Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

geekwire.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 329 posts

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#21

Post by walrus01 »

calbear81 wrote: post #13

I've used buyers agents (1 traditional, 1 Redfin) when I've bought homes since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees and in most states I believe they are legally bound to act in your best interest. I've had a new construction seller try to convince me to not get an agent and would give a discount instead but felt that the risk wasn't worth it especially since most buyers agents I've engaged with have been open…

The other thing you should absolutely never do, as a buyer, is use a home inspector recommended by either the seller's agent, the seller themselves, or even your own buyers agent. Choose one yourself.

Anything else and they have too much of an incentive to produce an inspection report that will result in a quickly closed sale.

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#22

Post by muhneesh »

I see at least three counterpoints:

1. Real estate agents aren't often "experts" at real estate valuation, inspection or execution; They have dependencies on appraisers, inspectors, and lawyers. The work an average agent does is more or less cookie-cutter from my anecdotal experience, though I think there is a proportion of rockstar agents that do much more.

2. Not every buyer wants homebuying to be a client-services relationship. I'd rather have a trusted intelligent ratings system based on criteria like location, price and so on. I would hypothesize that there is a divide here with boomers and millenials / gen z. If I sell my house, it will be on a technology platform that takes 1%, not through an agent.

3. The vig an agent takes is insane in urban centers - 3% might make sense in areas where the avg. home costs 200-250K, and is harder to sell. In dramatic sellers markets where homes are in the 600K - $2M range, the take should be much much lower.

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#26

Post by roland35 »

Looking back, I do think we could have avoided using an agent on selling our home. No doubt real estate transactions are large and complex, but I feel like at the end of the day a good checklist would work pretty well, plus a service to manage the actual contract and paperwork.

I certainly could have gotten that for the 6% commission we ended up paying!

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#27

Post by harryh »

calbear81 wrote: post #13

I've used buyers agents (1 traditional, 1 Redfin) when I've bought homes since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees and in most states I believe they are legally bound to act in your best interest. I've had a new construction seller try to convince me to not get an agent and would give a discount instead but felt that the risk wasn't worth it especially since most buyers agents I've engaged with have been open…

since they are being paid from the Seller's Fees

This is a myth perpetuated by buyer's agents. Just because you aren't writing a check doesn't mean it doesn't come out of your pocket.

It's like sales tax. It's collected and paid to the government by stores, but it makes everything you buy more expensive.

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#28

Post by datavirtue »

brightball wrote: post #12
ilamont wrote: post #2

That's a bold statement. Still, the NAR has data that suggests realtors are more likely to be involved in transactions than 18 years ago: 87% of buyers purchased their home through a real estate agent or broker—a share that has steadily increased from 69 percent in 2001. Source: National Association of Realtors ( https://www.nar.realtor/research-and-statistics/quick-real-e... ) ... But I'm curious if the definition o…

It’s a essentially a giant network effect. Practically, the #1 reason to use a realtor is that if there is an issue with the home that should have been known ahead of time, there is a chain of insured entities that provides legal recourse. The shop and decide part is secondary to their value, but that is how they are so entrenched. The local MLS in any given area has the ability to cut off access to anyone. Some are…

Buying agents keep thier mouth shut so the deal closes as quick as possible. Half the commission but a lot of time spent means they cannot afford to throw wrenches into the process by bringing up issues.

In my experience, realtors profit off of the ignorance of both buyers and sellers. I have had reputable, realtors decades in the biz lie to me and attempt to break the law on several occasions.

I avoid them like the plague.

Re: Zillow CEO: startups trying to disrupt real estate commissions will fail (2012)

#29

Post by sharemywin »

I bought a domain name a while ago bid2show.com

The idea was let sales people offer a discount on their fee in exchange for limiting the number of houses you look at.

So, if you make an offer on this house your shown you get 1-2 % discount.

And since the system would know how many houses you've looked at it the realtors may decide to offer less and less of a discount.

You would only need to work with one real estate broker per state and 2-3 agents per local area. So, that there's enough volume for each agent to show 2-3 house per day and 2-5 closing's week.

Not sure if it would have worked just don't have time to pursue it.

Post reply on HN