[Bay Kid]

Originally Posted by Normal

Yes, a seller should consult with several listings in the area and comps from their neighborhood. That will give them a much better idea on home sale value. This is particularly easy in The Villages where so many homes are similar. They should/would glean much more from a sale without a realtor too.

Realtors work for free so many times like this to give advice for sellers to price their home.

[Boomer]

Originally Posted by JP

I think the reason that this has become an issue is the difference in the fee received between a $100,000 sale and a $1,000,000 dollar sale which is $6,000 vs $60,000 for basically the same work. This certainly doesn't seem right.

Exactly!

As house prices climb, a realtor’s responsibilities do not change. The percentage based commission is totally unfair. Looks like the cat has been belled. It’s about time.

It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

Boomer

[vintageogauge]

Originally Posted by Normal

This is yet another way to find out your home value. Getting a realtor involved only jacks up your sale price and makes you less likely to sell and way less competitive.
I would rather buy a home for 400,000 than 424,000. Who wouldn’t?

You don't really believe that homes for sale by owner are priced lower than those with an agent. If the market will bring in $424,00 the seller would be a fool to ask $400,000. You gain nothing by buying from an individual owner however the owner gains a lot.

[Two Bills]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

You don't really believe that homes for sale by owner are priced lower than those with an agent. If the market will bring in $424,00 the seller would be a fool to ask $400,000. You gain nothing by buying from an individual owner however the owner gains a lot.

A bit like oil prices.
Never known an oil company to undercut the world market price to lower their profit margin.

[Normal]

Originally Posted by vintageogauge

You don't really believe that homes for sale by owner are priced lower than those with an agent. If the market will bring in $424,00 the seller would be a fool to ask $400,000. You gain nothing by buying from an individual owner however the owner gains a lot.

Better yet, skip the realtor, charge 415,000 and pocket the extra 15k that would have gone to the realtor. The house undercuts the fools that hired realtors and sells quicker.

[MightyDog]

From Comment #93
If the market will bring in $424,00 the seller would be a fool to ask $400,000. Agreed. So, a seller should ask market price and be expecting to negotiate down from there. Both sides of the trade are going to tug to capture that commission margin. Compromise and it'll work.

You gain nothing by buying from an individual owner however the owner gains a lot. This is not true. With the seller not having to pay one or more agents, there is much more negotiating room. I have experienced this more than once on both buy and sell side. It also means that you know, whichever side you're on, what is being communicated to the other person because you are the one speaking for yourself.

From comment #95
The house undercuts the fools that hired realtors... --This is an unfair and inaccurate statement. Almost nothing is equal in real estate transactions including the particulars of the owners or buyers. I like to operate on my own when buying/selling RE but, it is not always possible. In 2017, I bought a house two states away from where I was living and there was no way I could have managed all the details w/o a local buy-side agent. TV has estate liquidation sales where the heirs don't even live in FL - so how are they supposed to do that w/o representation? I could list myriad other circumstance where using an agent, on either side, makes sense.

It's nonsensical and inappropriate to disparage other people for operating within their specific needs or circumstances.