I'm looking to sell a piece of land in Fairfax and would like to sell by owner to avoid real estate agent's fees. Any good ideas on how to go about this? Feels like Craigslist isn't the best option.

FSBO

Good luck because you will need it. A few tips:

1. The local real estate professional establishment will work against you.

2. You can pay an agent to get the property listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS), but it will be flagged as a For Sale by Owner (FSBO) and agents will avoid showing it when they can. Don't bother with MLS.

3. Advertise, advertise, advertise. Use all the outlets that you can - free and otherwise. Make brochures and have open houses...but not until after mid February. This is the worst time of the year to sell.

4. Once listed or advertised, agents will contact you claiming to have a potential buyer and then quickly ask if you have or need representation. Simple answer, "yes, I have a real estate attorney."

5. Get a real estate attorney if you do go to closing on a successful sale. Do not settle for one of these mortgage settlement firms. Get an attorney that represents YOUR side of the deal.

6. FYI - other than some simple license requirements, there is no educational or professional per-requisite to become a real estates agent. You can take a class at NOVA (mostly covers your legal, fiduciary obligations, ethics, etc.), pay a fee, and get your own license. Might be worth it, but I think you have to change your first name to Cookie of Bunny and join the only profession that places a portrait photograph on a business card. WTF?

The toughest part is marketing and like Bud said, getting the Real Estate Agent Mafia to bring a client to your house. Obviously the best situation would be if someone else came to the table without an agent either, but unfortunately most people still like to piss away a bunch of money when they buy a house.

Hell, the LAST scenario I can see using an agent would be to buy a house. I can search the listings and do pricing research on my own. I'd want an attorney to review the paperwork anyway. I find it funny how much money gets spread around during a home sale, but often no one calls an attorney to review or write up the contract.

Selling I could see some advantage to having what would essentially be a marketer. Maybe offer an agent $2k to list your house and show it a few times. Let your attorney handle the rest.

Buying or selling, the agent doesn't deserve 3% of a Northern VA home price. A house is $500k easy around here. $15k to pick a house off a list and bring me there? $15k to take some pictures and upload them to a website? Spend a couple Saturdays showing the place? Shit, an attorney at $500/hour might be cheaper per hour.

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> 6. FYI - other than some simple license
> requirements, there is no educational or
> professional per-requisite to become a real
> estates agent. You can take a class at NOVA
> (mostly covers your legal, fiduciary obligations,
> ethics, etc.), pay a fee, and get your own
> license. Might be worth it, but I think you have
> to change your first name to Cookie of Bunny and
> join the only profession that places a portrait
> photograph on a business card. WTF?

In order to become a licensed real estate agent you have to have taken 60 hours of classes, pass the course and the state exam. Not sure of the cost of the class or exam, but it's $170 for a license.

OP: Check out FSBO, it should help answer your questions. And hire a lawyer when you do get a buyer. Can save you a lot in the long run.

Seems like a lot of work to save a few grand....Let the Realtor do the work and deal with the liability....

Depends on the value. 6% is the standard these days (although some have been able to extract a 5% commission from realtors).

At $600,000 in sales value, 6% yields $36,000 in commissions. Did your realtor do $36,000 worth of work?

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

@ 5% it's $30k. Expect to pay the buyer/agent 3% ($18k).

Do I think it's worth you saving $12k? ABSOLUTELY.

Get a Realtor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems like a lot of work to save a few
> grand....Let the Realtor do the work and deal with
> the liability....

What "liability" does the realtor take on? Do you get your money back if they don't sell it for enough? Do they guarantee that the home you buy isn't a ticking time bomb?

No, you still hold the bag in the end and write the checks to make things happen. That is why your money is better spent on an attorney and top notch home inspector. A realtor fulfills neither of those roles.

Use a realtor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ 5% it's $30k. Expect to pay the buyer/agent 3%
> ($18k).
>
> Do I think it's worth you saving $12k? ABSOLUTELY.


Buyer does not pay anything. It is a standard 6% sales commission - 3% to the seller's agent and 3% to the buyer's agent.

-----------------------------------------------

"...your suffering will be legendary even in Hell!"

The seller pays the 6% but that doesn't mean the buyer is unaffected. The fact that the seller has to pay a 6% transaction cost is likely factored into the selling price.

Fsbo

Thanks for the help guys!

Looks like FSBO is the first option, and then going through MLS

2 other things

The property is a residential property (with an address and zoned for a single family home) but it doesn't have a house on it. So I would be looking to sell it to someone who would build a house on it. Does this change anything?

If I were to get a real estate license in VA, what would the benefits be? Would other real estate agents be more likely to send prospective buyers my way? (knowing they would get their 3% for referring the buyer) Would marketing/advertising the property be easier?

Looking to sell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for the help guys!
>
> Looks like FSBO is the first option, and then
> going through MLS
>
> 2 other things
>
> The property is a residential property (with an
> address and zoned for a single family home) but it
> doesn't have a house on it. So I would be looking
> to sell it to someone who would build a house on
> it. Does this change anything?
>
> If I were to get a real estate license in VA, what
> would the benefits be? Would other real estate
> agents be more likely to send prospective buyers
> my way? (knowing they would get their 3% for
> referring the buyer) Would marketing/advertising
> the property be easier?

It just might make pricing the lot a little trickier. If you can't find a comparable listing, I think you can look at the tax assessments and see what the land is valued at nearby and work out a per acre price. If you are in a fairly built-up area (basically anywhere in Fairfax) and the the lot is sizeable, I'd consider pricing it a little high. You might be able to command a premium for a "virgin" piece of land that some loaded guy will want to build a custom home on. Look how many people bought lots with a house from 1950 on it just to knock it down and build fresh.

If it is in the middle of nowhere, make sure to mention if it has been perc'd or if it has sewer/water. Mention the zoning so the buyer knows they won't have any BS to deal with there.

Something to consider when dealing with the buying agent community is to offer a spiff/commission, but it won't be 3%. Other than the fact they will whine that 3% is "typical", bringing you a buyer is only worth a couple grand max (for an expensive piece of land) for the amount of work they do. Shit, they don't even need to show the house in your case. Break out a plat and tell them "here it is". Any time they wasted before finding your property is not your problem. A few might avoid the listing out of principle, but others will see the chance to get something and tell their client about it.

There is no law that demands a 6% fee. It can be whatever you can negotiate. Though the common lower rate that agents will accept is 4% (2 for buying agent and 2 for selling agent)

So where is the land?

You might get lucky here.

I have little respect for real estate agents. All to often, they are doing a disservice to all parties involved for the sake of the sale and to line their own pockets. NEVER USE ONE THAT IS ADVERTISED AS A HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM. UGH. I have seem to much collusion from those duos! They often have no business, legal, marketing, or construction background. If you are a buyer, they will tell you that you are not paying the commission, but you are because it is worked into the price. NEVER use an agent to buy a house. Go right to the LISTING agent yourself and use that fact to knock a final 3% off your best deal. Always get a good real estate attorney when you go to closing and NEVER complete any kind of financial paperwork requested by the seller's agent. They don't need to know how much money you make. Just get a pre-approval letter from your bank that shows you are qualified for a loan around the asking price of the house. Finally, if any agent tells you differently about these things that I just pointed out, walk away and report the agent to his/her firm, the state, the county, and the local real estates board.

