Commission based on home value is a joke. Realtors should earn a flat-rate.
Brokers do, 1.5% from seller and buyer. Don’t use realtors.
Realtors are brokers too
Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
271–280 of 282 posts
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
If my neighbor doesn't wire their home to code and it burns down and the fire spreads to my house it doesn't matter who is "responsible", I'd still lose my stuff (or my life). Hell, if my neighbor's tree falls into my property and causes damages I can't be sure I'd be fully compensated for my losses. You can take someone to court, but they can't give you what they don't have. People also just don't want to live in sl…
> People also just don't want to live in slums filled with run down barely standing shacks since it hurts their property value too. Someone else's property value is their problem, not mine. You're not guaranteed that the value of an investment is going to go up. It's called "risk", dude. Your opinion of what I should do with my property does not trump my opinion of what I should do with my property. At one time, peop…
> Your opinion of what I should do with my property does not trump my opinion of what I should do with my property.
This is true in some ways, and false in multiple other ways.
1. Fire (and similar) codes exist because other people don't want their homes to burn down because you didn't want to spend the money to safely build your electric/gas/whatever system.
2. Certain codes exist related to upkeep because, if your building become derelict and infested with rats, it's going to negatively impact the livability of the ones around you.
3. Some places you can run a business, other places you cannot. Zoning rules are extremely common. In fact, they are widely considered _too_ common, but even most people pushing back against them don't think they should not exist at all; just not be so strict.
4. Some places have rules set up as to what's allowed (length of grass growth being an example); sometimes as an HOA rule, sometimes as a government rule. And these exist both for health and for "this is what we think is nice".
If enough people in your area want _everyone_ in your area to uphold a certain standard, then yes... their opinion _does_ trump yours. Because that's how society works; people decide, as a group, what is allowed and what isn't.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it damages their property values. Would you want to buy a house next to a dilapidated pile of abandoned rubble?
What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else? Maybe you should look at your house as a place to live rather than an investment vehicle. Or maybe you should just accept that investments come with risks.
> What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else?
The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want, because I want it and you're not using it. The rules set forth by the society we live in, as decided by the people living in that society. Sure, not all the rules are great; many of them are awful. But the solution to that is to fix the rules, not to say there shouldn't be _any_.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is where the collusion comes in. Many seller agents will simply ignore buyers without a buying agent.
In the U.S., at least, I've never known a seller's agent to do that (having done a good number of real estate transactions). In fact, in my experience I find it to be the exact opposite. Seller's agents are incentivized to not work with buyer's agents, if the situation arises where they're approached directly by a buyer. If the seller's agent is comfortable acting as the intermediary, and recognizing the limits of co…
When looking for a place in New York, we were straight up ignored by most sellers until we signed a contract with a buyer's agent. Apparently, people without an agent are perceived as window shoppers / tire kickers who are not serious about buying and whose presence wastes everyone's time. A buyer's agent signals that you have serious intentions.
Your area might be different, of course.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just sell it / or buy it yourself. It isn't hard by any stretch. You can use a $200 listing broker on a MLS site. That is the big secret. Then it gets on zillow,redfin, etc automatically.
That doesn't help. The seller does not save money unless BOTH buyer and seller have no real estate agent. If the buyers have a real estate agent and the seller does not, the seller pays the buyer's real estate agent double their usual payment - at least in the 3 states where I've sold properties.
[deleted]
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else? Maybe you should look at your house as a place to live rather than an investment vehicle. Or maybe you should just accept that investments come with risks.
> What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else? The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want, because I want it and you're not using it. The rules set forth by the society we live in, as decided by the people living in that society. Sure, not all the rules are great; many of them are awful. But the solutio…
> The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want
No, it doesn't work that way. My house is not your house. My land is not your land.
