> But in both cases, I don't see why the value they provide changes based on the value of the home.
In both cases, the value they provide is relative to the value of the house being transacted.
A seller's agent definitely makes sense to take some percentage of the purchase.
The services they render - for say a $20M home in the Beverly Hills - are completely different than when selling a $1M house in San Jose or a $200k condo in Chicago.
I disagree in how valuable buyer's agents are, though. The value they provide is mainly for people who are completely clueless about real estate - which I guess could be a lot of buyers.
> I disagree in how valuable buyer's agents are, though. The value they provide is mainly for people who are completely clueless about real estate - which I guess could be a lot of buyers.
When buying a house, I viewed around 100 houses with my agent, and he called in multiple specialists to answer various questions we had on different houses we took a look at. When it came time to buy he demonstrated excellent negotiating ability and after we had purchased he helped us prep our house for move in by recommending trusted people to do the work we wanted done.
He worked with us for over a year and he earned his commission.
They could be itemized. The itemizations would be charged at much higher rates - the same way rich people pay 10x more for a lawyer than average people.
If you're selling a $20M home, and you think a good seller's agent is going to get you $20M instead of $15M - most people don't really have a problem paying 3% for the services - otherwise we would've never gotten into this common deal structure.
It's only people on HN who think realtors sit around doing nothing and make $100k selling an expensive home - and then generalize that to all realtors.
SOME realtors are definitely doing that. So are some people in every industry.
> In both cases, the value they provide is relative to the value of the house being transacted.
No, they do more for more expensive homes because they are harder to sell, but there is no reason "renting staging furniture" and "an extra open house with champagne and cookies" can't be itemized.
In both cases, the value they provide is relative to the value of the house being transacted.
A seller's agent definitely makes sense to take some percentage of the purchase.
The services they render - for say a $20M home in the Beverly Hills - are completely different than when selling a $1M house in San Jose or a $200k condo in Chicago.
I disagree in how valuable buyer's agents are, though. The value they provide is mainly for people who are completely clueless about real estate - which I guess could be a lot of buyers.