Ant-Agent Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have little respect for real estate agents. All
> to often, they are doing a disservice to all
> parties involved for the sake of the sale and to
> line their own pockets. NEVER USE ONE THAT IS
> ADVERTISED AS A HUSBAND/WIFE TEAM. UGH. I have
> seem to much collusion from those duos! They often
> have no business, legal, marketing, or
> construction background. If you are a buyer, they
> will tell you that you are not paying the
> commission, but you are because it is worked into
> the price. NEVER use an agent to buy a house. Go
> right to the LISTING agent yourself and use that
> fact to knock a final 3% off your best deal.
> Always get a good real estate attorney when you go
> to closing and NEVER complete any kind of
> financial paperwork requested by the seller's
> agent. They don't need to know how much money you
> make. Just get a pre-approval letter from your
> bank that shows you are qualified for a loan
> around the asking price of the house. Finally, if
> any agent tells you differently about these things
> that I just pointed out, walk away and report the
> agent to his/her firm, the state, the county, and
> the local real estates board.

Hell, I'd tell the agent the seller needs to split the 3% for the selling agent too. Why should I pay for him to sell his house? It isn't my fault he decided to spend $15k for someone to take pictures, post the pictures to a website, and put up a few signs for a couple weekends.

Agree 100% with the rest though. Why would someone substitute some real estate agent for an attorney when they are executing a contract for several hundred thousand dollars of real estate? Buyer or seller? The agent probably has some form letter Coldwell Banker corporate gave them.

Don't expect them to represent you at all either. Their motivation is closing the deal. Whether that deal has you paying $50k more than you need to isn't their problem. Heck, that is an extra $1500 for them right? You overpay and they buy a new 60" TV for the basement. They also don't care if you buy a lemon. They aren't liable at all. You could close on a house they tell you has a good looking roof, and two weeks after you move in a leak develops and you need a new roof. Are they helping to pay out of that fat commission? I don't think so. They serve little purpose unless you like looking at homes with a high priced tour guide.

Think about how much money the average buyer and seller "blow" on a deal. $30,000 on a $500k home. $30k!! They could be putting that money down, or using it to remodel when they move into their new place. $15k will buy a pretty damn nice home theater.

In the age of the internet, there is no need for these relics. There is no reason our society cannot move to a world where I post my house on "Homes.com" or something, and one of you make me an offer. It could all be done through the website. My attorney draws up the paper work and we execute a deal. Even with an expensive attorney I just saved a bunch of money.

I agree with much of what the two previous posters have said.

So I want to ask: where do you all think the real estate (i.e. realtor) industry will be in 5-10 years? With MLS becoming accessible to anyone online from a buyer perspective through places like Redfin, will buying agents shift to taking on more clients who do more of their own homework, while accepting a smaller % commission? I assume many people still may want a buying realtor from an experience/expertise perspective (at least first timer buyers for sure), but that's only a portion of the job - hence smaller commission.

And on the seller side, with the ease through platforms allowing people to post content (e.g. pictures taken themselves, text descriptions), will there be more business where agents just collect a small fee to grant such access and have the sellers do most of it themselves?

I wonder if market forces will drive these changes, or will they just continue to be a niche market that the majority doesn't adopt?

And if they are adopted, will that push average house prices down by a couple percentage points?

Save some money Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In the age of the internet, there is no need for
> these relics. There is no reason our society
> cannot move to a world where I post my house on
> "Homes.com" or something, and one of you make me
> an offer. It could all be done through the
> website. My attorney draws up the paper work and
> we execute a deal. Even with an expensive
> attorney I just saved a bunch of money.

Probably would be more accurate to say that in the internet age there is LESS of a need for the traditional full service realtor. Not everyone is going to be able to know how to get the property listed, how to price it for sale and how to best present the property to potential buyers. There are also going to be sellers who will want the filter that realtors provide to keep less than serious buyers away. And there will be those special situations such as short sales which require additional knowledge and work that the typical buyer isn't going to be able to do on his own.

Perhaps what you may see is that realtors will start "unbundling services" so that you will only pay for the services actually needed or provided. My guess though is that if this happens realtors will be shifting away from the "contingent fee" type payment arrangements to one where you pay for the services as they are provided, whether the sale closes or not. This will probably mean lower fees for those whose sales close, especially those that close quickly and with few problems. However it will probably mean higher fees for those whose sales don't close, or whose property stays on the market for longer periods of time.

One thing to remember is that many of the free services now available on the internet may go to paid services if the business model changes. Many of these services are either provided or supported by companies that are profiting from the existing system. Without those larger commissions they may be less willing to support these services as well in the future.

I buy and sell all properties on my own now, I never use a realtor. I've done it many times. Realtors, in theory, are good for one bottom line reason: They will (in theory) get you top dollar for your property to offset their fee. In some cases you will end up making more on the sale price than the commissions cost you.

If you have the knowledge and ability to price and sell your home/property on your own, with a good lawyer to back you up, then you should do it on your own. If you do not have this experience, you're better off using a realtor. A good realtor will do more than just take some pictures and post a sign. They will stage your home, bring clients and other agents, make recommendations on improvements, put you in contact with good inspectors and contractors, market your home aggressively, etc. You can do these things yourself to a great extent, but only if you have the time, knowledge, and experience.

For an undeveloped piece of land, I would definitely try the FSBO route first and get an attorney to help with the legal aspects. If you don't get any takers after a month or two, consider hiring an agent.

Again, thanks everyone.

Any ideas on how to value land? Any good resources I could use? Zillow?

There's no way i would buy a house without a realtor representing me. The realtor fee is not exactly, "worked in" the price. A house sells for what it's worth. A seller isn't going to price a house less than it's worth because they don't have to pay a fee, nor or they going to price a house more than it's worth to cover the fee. The house will be (or should be, unless the seller is an idiot) priced at what the market value is, regardless of if they have to pay a realtor fee or not.

In addition, why would a seller reduce the price by 3% only to deal with someone without a realtor? Regardless, the seller still loses 3% with the suggestion of negotiating the price 3% down because "they aren't using a realtor". If it were me, I'd rather deal with a realtor who knows what they're talking about on the buyers end rather than deal with some buyer who doesn't know the first thing about buying property (or very little). The 3% is still being lost whether its paying the buying realtor or lowering the price of the house.

Also, Redfin and all of those sites are outdated. My buddy who was looking to purchase a house sent his realtor a few addresses of currently, "available" houses, according to Redfin and other sites. His realtor looked up the addresses and they were all under contract or sold.

Realtor's are just a little higher than used car salesmen on the professional douche bag strata.

No, they're not worth it. I sold my home about a year ago for a little under $500k. Did the realtor do $28K worth of work? Or bring that level of expertise? Or offer that level of advise? Or haggle up my house that much?

No.

