is beyond me.

It would be $19,500 + GST assuming you didn't negotiate the commission. That is how much the real estate industry takes for the transaction. The guy who does all the work will be lucky to see $5,000 of that, and he still has his business expenses to pay.

I am not particularly trying to defend the system (and I do believe that more competition is usually desirable) but the individual realtors don't necessarily deserve the kind of cynical criticism they get on here. No doubt there are ******* in the business but there equally fine, honorable, and honest people who work their butts off for years establishing their businesses. The good ones can make a lot of money but I don't begrudge anyone getting the reward they deserve for their efforts.

On a separate note, I do try and be helpful where I can and IMO I don't think new immigrants to Canada are doing themselves any favours by thinking they can outsmart a structure for buying and selling homes that has been established and successful for many, many years. You know the old prayer that goes something like:

God grant me the courage to change the things I can change, the ability to accept the things I cannot, and the wisdom to know the difference between the two.

Oh, for sure I'll be using a realtor (was looking at finding one pretty soon) as, yes are right that this is the system we are in and there is no way I can change it and I'd be foolish to try and represent myself with my limited domain knowledge. I see it as a bit like tipping in that I'll put up with it, but that doesn't mean I have to like it or think it's a good thing.

Nor is it not normally possible to buy a house without a lawyer.

Ok i am about to sell my house in the next couple of weeks. I have had 3 realtors in, 1 from Assist-to-sell. I am baffled at why a realtor is worth 6% and to top it off why do i pay the HST on the realtor's earnings? Isn't that totally ass-backwards???
I am leaning towards using Assist-to-sell for the savings it will offer, plus you have the resources of a realtor.
I would prefer to go a traditional route, and would for a more reasonable 2-4%commission.
6% + HST is just too incomprehensible!

Looks like everyone agrees that realtors have their uses. The issue is what the hell do they do that justifies tens of thousands of dollars?
The argument that "this is the way it's always been done" doesnt really wash.

So while this thread trudged along, a worked example continued. I expect it to take a long time to sell my current property, that's just the way of things. In the interim I could just wait or I could look into the market in the anticipated location for a replacement. Being interested in houses, and having an accomplice also interested in houses, I'm pursuing the latter course.

Accordingly we drove around and looked at the currently listed properties. That's always entertaining, perhaps someone would enjoy living in a house that backs on to an African Evangelical church. Someone with a taste for gospel music, but not someone, nor some creature, often travelling in my car.
Perhaps someone is willing to take on jacking a semi-detached house back up to level, trusting that raising one corner of it four feet will have no adverse affect on the other half of the semi (a trivial task, according to the agent on site) but not me, mate. It would be interesting, btw, to know if this sort of "feature" is mentioned on the full mls listing, it never is on the public one.

It seems to me that, if we continue with this approach for a couple of months we will have seen fifty or so houses in the area of interest offered at a feasible price. We will know what moved quickly and what did not and will likely be able to work out why. We will know, as well as any buyer's agent, which property on offer on any given day wants snapping up.

What will not have is knowledge of the actual selling prices of houses no longer on the market, but propose simply to knock on doors and ask. My line of thought is that, even if this method doesn't provide statistically valid pricing data, it should provide lots of potentially useful gossip about houses and agents.

A buyer doesn't pay the selling agent so maybe it is worth having one just for access to local sales price data. Again I ask, what else could he or she (ahem) bring to the table?