TruBrit

here it's 3% for buying plus 3% for selling and the seller pays both so for first time buyers it's a start for them.

dunroving

I've always said that, although the 6% is included in the house cost and the "seller pays", really both parties "pay" - because FSBO's can be sold for less money and still make the same or more profit. Around here at least, realtor sold houses are usually more expensive.

When I think that realtors make $18,000 commission on a $300,000 house, it kills me.

BigDavyG

Agreed - money for old rope - i can see why so many folks here seem to sell for themselves.
4 or 5 houses a year would do nicely thankyou very much, and you would imagine that even the most dimwitted realator could manage that in the right area.

BritGuyTN

I need to clear this up

there have been many vague assertions and a lot of FUD in this thread

1. The term 'Realtor' is not a generic term to describe anyone who sells real estate. A Realtor is someone who belongs to a local professional association that has clear guidelines for correct standards of education and service as well as dealing ethically. If a Realtor screws you over you have a great deal of recourse to make their life a misery

2. In the above example

"When I think that realtors make $18,000 commission on a $300,000 house, it kills me"

This is essentially nonsense and a massive mis-conception on the part fo most people

That 18k is typically divided equally between the listing and selling BROKERS not the actual AGENT

The broker takes their cut and then the realtor (or agent) get a percentage of that 3% - I for example get 75% of the 3%

So in Dunrovings case I would receive $6750 for being the buyers rep or the listing agent

This is a lot less than the $18,000 which was first mentioned, and although in some cases the earnings can be relatively straightforward in an easy transaction, if you have been ferrying a couple round for 3 months looking at houses, it can often feel like that commission is not really enough!

scrubbedexpat099

One of my best friends is a Realtor, I am fairly certain that he is ethical, I met quite a few when we were looking who I would not be quite so sure of.

I have also heard the horror stories.

They use the Realtor Ethics bit in the advertising here, may be a national campaign. I also have to do a similar ethics exam and CPD as part of my profession, not sure how it stops the slime balls, I have been to classes where it is quite clear the majority are there twiddling their thumbs waiting for the certificate showing the hours. The thing that really struck me as funny was after an afternoon with only me asking questions we finished nearly an hour early but still got the 5 hours of of Ethics CPD. Is that ethical?.

But to use your example the Realtors do get $18,000, how they split it is another issue, the sellor at the end of the day is $18,000 short, compared to less than $6,000 on a similar transaction in the UK.

It is difficult to see this system continuing, where I an average home is nearer $400,000 plus, I see more and more FSBO. The main advantage a Realtor has is the MLS, but that is going away.

I wonder if people would be so keen to have Buyers Agents if they were charged by the hour for being ferried around?

steppke

In fairness, there are some good realtors out there, we had a contract accepted this weekend on a house in Berkeley CA and I have only praise for our realtor who has secured a fantastic house. She was available all day, every day until late in the evening, was prompt and efficient in relaying information, provided excellent counsel on the choice of surveyors, inspectors etc and managed a very tricky negotiation with the sellers agent who was representing a family of squabbling siblings keen to get their hands on the loot from the family home. We selected her because she had 30 years of experience in Berkeley, had grown up in the area and knew all the ins and outs of many of the properties which saved us a tremendous amount of time.

In terms of the fees charged, it seems high after the UK, but in my experience, 3 houses bought and sold so far in the US all in the Bay Area, the realtors have worked their socks off, and as a seller, frequently getting prices we never even imagined were possible.

Steppke

scrubbedexpat099

A fairly ordinary house in the Bay area is $700,000. So a nice earner.

They can do a very good job, but the remuneration vs the reward is the issue to me.

Part of the problem is that there are so many that the majority of their time is spent on marketing themselves. I know here the saying is that 90% of the money is made by 10% of the Realtors.

BritGuyTN

I do agree that it seems high, I was just highlighting a couple of comments that focussed on how much the individual agent receives and showing how it is broken out in reality

It was halfway through my initial course that i found this out, after which i worked out quite quickly how much i would have to flog to make a good income.

with house values in my area, combined with the fact that everyone does it, its not worth doing. I help out mates or use my license to reduce the cost of investment properties I purchase for myself

BigDavyG

I would imagine that most realators give their business to the same surveyors/inspectors and then wash their hands of the matter if you have any problems. I'm sure they are well rewarded by the surveyors/inspectors for their 'referrals' too.

steppke

[QUOTE=Boiler]A fairly ordinary house in the Bay area is $700,000. So a nice earner.

Boulder is pretty pricey too from what I recall from my trips there. Still the Bay Area is scary pricewise I have to admit, next battle is making sure we can actually insure the house, not a given in California. At least this place is not directly in a fault, landslide, flood, liquification, fire or mudslide zone and at the top of a hill on bed rock. And I used to worry about being 50 yards from the Thames!

scrubbedexpat099

Probably not so directly, there are many leads groups and its usually more a case of swapping contacts.

A Realtor can make a nice bundle from just one good lead, not so much in it for a Home Inspector.

I know from my friend his main concern is somebody who will get the job done, well and most importantly in a timely manner.

scrubbedexpat099

An eventually you, or your estate, pays at the other end.

It is not quite a start anyway, somebody selling has to build in those costs.

BigDavyG

Just to change tack a little - wtf is the point of home inspections in the US.
If my OH's experiences are anything to go by the inspector gets paid no matter what they find, and they will only be liable for their fee - $300-500 is typical I think, so you are really counting on them doing a good job, cos if they miss something big you are pretty much screwed with very little recourse, unless I've missed something about the process.

scrubbedexpat099

[QUOTE=steppke] I was, well still am I suppose, about 100 yds from the Thames and 3 floors up. One of the Companies I called would not give me Flood Insurance.

The whole of the City of London would have to have been 10ft under for me to be directly effected.

I think the avearge in Boulder County is $350,000, not sure about Boulder itself.

scrubbedexpat099

You need it for the Mortgage.

I went around with our guy, we discussed a few issues in terms I knew he could not write in his report, very helpful.

Any sensible report should include so many get out phrases that you could never prove anything anyway in practice.

I do not know if the contract clauses would hold up in court. My assumption would be that there may be some liability in the most extreme cases. But you really do not want to go there.

Plus of course for this sort of fee how much liability do you expect them to take on? How much would you.