And why are Realtor's so swarmy?

Listen to "good luck". I can't believe how much bad advice there is on this thread (especially "Ant-Agent"). I'm not a real estate agent or a lawyer, but I have bought and sold a number of properties. Take this advice with a grain of salt, as you should take any advice on a forum of this sort.

First, houses are (or should be) priced at market value. The seller does not "add in" the selling costs.

Second, if the buyer has an agent, someone is going to have to pay the buyer agent's commission (usually 3%). Do you think agents work for free? And if you list the property on the MLS, you're going to pay several hundred dollars for this service, plus miscellaneous costs for things like a sign and lockbox. If you don't list on the MLS, then you have no business handling any real estate transaction on your own.

Third, for better or worse, agents do not like to show FSBOs. Most of them have the same mindset as "Ant-Agent", and who wants to deal with that? If agents don't show your property, it will not sell.

Fourth, as "Not a Realtor" notes, real estate agents do more than just list your home. If you can't present and market your home properly, then you need an agent.

Fifth, land sales are a whole different animal. You shouldn't use Zillow for conventional home evaluations, let alone land. Their estimates are notorious for being off-base. You really need a real estate agent who specializes in land sales in your area to advise you on a proper list price. Also, it wouldn't surprise me if land sales have legal issues specific to land sales. Another reason for an agent. You could pay hundreds of dollars (per hour) to a lawyer, but that doesn't exactly save you money.

If you want some perspective on your situation, post your questions on Trulia. It will not be unbiased advice (most of the responders are agents), but it should give you better insight than we can on this board.

good luck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There's no way i would buy a house without a
> realtor representing me. The realtor fee is not
> exactly, "worked in" the price. A house sells for
> what it's worth. A seller isn't going to price a
> house less than it's worth because they don't have
> to pay a fee, nor or they going to price a house
> more than it's worth to cover the fee. The house
> will be (or should be, unless the seller is an
> idiot) priced at what the market value is,
> regardless of if they have to pay a realtor fee
> or not.
>
> In addition, why would a seller reduce the price
> by 3% only to deal with someone without a realtor?
> Regardless, the seller still loses 3% with the
> suggestion of negotiating the price 3% down
> because "they aren't using a realtor". If it were
> me, I'd rather deal with a realtor who knows what
> they're talking about on the buyers end rather
> than deal with some buyer who doesn't know the
> first thing about buying property (or very
> little). The 3% is still being lost whether its
> paying the buying realtor or lowering the price of
> the house.

You seem to indicate that going it on your own will not save you anything, because you'll end up paying someone's agent one way or another, or reducing the price of the house. A couple of thoughts:

Regarding the price of a house and market value -- I would argue a house is worth what someone is willing to pay for it. Therefore, a house that is marketed well, staged well, represented well, to the best potential buyers, and which the buyers believe the owner has cared for and that the owners will operate fairly, stands overall to get a higher sales price than one for which all the factors are executed poorly. Therefore, it is in fact possible that a the price for the exact same house can be significantly higher with a good agent (or a good FSBO). That is why good agents will tell you they are earning their commission by getting your house to sell as quickly as possible and for top dollar.

As I said, I have represented myself on both sides of the deal (buyer and seller), and it has saved me loads of money. As a buyer, I am able to do as you say and negotiate the price down because I do not have a buyer's agent that the sellers have to pay. As a seller, I can keep the 3% that otherwise would have gone to my seller's agent, or reduce the price of the house by that much at no additional cost to me. So, representing yourself can in fact save you a LOT of money. But you had better be experienced and knowledgeable enough to handle it. It is not for the faint of heart or first-timers.

Also, I HAVE sold houses for less than fair market value, precisely because I don't have to pay the 3% to a seller's agent. I might mark it down 1%, 2%, or the entire 3%. Because of that, those houses will sell quickly, which also amounts to significant savings (not having to pay the mortgage, etc.). And even if I only mark off 1% or 2% of a $500,000 home sale, it is not a trivial amount of money, at least not to me or most buyers.

Not A Realtor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good luck Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There's no way i would buy a house without a
> > realtor representing me. The realtor fee is
> not
> > exactly, "worked in" the price. A house sells
> for
> > what it's worth. A seller isn't going to price
> a
> > house less than it's worth because they don't
> have
> > to pay a fee, nor or they going to price a
> house
> > more than it's worth to cover the fee. The
> house
> > will be (or should be, unless the seller is an
> > idiot) priced at what the market value is,
> > regardless of if they have to pay a realtor
> fee
> > or not.
> >
> > In addition, why would a seller reduce the
> price
> > by 3% only to deal with someone without a
> realtor?
> > Regardless, the seller still loses 3% with the
> > suggestion of negotiating the price 3% down
> > because "they aren't using a realtor". If it
> were
> > me, I'd rather deal with a realtor who knows
> what
> > they're talking about on the buyers end rather
> > than deal with some buyer who doesn't know the
> > first thing about buying property (or very
> > little). The 3% is still being lost whether
> its
> > paying the buying realtor or lowering the price
> of
> > the house.
>
> You seem to indicate that going it on your own
> will not save you anything, because you'll end up
> paying someone's agent one way or another, or
> reducing the price of the house. A couple of
> thoughts:
>
> Regarding the price of a house and market value --
> I would argue a house is worth what someone is
> willing to pay for it. Therefore, a house that is
> marketed well, staged well, represented well, to
> the best potential buyers, and which the buyers
> believe the owner has cared for and that the
> owners will operate fairly, stands overall to get
> a higher sales price than one for which all the
> factors are executed poorly. Therefore, it is in
> fact possible that a the price for the exact same
> house can be significantly higher with a good
> agent (or a good FSBO). That is why good agents
> will tell you they are earning their commission by
> getting your house to sell as quickly as possible
> and for top dollar.
>
> As I said, I have represented myself on both sides
> of the deal (buyer and seller), and it has saved
> me loads of money. As a buyer, I am able to do as
> you say and negotiate the price down because I do
> not have a buyer's agent that the sellers have to
> pay. As a seller, I can keep the 3% that otherwise
> would have gone to my seller's agent, or reduce
> the price of the house by that much at no
> additional cost to me. So, representing yourself
> can in fact save you a LOT of money. But you had
> better be experienced and knowledgeable enough to
> handle it. It is not for the faint of heart or
> first-timers.
>
> Also, I HAVE sold houses for less than fair market
> value, precisely because I don't have to pay the
> 3% to a seller's agent. I might mark it down 1%,
> 2%, or the entire 3%. Because of that, those
> houses will sell quickly, which also amounts to
> significant savings (not having to pay the
> mortgage, etc.). And even if I only mark off 1% or
> 2% of a $500,000 home sale, it is not a trivial
> amount of money, at least not to me or most
> buyers.



You state the price of a house and its market value is only what someone is willing to pay for it.

Then you go on to state you have sold houses for less than fair market value because you don't have to pay the fee to a seller's agent.

Doesn't that contradict itself? If the house is only valued at what someone is willing to pay, then how do you lower the house price below fair market value when selling one? According to your own analysis there is no market value, but only what someone is willing to pay.

