Should I go with this real estate broker?

July 16, 2015 2:43 PM

Or should I just see places via the brokers of the sellers?

We saw a place several weeks ago and liked it enough to place a bid on it. We lost, (we actually bid the same as the winner, but the winner was faster with their co paperwork so the seller went with them) but that broker (who was showing it for the seller) is now contacting us whenever similar places pop and asking if we'd like for him to show it to us. But these places of course are already being shown by brokers on behalf of the seller. Why not just go straight to that broker instead of having this guy?

I'm assuming that if we just let this guy get the keys to all the places and show them to us, that he will have to split the commission with the other broker that's selling the place. So, doesn't this mean that the broker on the seller's side will have less incentive to pick our offer over someone else who bids the same amount that does NOT have a broker which they'll have to split the commission with?

He seems like a nice guy, but I don't want him showing us places that we can easily see ourselves through the seller's agent if it puts us at a disadvantage.

posted by manderin to Home & Garden (8 answers total)

wasn't there just an almost identical post asking about the utility of seller's agents?

It may depend on your jurisdiction, but my experience in NYC was that:
-our broker cost us nothing (he split the fee of the seller's agent)
-he was tremendously helpful (not so much in finding listings because there is mls - well not in NYC but listings arent the hard part in the internet age) navigate the process and manage paperwork

given that the cost was 0 and benefit >0 it was a no brainer for us (he was also something of a friend, and since he did such a bang up job we've recommended him over and over to other folks looking - i think his 4th sale based on our recommendations is pending a coop board interview scheduled for this weekend).
posted by Exceptional_Hubris at 2:51 PM on July 16, 2015

You don't NEED to have a buyers agent, but there are many advantages to having one, which is why most people use them when buying:
-the agent will do lots of work to find you homes that fit your budget and requirements
-the agent will help you fill out and get paperwork to the right places at the right time
-the agent will go to bat for you if there is a bidding war or if you need to negotiate repairs; do you really want to be fighting those battles yourself? It's pretty stressful

But most importantly, you want a buyer's agent because it is their job to make sure you are getting what you want. The seller's agent isn't going to disclose anything bad about the house because they are trying to sell it! They have no incentive to point out things that they know may be problematic (not just mechanical/structural things that an inspector finds, but lifestyle things like "hey, these west facing windows may make this room really freaking hot in the summer" or "you should know this neighborhood is full of a lot of loud college students during the summer")

Maybe this is different in other cities, but I imagine most other buyers that you are competing against for a house will also have buyers' agents, so it won't put you at a disadvantage to have one. And you don't pay your agent anything, they make their commission from the seller.
posted by joan_holloway at 2:58 PM on July 16, 2015

Open houses are absolutely how real estate agents and brokers find buyers to represent, and certainly submitted bids that aren't accepted are an easy source of leads... so it makes sense that you might have been contacted.

The benefit of having your own representation is that you are working with someone who ostensibly has your best interests in mind as a buyer. "Dual agency" is a sticky area because a single broker who represents both buyer and seller has conflicting agendas. When a price is settled upon, can either buyer or seller feel confident they got the best deal?

Of course a one-stop shop certainly is convenient, and commissions aren't fixed and there all kinds of discounts can come into play, and finally of course there's personal relationships or preference for specific people, so... your mileage may vary.
posted by pzarquon at 2:59 PM on July 16, 2015

Imagine in the previous transaction if you had a broker who (i) let you know that the timing on the paperwork might make a difference and maybe even helped you get in faster, (ii) contacted the seller to let them know what your paperwork was on its way and totally worth waiting for, (iii) could point out the seller the other good things about your offer and/or why you are so deserving, or (iv) suggested that the seller might want to give both parties a chance to make another offer (assuming you would considered going higher). You might have still lost the house but you might have gotten it with that extra help.

Having your own agent also helps during negotiation, especially if you are not an aggressive negotiator on your own. Your own agent won't want to play hard-ball and lose the deal but they can let you know it is appropriate to ask for concessions on stuff that shows up during inspections.

Buyer's agents can make all the different making sure the sale closes properly and on-time, especially if the seller's agent turns out to be a dud (happened once) or the seller is acting as their own agent (also happened once) So, based on my personal experience, using an agent has been well worth it for me - we got a better deal and it closed with much less pain that if we hadn't.

That said, we had a great agent. Real estate agents vary widely in both skill and integrity. So, if you do want to have your own agent, you don't just sign up with the person who happened to call you -do some research, ask some questions as well as thinking about this agent's style fits with your own.
posted by metahawk at 3:44 PM on July 16, 2015

So the seller's agent won't sway from selling to us because she has to split the fee with our agent? If she goes with people who don't have an agent she gets to keep the 6% herself instead of splitting. You guys said some good points. I will have to reconsider.
posted by manderin at 4:42 PM on July 16, 2015

I don't think your concern matters because it's the sellers who get to decide which offer to accept, not the agent. The seller's agent is definitely already expecting to have to split the fee since it's so common for buyers to have an agent.
posted by joan_holloway at 4:47 PM on July 16, 2015

Here is the similar post, which also contains useful advice.
posted by invisible ink at 5:42 PM on July 16, 2015

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way. There are a lot of kookie and crazy people out there, who have no idea what they are doing when it comes to buying a house. A buyers agent is a god-send to the selling agent because they are working with a professional who won't jerk them around, knows the lay of the land and will get the process done in a professional and fast manner. You may be a sensible person who knows what they are doing, but many people are not. When we were buying a house, selling agents WOULD NOT TALK TO US without a buyers agent. This was really foreign to me, since I bought my first place without any agents. But in the end I was really glad to have a buyers agent as I don't think the sale would have gone through without her.
posted by Toddles at 8:44 PM on July 17, 2015