Buying a house

[Jacuzzme]

Anyone recently buy a house under the new real estate rules? I’m trying to bribe my oldest back from the west coast (just found out I’m gonna be a grandpa. YAY!) by buying her a house. Found one online that I was interested in so contacted the listing agency to set up a time to look at it. They told me that I’m now required to be under contract with a buying agent just to go in and have a look. WTF? I’ve bought 3 houses before and never had to do this. Looked on Reddit’s real estate forum and answers seem all over the place and have regional differences.

[bambino]

Wait a little while J. There’s a huge real estate bubble that’s going to burst. Don’t buy high.

[onawbtngr546]

Originally Posted by bambino

Wait a little while J. There’s a huge real estate bubble that’s going to burst. Don’t buy high.

For once, I have to agree with you. Things can't keep going up so much each year.
With the possibility on taxes going up based on reassessment,there is a chance that fish who have picked up too many single family homes decide to cut their price so they aren't left to pay the higher taxes.

[Jacuzzme]

I’ve got limited time so can’t be too worried about market fluctuations. One of her jobs is teaching at a university, the assistant profs have to re-up their contact every year in late January. We’d end up missing most of his/her first year if she stays the next 2 semesters. Fuck that. Not gonna happen. We’ll move there if necessary but it’ll be a considerable hit to Mrs retirement, compared to retirement only 18 months from now, way more than any overpayment on a house.

Not really the point of this post tho. The new rules are fucking stupid. You need to hire a buying agent just to look unless it’s a scheduled open house. You used to just call the selling agent and set up a time, then hire an agent if you want to make an offer. It’s not like that anymore. You have to have a a buyers representative preemptively, and only they can show you the property. Ridiculous.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

I’ve got limited time so can’t be too worried about market fluctuations. One of her jobs is teaching at a university, the assistant profs have to re-up their contact every year in late January. We’d end up missing most of his/her first year if she stays the next 2 semesters. Fuck that. Not gonna happen. We’ll move there if necessary but it’ll be a considerable hit to Mrs retirement, compared to retirement only 18 months from now, way more than any overpayment on a house.

Not really the point of this post tho. The new rules are fucking stupid. You need to hire a buying agent just to look unless it’s a scheduled open house. You used to just call the selling agent and set up a time, then hire an agent if you want to make an offer. It’s not like that anymore. You have to have a a buyers representative preemptively, and only they can show you the property. Ridiculous.

Well, J, I haven’t bought a property in years. The last time I bought a lot it was between me and the owner. We agreed on a price, shook hands., But we had lawyers at the closing. Good luck.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Anyone recently buy a house under the new real estate rules? I’m trying to bribe my oldest back from the west coast (just found out I’m gonna be a grandpa. YAY!) by buying her a house. Found one online that I was interested in so contacted the listing agency to set up a time to look at it. They told me that I’m now required to be under contract with a buying agent just to go in and have a look. WTF? I’ve bought 3 houses before and never had to do this. Looked on Reddit’s real estate forum and answers seem all over the place and have regional differences.

depends on what "under contract" means' i've also bought 3 houses and several times the listing agent or any agent has wanted .. key word wanted .. an "exclusive representation" agreement. it means that agent and only that agent can show you a house. told them fuck no every time. regardless of any representation agreement or not, most agents will try to steer you to their listings for obvious reasons. they hate split commissions if another agent shows you the house and you buy it. that's always easy to get around, if i don't like the listing pictures then i simply won't look at it.


now if "under contract" means you actually have to make an offer to see the house that's horseshit. don't see how that can be required. i did once intentionally put a house under contract with a whopping $100 opt out so i could get it inspected, mainly to tie it up "under contract". as i suspected the house had too many issues so i opted out.


this is from realtor.com and it sounds like what they called an "exclusive representation" agreement back in the day.


https://www.realtor.com/advice/buy/w...ok-at-homes-2/


Do you need to sign a contract?

Once you decide on a buyer’s agent, you will have to sign a contract before touring a home with that buyer’s agent in person or virtually, outlining the agent’s services and compensation.
However, you do not need a written agreement if you are simply interviewing a potential buyer’s agent or talking to a listing agent who is holding an open house.


In general, the contract you do sign should outline the negotiated terms, detailing the services provided and their cost.
According to the recent NAR settlement, the contract should also include these things before you sign it.

• 1. A specific and conspicuous disclosure of the amount or rate of compensation the real estate agent will receive or how this amount will be determined.
• 2. Compensation that is objective (e.g., $0, X flat fee, X percent, X hourly rate)—and not open-ended (e.g., cannot be “buyer broker compensation shall be whatever the amount the seller is offering to the buyer”).
• 3. A term that prohibits the agent from receiving compensation for brokerage services from any source that exceeds the amount or rate agreed to in the agreement with the buyer.

“A contract ensures that the buyer and their agent both understand and agree on how the agent will be paid for their efforts,” Ujvagi explains.

And in return for that loyalty, the agent should do all they can for the client, making the contract a win-win for both parties.


if this is what they are requiring now it's not really "under contract" in terms of making an offer. it's just to bind you to the agent as your exclusive representative. i don't like them but it's not that big of a deal breaker.

[Jacuzzme]

Thanks, Wako. You don’t have to be making an offer to look at it, but you can’t look at it without an agent in tow who you’re expected to have a contract with or you’re disallowed from looking at the property. This new law, or maybe it’s just a procedure, apparently just came into existence this August. It’s idiotic, imo. A contracted agent can’t do anything I can’t do myself as far as searching real estate listings. I don’t see why having one is necessary before finding a property you’d like to make on offer on. Obviously it’s a good idea to have one for negotiations and all the paperwork involved with the actual purchase, but simply contacting the sellers agent to check out the property worked just fine. I’m not sure why they’d change this. Eliminating the ability of the buyer to negotiate commissions is all I can think of.