What? Wrote:

>
> You state the price of a house and its market
> value is only what someone is willing to pay for
> it.
>
> Then you go on to state you have sold houses for
> less than fair market value because you don't have
> to pay the fee to a seller's agent.
>
> Doesn't that contradict itself? If the house is
> only valued at what someone is willing to pay,
> then how do you lower the house price below fair
> market value when selling one? According to your
> own analysis there is no market value, but only
> what someone is willing to pay.


He's saying that he COULD get more money for it (i.e. someone is willing to pay a higher value than what's listed, and thus that higher value is the true market value), but chooses not to.

He intentionally lists it below what he could expect to get to reduce time on market (which saves on other expenses and can help other issues).

What? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> You state the price of a house and its market
> value is only what someone is willing to pay for
> it.
>
> Then you go on to state you have sold houses for
> less than fair market value because you don't have
> to pay the fee to a seller's agent.
>
> Doesn't that contradict itself? If the house is
> only valued at what someone is willing to pay,
> then how do you lower the house price below fair
> market value when selling one? According to your
> own analysis there is no market value, but only
> what someone is willing to pay.

Sorry if I was unclear. What I was trying to say is that the final sale price of a house might be a somewhat squishy thing, it is not entirely based on just the house itself or market value conditions (which I thought the other poster seemed to imply). So, a house with a "market value" (based on comps) of, say, $500,000, might fetch $500,000 from a decent agent, or $480,000 from one with less hustle that lets the house languish on the market, or it might even sell for $510,000 or more with a really good salesperson who presents it well, particularly in a good market. That's what I meant by the house being worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it, not just its intrinsic value based only on "fair market prices."

Also, some people might be willing to pay more than the "market value" for other reasons (sentimental, for example). As an example, I might be willing to bid way up on buying the house I grew up in, more than what the house would be worth to anyone else. That's part of what I mean by the house being worth whatever someone is willing to pay for it.

Then I was trying to say that if we all agreed a house should be priced at $500,000 based just on comps, I could save myself up to $15,000 (3%) by not having an agent and listing it at $500,000. Or I could sell it for $485,000 and not save any money, but I would probably sell that house very easily compared to the identical one next door asking $500,000; or I could sell it anywhere in-between and still save some money.

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What? Wrote:
>
> >
> > You state the price of a house and its market
> > value is only what someone is willing to pay
> for
> > it.
> >
> > Then you go on to state you have sold houses
> for
> > less than fair market value because you don't
> have
> > to pay the fee to a seller's agent.
> >
> > Doesn't that contradict itself? If the house is
> > only valued at what someone is willing to pay,
> > then how do you lower the house price below
> fair
> > market value when selling one? According to
> your
> > own analysis there is no market value, but only
> > what someone is willing to pay.
>
>
> He's saying that he COULD get more money for it
> (i.e. someone is willing to pay a higher value
> than what's listed, and thus that higher value is
> the true market value), but chooses not to.
>
> He intentionally lists it below what he could
> expect to get to reduce time on market (which
> saves on other expenses and can help other
> issues).


Yeah, what you said. Thanks!

I see these posts have caught the attention of the NVAR and they are sending in some shills to say how a real estate agent is somehow worth the exorbitant commission they somehow command.

How does it make any sense that the seller has to pay for the buyer's agent? It is the buyer's decision to hire an overpriced "representative" for their transaction. If I simply have my attorney draw up a contract, why should I be paying for your $15,000 chauffeur to drive you from house to house and read MLS listings that you can see on your own? "Over here is the kitchen". I guess some people think that is worth $15k.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with negotiating their expectation to have those fees magically paid. I've done it, and the buyer had a hard time arguing why I should pay for their representation. So hard, that they relented. The 6% I saved on that transaction turned into a finished basement at my new house. Boy I really missed out not having a real estate agent.

Looking to sell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm looking to sell a piece of land in Fairfax and
> would like to sell by owner to avoid real estate
> agent's fees. Any good ideas on how to go about
> this? Feels like Craigslist isn't the best option.


Where is your lot and what do you want for it?

Shills Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I see these posts have caught the attention of the
> NVAR and they are sending in some shills to say
> how a real estate agent is somehow worth the
> exorbitant commission they somehow command.
>
> How does it make any sense that the seller has to
> pay for the buyer's agent? It is the buyer's
> decision to hire an overpriced "representative"
> for their transaction. If I simply have my
> attorney draw up a contract, why should I be
> paying for your $15,000 chauffeur to drive you
> from house to house and read MLS listings that you
> can see on your own? "Over here is the kitchen".
> I guess some people think that is worth $15k.
>
> There is absolutely nothing wrong with negotiating
> their expectation to have those fees magically
> paid. I've done it, and the buyer had a hard time
> arguing why I should pay for their representation.
> So hard, that they relented. The 6% I saved on
> that transaction turned into a finished basement
> at my new house. Boy I really missed out not
> having a real estate agent.

I'm not a shill of the NVAR (no ties whatsoever), nor are the other common sense posters here. We're speaking from our experience.

The whole point of listing your house for sale is to sell it. The more people who view it, the more likely it is to sell. The percentage of people who are willing to contact multiple sellers, make arrangements to view multiple properties, and drive to multiple properties by themselves so that you and people like you can save a few bucks is pretty small. And what happens if they do? They have to deal with an asshole like you. Just because you cowed one buyer into paying the agent themselves, that does not mean it will work with other buyers or for other sellers.

People put lockboxes on their properties for a reason - so they can go to work during the day and not have to deal with greating potential buyers. People who are, really, complete strangers traipsing through your house while you are there. Or do you really want to open the floodgates and give out your code to any schmuck to wander alone through your house? I don't know about you, but I'm not willing to take that risk. Plus your time has value (or at least I'm sure you think it does). I'd rather have an agent spend their time showing people my home while I'm not there.

And while you are patting yourself on the back for saving money, how do you know that you got as much as you could have with an agent? Maybe you are capable of doing a competent competitive market analysis, and maybe you aren't.

It is really easy to screw up a real estate transaction if you don't know what you are doing. The sad thing is that most FSBOs don't know what they don't know - largely the result of the kind of arrogance on display here.

Given the portability and prevalence of the Internet in modern society, real estates agents are going the way of the postal service. Sure, there may be the limited niche where you want someone else to sell your home for you as a matter of convenience (if you have moved out of the area for example), but access to information and the ability to draw customers to the product were the only points of strength to be had with an agent. The Internet puts those two facets safely in the hands of the homeowner. During a time of economic uncertainty, I would think that both the seller and buyer are increasingly motivated to cut out the services of real estates agent and take control while saving money.

Finally, how can anyone think that the commissions are not worked into the price of the home? When I sell property, I always project may net profit margin after taxes, fees, and yes, commissions. That drives my initial selling price on the front end along with the current market dynamic. When I buy, I use the absence of a buyer's agent as a point of negotiation down from the selling price. Anyone with a calculator and an understanding of the market and its transactions can figure this out.