If you're going to restrict my use of my property to increase your property value, you should pay me for that privilege.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the U.S., at least, I've never known a seller's agent to do that (having done a good number of real estate transactions). In fact, in my experience I find it to be the exact opposite. Seller's agents are incentivized to not work with buyer's agents, if the situation arises where they're approached directly by a buyer. If the seller's agent is comfortable acting as the intermediary, and recognizing the limits of co…
When looking for a place in New York, we were straight up ignored by most sellers until we signed a contract with a buyer's agent. Apparently, people without an agent are perceived as window shoppers / tire kickers who are not serious about buying and whose presence wastes everyone's time. A buyer's agent signals that you have serious intentions. Your area might be different, of course.
Interesting. Yeah, in Los Angeles, Denver, and Atlanta, it’s always worked to my advantage as the buyer. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
> People also just don't want to live in slums filled with run down barely standing shacks since it hurts their property value too. Someone else's property value is their problem, not mine. You're not guaranteed that the value of an investment is going to go up. It's called "risk", dude. Your opinion of what I should do with my property does not trump my opinion of what I should do with my property. At one time, peop…
> Your opinion of what I should do with my property does not trump my opinion of what I should do with my property. This is true in some ways, and false in multiple other ways. 1. Fire (and similar) codes exist because other people don't want their homes to burn down because you didn't want to spend the money to safely build your electric/gas/whatever system. 2. Certain codes exist related to upkeep because, if your…
> If enough people in your area want _everyone_ in your area to uphold a certain standard, then yes... their opinion _does_ trump yours.
And yet, weirdly, you're no longer allowed to prevent someone from selling their house to a black family, no matter how many "people in their area" want to forbid it. How do you explain that?
Majority rule isn't the only rule, dude. Individual rights are still a thing.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What makes you think you're entitled to an increase in your "property value" at the expense of someone else? The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want, because I want it and you're not using it. The rules set forth by the society we live in, as decided by the people living in that society. Sure, not all the rules are great; many of them are awful. But the solutio…
> The exact same thing that makes me think I can't just walk into your home and take what I want No, it doesn't work that way. My house is not your house. My land is not your land. If you're going to restrict my use of my property to increase your property value, you should pay me for that privilege.
No, that's not the way it works. When you move into a neighbourhood, a city, a state/province, and a country, you implicitly agree to abide by the rules. If the rules say you're not allowed to build your own house without approval of the design from an architect and an engineer and then you ignore them at your legal peril.
Re: Jury Finds Realtors Conspired, Awards Nearly $1.8B in Damages
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lenders could internalize this risk, which is miniscule. But mortgages in the United States are a subsidized product. The real problem is that the lender wants to sell the note to Fannie/Freddie, who require title insurance. Title insurance is a total scam. Title insurers pay 3-6% of their premiums in claims [0]. Compare to auto insurance, which is ~80% [1], or home insurance (~50-70%) [2]. [0] https://www.ceicdata.c…
You really haven’t added anything. You’ve just restated that people that own the mortgage want title insurance to protect them. It isn’t for the home owners protection. It’s the same with PMI. That’s another insurance the lender requires a buyer to purchase to protect them. Title insurance is relatively cheap compared to home or auto insurance. It’s a one time purchase cheaper than the 6 month premium of either of th…
Title insurance is part of a weird subsidy that is US-unique. The fact that it's part of a weird subsidy means the terms are subject to politics. Fannie/Freddie can easily self-insure against title risk but the political winds are against it, though maybe recent developments will allow them to finally do this [0].
I don't think you've quite understood the idea of looking at loss ratio. On the aggregate, title insurance is incredibly expensive compared to home or auto insurance. These bits of friction add up over an entire market, especially in states where title insurance is fixed by regulation at an extraordinarily high price.
The weirdest thing I've found about title insurance is that people who have purchased it come out of the woodwork to try to convince themselves they weren't scammed. It's not just title insurance salesmen astroturfing; people honestly just never want to admit they were scammed and will somehow fight tooth and nail against cold hard mathematical facts.
On that note, I can also offer you rapture insurance for $10/lifetime! That's cheaper than even a day of your homeowner's insurance and it's a one time purchase! By your logic, this insurance is therefore a good deal and totally not a scam!
[0] https://subscriber.politicopro.com/article/2023/03/fannie-mo...