[Devo]

Heres an idea, don't use a realtor.

It can be done you know.

[eyecu2]

What would a cash buyer benefit from by using a buyer's broker versus just contacting the listing agent? I mean if you're any kind of negotiator, you don't need to have somebody else dipping a hand into the pot just to call them a representative. Not that I am advocating for people who don't have experience purchasing property to do that, but it seems duplicitous and dubious to have more real estate agents in the actual commission pool.

I am familiar with there being a limitation on the percentage of realtor fees with the new law, but I have not looked at any new property since that law was enacted

[Jacuzzme]

100% agree. What happens now tho is when you contact the sellers broker they won’t show the house without a broker unless it’s an open house. Even then you can’t make on offer unless through a buyers broker. There was a recent court decision that forced these weird new rules. Haven’t read the particulars of the case but it’s annoying.

[Salty Again]

... Then go during "open house" times there, mate.
OR sign a buyer's agent agreement. ... You don't actually
need to perchase a house if you do that.

#### Salty

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Salty Again

... Then go during "open house" times there, mate.
OR sign a buyer's agent agreement. ... You don't actually
need to perchase a house if you do that.

#### Salty

I know the talk was to limit the brokerage fees paid on transactions. Typically - those were paid by the seller of the property to the listing agent, and shared with the buyers agent. So typically 6% split to 3% on either side. Now it seems that the buyers agent will be fleecing the buyers in addition to the sellers agent fleecing the sellers. Buy signing an agreement- you're likely required to pay a fee upon a succesful agreement with any introduction the buyers agent introduces you to. AKA- if you go to house X and put an offer in, you're paying a buyers agent fee at closing.

Typical work-around for an agreement that has worked for 70 or more years prior due to someone's idea of fixing one problem by causing two more in it's place.

[Devo]

Originally Posted by eyecu2

I know the talk was to limit the brokerage fees paid on transactions. Typically - those were paid by the seller of the property to the listing agent, and shared with the buyers agent. So typically 6% split to 3% on either side. Now it seems that the buyers agent will be fleecing the buyers in addition to the sellers agent fleecing the sellers. Buy signing an agreement- you're likely required to pay a fee upon a succesful agreement with any introduction the buyers agent introduces you to. AKA- if you go to house X and put an offer in, you're paying a buyers agent fee at closing.

Typical work-around for an agreement that has worked for 70 or more years prior due to someone's idea of fixing one problem by causing two more in it's place.

And all to protect the Realty industry.

A closed Union is all that it is, you can't be a realtor without working for one for what 5 years?

That is completely unAmerican, locking someone out of a trade, without serving someone else as an indentured servant.

What law says any two peope are gifted 6 percent of the properties worth, just because they are realtors?

PA is bad for this, I wanted to become a licensced blaster, IE, High explosives, I was going to vacation in Oregon, and there was a class near where we were going that offered a three day training session, and at the end, you'd get an Oregon Blasters license.

So, I figured I'd just get it, and PA would recipricate like any other license, nope.

The only way to get your blasers license in PA is to work for an existing licensed blaster for at least two years, and then THEY can sign off on you getting your paperwork.

Indentured servitude once again.

MY father has done transfers with no realtor, as I said, it can be done.

[eyecu2]

Originally Posted by Devo

And all to protect the Realty industry.

A closed Union is all that it is, you can't be a realtor without working for one for what 5 years?

That is completely unAmerican, locking someone out of a trade, without serving someone else as an indentured servant.

What law says any two people are gifted 6 percent of the properties worth, just because they are realtors?

.

Another hand in the pocket of consumers: sadly the desire to change homes is lucrative for owners and even more-so for realtors. Ever hear of a few of those who are fed by the realtor broker where they give up a point to in the exchange. All Brokers, just like any owner of a business, keep 1-2 points on the sales transaction. Sadly- imagine working for any agency, and your side keeps 3% of the sale, and then the broker where you have a desk and phone, keeps 1.0-1.5 of the exchange, and there are also others, mortgage originators who have a hand in there too. That could mean, your passthrough is anywhere from 1-2% of the actual sales price. So on a 500k house, the realtor keeps 5k for doing all the interactions and calls etc., and out of the 30k in commissions, you keep 5k. And that's for a fairly substantial sale in western PA.

Point is, listing agents who are NOT the selling agent, or the buyer rep, are literally going to keep the min of the commission, the Brokers and others all have a BIG hand in there for keeping likely- 2-3% of the commission and in this example, that's 6-9k, for being the training and supporting partner, and having insurance and providing a phone and desk for the sales rep.

BUT-

Isn't that fairly steep for an office that is well established with longer term realtors, etc? I mean, the insurance is likely fairly cheap on an annual basis vs. the transactional amount. These brokers will take in as much or more overall, than the agent. Finally- the law with reduces the % of sellers responsibilities of commission; and spreads that to the buyers agent too. What I wonder is this. What if you are both the listing agent and the buyers agent, such as for a new home seller/ builder?

Where does that extra 3% come into play or does that become the only time when a buyer isn't going to be fleeced by that opinionated realtor who may be scrupulous or unscrupulous in how they market or give some information on the transactions.

What I think is likely more suspect, is that the intent of the law was to take away punitive transactional fee's to limit out of pocket expenses to purchase a home, but the RE industry has already found out how to leverage that to fleece out EVEN more money from transactions. You could negotiate a discount on a sales commission, but only to find that nobody will send over a buyer till they leverage over a buyer and have them sign their agreement also. Such fucking bullshit.


More government and they have proven to just convalude and pervert an already leveraged system and accepted norms. It's bullshit.