As for NVRA shills lurking this place and putting out misinformation, oh, you can bet on it.

http://www.redfin.com/home
http://www.sawbuck.com/

My time is valuable, but if I am buying a $700k home, it is worth less than $21,000 dollars over the course of a couple months. Unless you are a CEO (or apparently a real estate agent), your time isn't worth that much.

You are trying to confuse "transaction price" with "net price". If I list at $700k because every other house in my neighborhood that is similar was priced around $700k, and I have to pay 6% in commissions, I am actually effectively "netting" $658k.

Now what do you think will sell faster? A house priced like everyone else's at $700k, or one where I refuse to pay agent's commissions that is priced at $685k?

I still "save" $27k on that deal, and I undercut my competition on price in a tough market. Shit, I'd be happy to go down as low as $675k to make the deal happen. Or I throw in a new counter top or appliances to sweeten the deal. I'm still up $17k compared to the "traditional" method. Nothing sells better than "incentives", you should know that.

Really what you are saying is that real estate agents are for idiots and lazy people. Too lazy to put in an afternoon doing research and too stupid to put 2+2 together and realize they are getting ripped off.

A good attorney who knows real estate transactions is just as effective, and I only have to pay him a fraction of an agent. Plus he is actually looking out for my interests and knows contracts.

Save Thousands Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> You are trying to confuse "transaction price" with
> "net price". If I list at $700k because every
> other house in my neighborhood that is similar was
> priced around $700k, and I have to pay 6% in
> commissions, I am actually effectively "netting"
> $658k.
>
> Now what do you think will sell faster? A house
> priced like everyone else's at $700k, or one where
> I refuse to pay agent's commissions that is priced
> at $685k?
>
> I still "save" $27k on that deal, and I undercut
> my competition on price in a tough market. Shit,
> I'd be happy to go down as low as $675k to make
> the deal happen. Or I throw in a new counter top
> or appliances to sweeten the deal. I'm still up
> $17k compared to the "traditional" method.
> Nothing sells better than "incentives", you should
> know that.
>


I'm on board with what you're saying, but you will rarely be "saving" $27k, because that assumes neither you nor the buyer is using an agent. While I think deals probably can happen with one missing, I bet it's extremely rare for both. And if you turn away anyone with a buyer agent, your house will sit for a long time.
So most times you're saving 6K by undercutting the market by 15K.

Save Thousands Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My time is valuable, but if I am buying a $700k
> home, it is worth less than $21,000 dollars over
> the course of a couple months. Unless you are a
> CEO (or apparently a real estate agent), your time
> isn't worth that much.
>
> You are trying to confuse "transaction price" with
> "net price". If I list at $700k because every
> other house in my neighborhood that is similar was
> priced around $700k, and I have to pay 6% in
> commissions, I am actually effectively "netting"
> $658k.
>
> Now what do you think will sell faster? A house
> priced like everyone else's at $700k, or one where
> I refuse to pay agent's commissions that is priced
> at $685k?
>
> I still "save" $27k on that deal, and I undercut
> my competition on price in a tough market. Shit,
> I'd be happy to go down as low as $675k to make
> the deal happen. Or I throw in a new counter top
> or appliances to sweeten the deal. I'm still up
> $17k compared to the "traditional" method.
> Nothing sells better than "incentives", you should
> know that.
>
> Really what you are saying is that real estate
> agents are for idiots and lazy people. Too lazy
> to put in an afternoon doing research and too
> stupid to put 2+2 together and realize they are
> getting ripped off.
>
> A good attorney who knows real estate transactions
> is just as effective, and I only have to pay him a
> fraction of an agent. Plus he is actually looking
> out for my interests and knows contracts.

There's really not too much to the equation here: If one can perform ALL of the services of a broker (including showing prospective clients during the middle of the day), then no broker is required. You sound like you are able to handle these kinds of transactions. Too bad not everyone is, then we could cut out the middleman.

But the fact remains that, like it or not, brokers can be valuable in all kinds of transactions, including real estate. If I'm attempting to sell a business or large corporation, I might not have access to all the potential buyers or investment firms out there, and might need a specialist to bring me the best possible bidders at the highest price. Or there are brokers (headhunters and recruiting firms) to find the best job applicants, etc. They can provide a valuable service for those without the resources, time, knowledge, or energy to do it themselves. I think in general, the larger the transaction, the greater need for a broker. The fee will often be adequately covered by getting the best bidder out there.

And I'm no shill, I never use real estate agents any more unless there is a very specific reason to do so. Especially those agents that do nothing more than even a lazy person could do themselves (post a sign and an internet listing, then sit around and wait).

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm on board with what you're saying, but you will
> rarely be "saving" $27k, because that assumes
> neither you nor the buyer is using an agent. While
> I think deals probably can happen with one
> missing, I bet it's extremely rare for both. And
> if you turn away anyone with a buyer agent, your
> house will sit for a long time.
> So most times you're saving 6K by undercutting the
> market by 15K.


Yup, and those "savings" will be quickly eaten up by the carrying costs on a $700,000 house. Not to mention the unknown quantity of "did I really get the highest price I could, or would an agency have made up that difference by getting a slightly higher sales price?

People who don't know better would be amazed at the difference in price they can get with just some simple cosmetic fixes (new paint and carpet, for example) and some effective staging. I think lots of FSBOs make the mistake of putting their house out there "as is", 1978 shag carpet, furnishings, and all, not realizing they cost themselves a huge amount of money in the process. Or more likely the house just sits. A competent seller (or agent) would have made the right changes to get top dollar.

Or just as often I see sellers who pour WAY too much money into expensive upgrades that they will never recover from the sale -- top notch appliances, additions, granite countertops, hardwood floors, elaborate bathrooms, and so on.

Not A Realtor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> People who don't know better would be amazed at
> the difference in price they can get with just
> some simple cosmetic fixes (new paint and carpet,
> for example) and some effective staging. I think
> lots of FSBOs make the mistake of putting their
> house out there "as is", 1978 shag carpet,
> furnishings, and all, not realizing they cost
> themselves a huge amount of money in the process.
> Or more likely the house just sits. A competent
> seller (or agent) would have made the right
> changes to get top dollar.

Right, but a competent FSBO seller should know those things too. I don't think anyone's suggesting going into FSBO knowing nothing - that's certainly a recipe for disaster - just that you can learn a lot of the basic/easy stuff such as what needs new carpet, paint, etc. and staging for cheaper than what you pay a realtor.

Anyone know of a good resource for researching other plots of land inside the beltway?

I found this:

http://www.nationalrealty.biz/land.htm

snowdenscold Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right, but a competent FSBO seller should know
> those things too. I don't think anyone's
> suggesting going into FSBO knowing nothing -
> that's certainly a recipe for disaster - just that
> you can learn a lot of the basic/easy stuff such
> as what needs new carpet, paint, etc. and staging
> for cheaper than what you pay a realtor.

This is the key. If you go to the trouble to become a well informed seller, if you are willing to do the work AND are willing to put out some money, and if you can get into sales venues, such as MLS, that most properties for sale appear in, AND if you are willing to shell out a 3% commission to a buyer's agent, then you probably can get by without an agent. The problem is that many people who will go the FSBO route do so in ignorance of what it takes to properly market and sell a property. They only see the money they think they will be saving going the FSBO route and don't understand the additional expenses and work that come with that option.

Please mention if sewer and/or water (or one or the other is avail.)utilities are available to connect to. If not, do you have a perc approval, if so how many bedrooms? how big is the lot (sq.ft)? general "area" of the county. Street? or general tax map grid. Many "bad soil" lots without sewer access or passing percolation tests results may not be able to be developed. Pricing the lot for sale as a "buildable lot" means just that. So be specific with these questions, you need not mention the address. We are here to help..really. I am not an agent and I do not have enough money to buy your ffx County lot. Many have written great info on FSBO issues. I tried it once(FSBO).. wish I hadn't, cause I almost lost my shirt due to timing and having purchased another Ffx Co house prior to the sale of the existing FSBO-house. My agent saved the day!! and I moved on, happy! If you have time to kill, try the FSBO..just to test the waters.

Actually, Craigslist sounds like the ideal venue for Looking. Sounds like he and Craigslist denizens are muy sympatico.

Real estate agents are leaches. Certainly, in this area, I think it would be a lot cheaper to hire a real estate attorney to review documents than to pay 3 or 6 % of a sale price. And you would get a lot more for your money.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2022112/For-Sale-By-Owner-founder-sells-home--using-real-estate-broker.html

First off I am an agent. I love what I do. Hear a lot of people on here saying it is so easy to do and to get your license. Well if you truly believe on every deal we make $15k than why are you still working a 9-5? Work at my office sell 3 homes a month make 45k. Why don't you do it...because you can't. 85% of all FSBOs in our area end up using a Realtor. We are the most litigious area in the country. Yes as an owner you are liable. As an owner agent your E&O won't cover you so please don't make a mistake trying to save 3% and being on the hook for all your attorney fees. I don't want your business but would suggest you interview a few agents to see if they can help you. It costs you nothing to hire an agent. We get paid only if we sell a house. 30 day listing you've lost nothing.

Agent here,

Some of you key claims and precepts are in mistaken or ill-conceived. Let's examine them for the benefit of all,

1. "we are the most litigious area"

According to Lexis/Nexis, the 10 most litigious states are New Jersey, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, Connecticut and California.

2. "85% of all FSBOs in our area end up using a Realtor" (and why did you capitalize Realtor? Do you think the title worthy of recognition like the Pope?)

I don't have the data on the 85%, but the argument is that the number is high because realtors act to preclude FSBOs from the market the they unfairly control.

3. "being on the hook for attorney fees"

Well, someone has to pay the fee if one is used (as it should be). That get's paid by each represented party. Using a realtor does not preclude that requirement or the fee therein.

Finally, I would refer everyone to the book, Freakenomics by Levitt and Dudner, which had a great section on real estates agents and how they are naturally incentivized to work against their clients.

Bud

Bud Hoal Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Agent here,
>
> Some of you key claims and precepts are in
> mistaken or ill-conceived. Let's examine them for
> the benefit of all,
>
> 1. "we are the most litigious area"
>
> According to Lexis/Nexis, the 10 most litigious
> states are New Jersey, New York, Florida,
> Illinois, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana,
> Michigan, Connecticut and California.

Good job...you can work the internet! But if you think this area is not litigious, you either just moved here yesterday and never watched the news, or you're retarded.

>
> 2. "85% of all FSBOs in our area end up using a
> Realtor" (and why did you capitalize Realtor? Do
> you think the title worthy of recognition like the
> Pope?)
>
> I don't have the data on the 85%, but the argument
> is that the number is high because realtors act to
> preclude FSBOs from the market the they unfairly
> control.

"Realtor" is capitalized because it's a trademark. The word, "real estate agent" is not, as it is just an occupation. You'd think the internet that you're so good at working would have told you this...

Unfairly control? If the seller is too cheap to pay a buyers fee, then why would the real estate agent care about showing an FSBO property or deal with an uneducated seller (as in, not having an agent)? Nothing is preventing the buyer from checking it out themselves, but Real estate agents don't work for free.


> Finally, I would refer everyone to the book,
> Freakenomics by Levitt and Dudner, which had a
> great section on real estates agents and how they
> are naturally incentivized to work against their
> clients.

I think Freakonomics is an excellent book and introduces interesting concepts, but just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's all true. You should try reading, "Scientology, a religious philosophy" by L. Ron Hubbard...Hubbard's theories are written in this book so they must be valid!

When you say "incentivized to work against their clients," you obviously skimmed the book and didn't fully understand the material.

BTW - I'm not a Realtor but two years ago I purchased my first home using one and would never think twice about selling/buying on my own. I had no idea what I was doing when I was buying a house so having someone provide advice on the biggest purchase in my life was somewhat satisfying.

real estate in this area is horrific, there should be a big banner that says "lack of excellence" - such a group of no talent losers as real estate agents. They go to stupid workshops all the time but have no ability...and it is a mafia against the consumer-buyer and seller.

are there any truly independent realtors who are not part of the mafia, around Clifton?

FFX Co Resident Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> I think Freakonomics is an excellent book and
> introduces interesting concepts, but just because
> it's in a book doesn't mean it's all true. You
> should try reading, "Scientology, a religious
> philosophy" by L. Ron Hubbard...Hubbard's theories
> are written in this book so they must be valid!
>
>
> When you say "incentivized to work against their
> clients," you obviously skimmed the book and
> didn't fully understand the material.
>
> BTW - I'm not a Realtor but two years ago I
> purchased my first home using one and would never
> think twice about selling/buying on my own. I had
> no idea what I was doing when I was buying a house
> so having someone provide advice on the biggest
> purchase in my life was somewhat satisfying.


I'm sorry, but you're an idiot.

Your first argument that because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true is complete nonsense. You can't just say "The Bernstein Bears" was a book about talking bears and that wasn't real therefore your calculus textbook must also be fantasy.

You second argument of "you must have obviously skimmed the book and don't understand the material" is equally ridiculous because you don't provide a counter argument.

Finally, just because you got some peace of mind when buying your house using a realtor doesn't mean that the realtors weren't working against you and the seller. Their goal is to sell houses as quickly as possible to get their money and get out.

Here's a little video to explain it to you.

Me and my family have bought all 5 homes over the last 20 years without a real estate agent. If you are a logical person who can balance your own checkbook and understands the basics of what creates the cost of a house you can find all the information you would want online. You can find comparables on websites like redfin, mls, or simply search on Fairfax County's website under the neighborhood tab. There you can see exactly what units that are comparable to you have sold for.

I would suggest you not use "guru" style books though and depend more on your own research and logic. In this area theres enough information online to figure out the price for your place, beyond that you can list on sites like redfin by owner.

You can do it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Me and my family have bought all 5 homes over the
> last 20 years without a real estate agent.

Well, I don't know why, since it costs you nothing as a buyer to use an agent. The SELLER pays the commission. Or are you saying that you somehow got a better price?

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can do it Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Me and my family have bought all 5 homes over
> the
> > last 20 years without a real estate agent.
>
> Well, I don't know why, since it costs you nothing
> as a buyer to use an agent. The SELLER pays the
> commission. Or are you saying that you somehow got
> a better price?

See, here is the idiotic thought process that keeps real estate agent's in business. Nothing is free pal. Despite the fact "you" don't get directly billed for it, don't think it isn't raising the cost of your transaction. You could be saving 3%, and 3% of an average Fairfax County home is a good chunk of change.

There are now 58 posts, and something like 700 views of this topic.

It is ironic that even though many posters argue that agents are irrelevant, or in some cases work against the buyer and/or seller's interest, that agents and their business are thriving.

If in fact they are so irrelevant to the process, wouldn't they go the way of the dinosaur?

They are much like stockbrokers-with the advent of the internet came the ability for people to act as their own stockbroker much easier than in the past. However, stockbrokers are still in business, and as for me, I use a stockbroker while maintaining my own internet account.

I expect that my stockbroker, who spends full time on seeking out trends, etc., to be better suited to manage my money than I am. Sure, I read magazines, watch TV shows on hot stocks, etc., but overall, my money with my stockbroker performs better than the money I manage myself-slightly.

The problem I have with FSBO homes, as a homebuyer, is that when I walk into a FSBO, I have no idea what I'm getting into---oftentimes, it is somebody who has a very unrealistic idea of the market, or who is somebody who just has no idea of the process, and then it can become very difficult.

So, I have tended to view FSBO's less favorably than one that has an agent.

But, just like stocks, be your own agent. Nothing prevents you from doing so, other than the very real possibility that you could f it up.

If you want to sit at home on Sunday for open houses, answer calls all week, prepare paperwork, flyers, deal with agents, buyers, etc...have at it.

This is kind of ridiculous, that you would have a false since of security if you view a home that is presented by an agent instead of the owner. The owner is more likely to be honest and forthright and the agent will cheat you everytime. In terms of whether you think its priced right, an agent isn't going to tell you anything-you have to do the research yourself. It is a cleaner more honest process with no hidden agenda if you do the research yourself and hire a lawyer to do the closing for both of you.

Got for it! has a point with regard to the relevancy of real estates agents despite the increased ease of buying a home given factors like the Internet. Think about it. In some place like rural Ohio or Texas where a home might set you back $150,000, it seams worth it to shell out $9,000 to sell a home...more so in a depressed market. But in the DC area, where the market is strong, there is a high transition of homes facilitating a higher frequency of sales, and prices are closer to $600,000, why would some be willing to pay $36,000 for the same service?

I'll tell you why, because real estate agents manipulate the market by deliberately precluding FSBOs and working against the homeowner. They create their own relevancy, but I think it will slowly wane just like the post office.

Bud is 100% right.

I'd be happy to pay more like $4000 over the course of a transaction for an agent to market the house. Not $18,000. That is ridiculous.

I think a buyer's agent is worthless. An attorney and a home inspector are all you need there.

joanny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is kind of ridiculous, that you would have a
> false since of security if you view a home that is
> presented by an agent instead of the owner. The
> owner is more likely to be honest and forthright
> and the agent will cheat you everytime.

Wrong. The owner is more likely to shoot themselves in the foot and to be a pain to the buyer. And how does an agent "cheat" you? There are serious consequences to violating the realtor code of conduct (and no, I'm not a realtor). The seller is more likely to cheat you since they may stupidly think that there are no consequences for being deceptive.

> In terms
> of whether you think its priced right, an agent
> isn't going to tell you anything-you have to do
> the research yourself. It is a cleaner more honest
> process with no hidden agenda if you do the
> research yourself and hire a lawyer to do the
> closing for both of you.

Wrong again. A buyer's agent will give the buyer their opinion on whether a home is priced properly - that's what they're there for. In terms of demographics, school quality, and similar issues - agents are required to stay away from these topics as they have been construed to be potentially discriminatory. I think that's kind of stupid, but that's the way it is.

For the life of me, I don't understand why so many of you people think that selling or buying a home (your biggest asset) is such an easy process, and why you are convinced that agents are out to get you. They are doing their job - just like you are. If you think it's so easy, then go ahead and become one of the vast majority of FSBOs who fail and turn to a realtor.

I also don't understand why anyone who presents a realtor's point of view (WHILE NOT BEING A REALTOR) is assumed to be a shill of the real estate industry. Do you think realtors have nothing better to do than to troll obscure message boards looking for threads like this? Some of you people are downright scary. And most of you should not be buying or selling a home without professional representation (I'm trying to be polite).

joanny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is kind of ridiculous, that you would have a
> false since of security if you view a home that is
> presented by an agent instead of the owner. The
> owner is more likely to be honest and forthright
> and the agent will cheat you everytime. In terms
> of whether you think its priced right, an agent
> isn't going to tell you anything-you have to do
> the research yourself. It is a cleaner more honest
> process with no hidden agenda if you do the
> research yourself and hire a lawyer to do the
> closing for both of you.


No, Joanna, I don't have a false sense of security when an "home is presented by an agent instead of the owner". That is not what I said.

I said that I have a problem with FSBO's. That is not to suggest that the presence of agent does, or does not, give me any sense of security. My own research might, though.

I am aware of several FSBO's in my immediate area that good agents wouldn't touch because that honest, forthright owner you speak of was priced $80,000-$100,000 above the comps for our townhouse enclave of 75 houses.

It makes you wonder if some FSBO's are truly motivated sellers, or they are just trying to see if some dolt will pay 20-25% more than their house is worth.

You are right, that it is very simple to do the research on your own, and in doing so, you can find these FSBO's that are probably ones that a good agent wouldn't waste their time on.

So much for those forthright and honest sellers.

It is quite f'in simple...if you don't think an agent is worth anything, don't use one. Or, negotiate their fees. See what you get.

If the homeseller has chosen to use an agent, that is their right as an American. If you don't like having to "go through" their agent, don't buy their house. That is your right and recourse.

Joanny writes: "The owner is more likely to be honest and forthright and the agent will cheat you everytime. In terms of whether you think its priced right, an agent isn't going to tell you anything-you have to do the research yourself. It is a cleaner more honest process with no hidden agenda if you do the research yourself and hire a lawyer to do the closing for both of you."

Are you friggin' crazy?

Look: I understand why a seller might question whether it's worth paying someone else $30,000 to sell a $500,000 property is worth it. I get it. (Believe it or not, it can be. But I understand your skepticism.) Remember, though, that commissions are negotiable.

And I understand why you think a lawyer is a much better bargain . . . even though in this area lawyers don't negotiate price. (They do in some other areas like New York and New Jersey, and they're paid very well for it.)

And I understand why you think you can do the same research (on comps, etc.) that a Realtor can. You can't, but it's a common misperception.(OK: You want an example? The tax record says a property sold for $300,000. What it doesn't tell you is whether there were any seller subsidies that might actually have lowered the price to the buyer by up to $9,000. You want another example? The tax records have a 90 day lag or more. Especially in a volatile market, comps from 90 days or more ago are nearly worthless. The Fairfax County Web site isn't going to have information on a sale that happened last week. The MRIS will.)

But, whoa Joanny!! The seller is going to be more honest? Than who? Bernie Madoff? The agent may try to put the best spin on the picture, but the agent's going to be basically honest. The seller?? No way. "Oh, that discoloration in the ceiling. We had that leak fixed a long time ago." "That smell in the basement? That's not mold." "All the appliances work fine." "Of course we pulled all the permits for the addition." "Sure the HOA will let you repaint this townhouse whatever color you like." "The flickering lights? Must be Pepco. [not faulty wiring]" "We have the chimney cleaned every year just like clockwork." And on and on and on.

If you want to buy or sell a property yourself--with the assistance of just a lawyer--fine. No problem. But don't fool yourself about the motivations of the other party to the transaction.

By Virginia Law if a real estate agent knows of a defect in a property they have to disclose this information to any potential buyers. The seller does not have to disclose this information. So exactly how would dealing with the seller be a cleaner more honest process? It wouldn't...he's out to get the best price for himself.

I'm going to go the For Sale By Owner route and I have a question.

If I post the property on ForSaleByOwner.com, will anyone be able to see the initial date when the property hit the market?

What I mean is, say I post the property on FSBO and I misjudged the market value (overpriced it) and it sits on the market for a month or two. If I then want to lower the price and post on MLS, I wouldn't want a record that the property was already on the market and wasn't selling. That might breed some skepticism by buyers.

Thanks for your help.

When I advertise on FSBO websites, how should I address paying buyers agents fees? Any real estate agents have an opinion on this?

So basically the only advantage of using an agent is that you get access to the real estate mafia's data? I'd rather overpay by $9k than pay someone twice that for access to their database.

Looking to sell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm going to go the For Sale By Owner route and I
> have a question.
>
> If I post the property on ForSaleByOwner.com, will
> anyone be able to see the initial date when the
> property hit the market?
>
> What I mean is, say I post the property on FSBO
> and I misjudged the market value (overpriced it)
> and it sits on the market for a month or two. If I
> then want to lower the price and post on MLS, I
> wouldn't want a record that the property was
> already on the market and wasn't selling. That
> might breed some skepticism by buyers.
>
> Thanks for your help.

I think what you mean to say is "If I post the property on ForSaleByOwner.com, and decide a month or two later to lower the price and post on the MLS instead, will people looking at the MLS be able to see that the property was originally posted somewhere at a higher price?"

If that is your question, the answer gets complicated. However, I AM NOT A REALTOR, SO YOU NEED TO INDEPENDENTLY VERIFY THIS ADVICE. Having said that...FSBO.com offers the option to list a property on the MLS for an additional (low) cost. If you opt for this route (since this is only way you are going to get decent exposure), then your property will officially be listed on the MLS at the time that you list with FSBO.com. The MLS tracks two types of dates - DOM (days on market for current listing) and DOMP (cumulative days on market for any of your listings). A buyer can use a service like Realtor.com to pull up and view your listing independent of an agent. When he/she does so, they will only see DOM and your current listing's price history. However, if the buyer is working with an agent (as the vast majority of buyers will be), the agent will pull up your listing and see both DOM and DOMP. At which point, they will probably advise the buyer that they property has been out there for a while. I don't believe that the agent will be able to see the previous listing's price, but I could be wrong.

Now, after all of that, I have to question your basic premise and proposed course of action. Its pretty obvious that what you really want to do is vastly overshoot the current market value of the property and see if anyone will be dumb enough to bite, while also saving the commission. They won't, especially if they are working with an agent, which most of them will be. You will also be advising the realtor community that you have unrealistic expectations regarding price and you are probably going to be a pain in the rear to deal with. Not a good move. Meanwhile, your property is sitting there getting stale and probably missing the Spring (or whatever) market.

You are making classic FSBO mistakes. A better course of action if you want to save at least some of the commission is to list your property as a FSBO at an aggressive price that will make people take notice and will give agents the idea that you have half a clue. Or, better yet, just list it with a full-service realtor.

Lay Person Advice Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>


Yes, that is what I meant.

Thanks for the advice. I'm certainly not trying to overshoot the market value or looking for some dummy to overpay. I've done my research and I have a pretty good idea of what it's worth.

I'm just a little fearful that there just aren't many buyers out there or I've significantly misjudged the market. Just want to cover my bases.

It is such a joke to use the words "ethical standards" in a sentence with the word :Realtor. None of them are ethical and no body ever does anything about it. To sue them after they do the most unethical stuff requires that you pay a retainer while they are represented either by their brokers lawyer or the insurance lawyer. I have never seen one held accountable for greivous malpractice, horrific industry, worse than car salesmen.

Hey "Joking right?"...great post, with a great deal of back up. Glad to see it was not just some rambling generalization with no facts or anecdotes.

Good job.

Hey Kidding Right? Nice use of teenage sarcasm, glad you were direct and adult with your thoughts and not just some 16 year old with time on their hands...

looking to sell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lay Person Advice Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
>
>
> Yes, that is what I meant.
>
> Thanks for the advice. I'm certainly not trying to
> overshoot the market value or looking for some
> dummy to overpay. I've done my research and I have
> a pretty good idea of what it's worth.
>
> I'm just a little fearful that there just aren't
> many buyers out there or I've significantly
> misjudged the market. Just want to cover my bases.

Market demand for the last several years has been heavily dependent on where you are located. It also depends on the type of property you own and the price point of your house. And if you have a lot of foreclosures in your neighborhood, it's going to be rough.

If I were you, I would try to get a better handle on what's going on in your neighborhood. If you have a realtor friend, maybe he/she could do some research and advise you. Or maybe you could drop in on a few open houses in the vicinity and chat with the realtors (who will try to convince you to sign with them, of course). You could also look under "Local Market Conditions" on realtytimes.com. Agents there give some idea of what's happening in different towns and they often share interesting statistics of market activity. Plus, of course, you can check local property records and see what's sold around you recently and for how much (although there may be a significant time delay in reporting). And you can look at Realtor.com and a bunch of other sites to see what's currently listed, how long properties have been on the market, and the price history. Sites like Zillow aren't the best place to get estimates of house worth.

Finally, you could interview agents and hear their presentations as if they were selling your house. I hate to suggest this, knowing your intentions, but it could be argued that there is a good likelihood that you will wind up going with an agent eventually, and you're just getting prepared.

Joking right? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It is such a joke to use the words "ethical
> standards" in a sentence with the word :Realtor.
> None of them are ethical and no body ever does
> anything about it. To sue them after they do the
> most unethical stuff requires that you pay a
> retainer while they are represented either by
> their brokers lawyer or the insurance lawyer. I
> have never seen one held accountable for greivous
> malpractice, horrific industry, worse than car
> salesmen.

http://www.dpor.virginia.gov/dporweb/reb_main.cfm#Newsletters

There are some disciplinary actions in every newsletter, it seems.